This short video is really fascinating and could well be a game-changer when it comes to content production and personalised learning. Learn how to use AI to create an authentic-sounding yet completely AI generated podcast on any topic you care to mention!

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

Want ChatGPT to think like you, sound like you, or specialise in your business niche? With Custom GPTs, you can build your own AI assistant in minutes (no coding needed). Here’s how:

Why this works:

Custom GPTs let you tailor ChatGPT to your specific needs. Whether it’s drafting copy in your brand tone, answering customer queries using your documentation, or even acting as a private tutor, your GPT follows your rules.

How to:

– Log in at chatgpt.com with a ChatGPT Plus account.

– In the top left, click the dropdown menu next to “ChatGPT”.

– Select ‘Explore GPTs’.

– In the top right, click ‘Create’.

– ChatGPT will guide you through a few simple questions to help define your assistant.

– Add files, set the tone, name it, and even upload a custom profile image.

– When you’re done, your GPT will appear in your dropdown list alongside GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.

Pro-Tip: You can keep your GPT private, share it with your team, or publish it publicly. Want it to pull answers from your own company documents? Upload those during setup and it’ll use them during chat.

Privacy advocates are calling for Apple’s legal challenge against a secret UK government order to be heard in public, arguing that millions of users’ privacy rights are at stake.

Could Set Precedent

The case, currently set to be conducted behind closed doors, could set a major precedent for the future of encryption and government surveillance.

Why Apple is Fighting the UK Government

At the heart of the issue is Apple’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature, which the company recently withdrew from the UK market after refusing to comply with a government order to provide access (back doors) to encrypted user data. The feature, launched in 2022, offered end-to-end encryption (E2EE) for iCloud backups, photos, and notes, ensuring that only users could access their stored data. Even Apple itself could not decrypt this information, a security measure the company insists is critical to protecting user privacy.

However, the UK government issued a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA), compelling Apple to create a mechanism (the ‘back door’ idea) that would allow law enforcement agencies to access encrypted user data when required. Apple refused and instead removed the feature entirely for UK users. While the company has not publicly detailed the exact reasoning, it is widely understood that Apple believes complying with the order would create a security back door, compromising user privacy not just in the UK but globally.

Legal Challenge

Consequently, Apple has now launched a legal challenge against the order, arguing that it is unlawful. But the proceedings are set to take place behind closed doors, prompting major privacy rights groups to intervene and call for transparency.

Why Rights Groups Are Demanding a Public Hearing

Three major privacy advocacy organisations, Open Rights Group, Big Brother Watch, and Index on Censorship, have now written a joint letter to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), urging it to open the hearing to public scrutiny rather than conducting it behind closed doors. Their main argument is that millions of users in the UK, as well as international Apple customers, are affected by the case, and they have a right to know how their data security might be compromised.

For example, the letter, addressed to Lord Justice Singh, President of the IPT, states:

“This case implicates the privacy rights of millions of British citizens who use Apple’s technology, as well as Apple’s international users. There is significant public interest in knowing when and on what basis the UK government believes that it can compel a private company to undermine the privacy and security of its customers.”

The rights groups argue that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has a duty to hold hearings in public unless there is a compelling reason not to, such as a direct threat to national security. In this case, they say, there is no justification for secrecy, as the existence of the TCN has already been widely reported, and Apple has already reacted by withdrawing its encryption service in the UK.

The Legal Battle Over Encryption

The case has sparked fresh debate about encryption and its role in privacy versus law enforcement. Apple has consistently maintained that any back door created for law enforcement could be exploited by hackers and authoritarian regimes, ultimately making data less secure for everyone.

This argument is actually supported by many cybersecurity experts, who warn that once encryption is weakened for one purpose, it cannot be limited to just government use. Criminals, rogue states, and malicious actors could also exploit the vulnerability.

The UK government, however, insists that access to encrypted data is necessary in cases involving national security threats, terrorism, and child abuse investigations. Under the Investigatory Powers Act, companies can be compelled to provide access to data when law enforcement agencies make a valid request. The government claims that Apple’s refusal to comply could hinder criminal investigations.

Could Other Governments Follow the UK’s Lead?

One of the most concerning aspects of the UK’s demand is its potential global impact. For example, if Apple is forced to create a back door for UK law enforcement, this would set a precedent for other countries to demand similar access. This could include authoritarian regimes that might use such powers to suppress political dissidents, journalists, or activists.

Privacy advocates, therefore, argue that weakening encryption in one country may fundamentally undermine encryption everywhere. Once a vulnerability exists, it can be exploited by malicious actors globally. This is why Apple, and other tech companies, have resisted such demands in the past.

For example, in 2016, Apple famously refused to help the FBI unlock an iPhone used by a terrorist in the San Bernardino attack, arguing that doing so would compromise the security of all iPhone users. The FBI eventually paid a third party to crack the device, but the case set an important precedent for tech companies standing firm against government pressure.

Pressure from the US and Other Stakeholders

The UK is not the only place where the case has raised alarms. A group of US politicians, including Senators Ron Wyden and Alex Padilla, has also called on the IPT to hold the hearing in public. In a separate letter, they warned that the UK’s actions could have major security implications for users globally and could lead to a wider erosion of privacy rights.

The BBC has also weighed in, arguing that it should be allowed to report on the hearing given its widespread implications. As media and privacy groups continue to demand openness, the IPT will now have to decide whether to stick with a closed-door approach or allow public scrutiny.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The outcome of this case could have significant implications not only for Apple but for the wider technology industry and UK businesses that rely on secure communications. If the Investigatory Powers Tribunal rules in favour of the UK government, it may force tech firms to reconsider their encryption policies, making it more difficult to guarantee data privacy. This could erode trust in cloud storage and digital services, potentially impacting businesses that rely on these technologies to store sensitive corporate information securely.

On the other hand, if Apple prevails, it would send a strong message in defence of encryption, reinforcing the argument that companies should not be required to create vulnerabilities in their own security measures. Such a ruling could also influence similar debates worldwide, particularly as other governments look at introducing legislation that could force tech firms to weaken encryption.

For UK businesses, this legal battle highlights the growing tension between regulatory compliance and cybersecurity. Many companies depend on strong encryption to safeguard intellectual property, financial transactions, and customer data. If the UK government’s position on encryption tightens, firms may need to rethink how they handle data protection and cybersecurity risks.

More broadly, this case highlights deeper concerns about the balance between privacy and national security. For example, governments argue that access to encrypted data is essential for law enforcement, but privacy advocates warn that weakening encryption could expose users to greater risks. The push for transparency in Apple’s legal battle reflects a wider demand for accountability in government surveillance and policymaking.

As the tribunal prepares to make its decision, attention will remain fixed on the potential ramifications for digital privacy. Whether the hearing remains private or is opened to public scrutiny, the ruling will set an important precedent, shaping how governments and tech companies navigate encryption debates in the future. For now, UK users of Apple’s iCloud storage remain without Advanced Data Protection, and the outcome of this case will determine whether they ever get it back.

In this Tech Insight, we look at how Manus, China’s latest AI agent, is redefining autonomous AI applications, its connection to Browser Use, and whether this signals a new shift in search engine optimisation (SEO) and business strategy.

Agentic Applications

It seems that AI is no longer just about answering questions or generating text, but is also now executing complex tasks with minimal human intervention. Enter agentic applications, a new breed of AI designed to act on behalf of users, making decisions and performing actions autonomously. These agents can book flights, manage projects, analyse data, and even interact with software, the kinds of tasks that previously required direct human involvement.

Manus is one of the most ambitious examples of this emerging technology. Unlike a chatbot, which passively waits for input, an AI agent like Manus actively seeks out solutions, using multiple tools and web services to accomplish goals with minimal guidance.

China’s ‘Manus’ AI Agent

Manus was launched on 6 March this year and has already been dubbed the world’s first general-purpose AI agent. It was created by Monica, a Chinese AI startup backed by major investors including Tencent and Sequoia Capital China. Initially developed as an AI-powered browser plugin, Manus has since evolved into a fully autonomous digital assistant.

Its capabilities go beyond those of traditional AI chatbots. For example, instead of simply retrieving information, Manus also acts on it. Users have reported that Manus can handle complex tasks such as rebooking flights, summarising legal documents, and even conducting independent research. Manus has reportedly outperformed OpenAI’s Deep Research and Anthropic’s Operator in benchmark tests, proving its ability to operate autonomously with high accuracy.

Exclusive

Manus has become so exclusive that its beta access invite codes are selling for up to £11,000 on resale platforms. While it is still in its early stages, its performance has already sparked a global conversation about the future of AI agents.

Manus CEO Xiao Hong has been open about the vision behind the product, stating: “[Manus] isn’t just another chatbot or workflow. It’s a completely autonomous agent that bridges the gap between conception and execution. We see it as the next paradigm of human-machine collaboration.”

Manus is, therefore, positioning itself not just as another AI tool but as a shift in how AI can integrate with daily life.

How ‘Browser Use’ Powers Manus

Manus wouldn’t be as powerful without Browser Use, a tool that enables AI to navigate the web more effectively. Developed by a Swiss startup, Browser Use allows AI agents to click on elements, extract data, and interact with web applications just like a human would.

After Manus’s launch, Browser Use downloads surged from 5,000 per day to 28,000 in a matter of days. This is because Manus relies on it to function smoothly, automating interactions with websites in a way that traditional AI assistants cannot.

For example, Browser Use enables AI to:

– Extract and analyse web content by understanding HTML and visual elements.

– Automate web navigation for tasks such as online shopping, booking reservations, and filling out forms.

– Manage multiple tabs and run complex workflows in real-time.

This kind of web automation is now opening new doors for AI, but it also raises questions about how businesses optimise their websites for AI interaction.

A New Kind of SEO?

With AI agents like Manus autonomously browsing and interacting with websites, it may be the case that businesses need to rethink their SEO strategies. For example, traditional SEO focuses on optimising content for human users and search engine algorithms, but what happens when AI agents become the primary visitors to a site?

Some experts believe we are entering an era of AI-first optimisation, where companies must ensure their websites are structured in a way that AI agents can easily interpret. This could involve:

– Making sites more AI-readable, with clear data structuring and interactive elements.

– Optimising for AI decision-making, ensuring product information and services are easily accessible for automated interactions.

– Reducing friction in transactions, making it easier for AI agents to complete bookings, purchases, and other actions.

The implications for businesses are vast. For example, if AI agents start making decisions on behalf of users, such as booking the best-rated hotels or purchasing products based on past behaviour, companies will need to focus on making their offerings AI-friendly to remain competitive.

New Challenges (and Opportunities) For Businesses

All this means that for companies looking to stay ahead, the rise of AI agents like Manus presents both challenges and opportunities. These could include, for example:

– Automation at scale. Businesses could now use AI agents to streamline customer support, market research, and administrative tasks.

– AI-powered personalisation. With AI making decisions on behalf of users, companies will need to ensure their products and services stand out in AI-driven recommendations.

– New compliance and security concerns. As AI agents navigate sensitive information, data privacy laws and security measures may need to evolve.

While Manus and Browser Use are still in their early days, their rapid rise suggests that agentic applications could become mainstream far sooner than expected. This means that businesses that start preparing for an AI-driven future now may be best positioned to capitalise on this shift.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

As AI agents begin to reshape online interactions, UK businesses may need to seriously consider the implications of this technology. From retail and finance to customer service and logistics, companies need to adapt their digital presence to accommodate AI-driven decision-making.

For UK-based e-commerce platforms, ensuring products and services are easily discoverable by AI agents looks likely to be critical. AI-optimised listings and seamless purchase experiences will determine whether an AI agent selects a business over a competitor. In financial services, AI agents could automate complex client interactions, helping with portfolio management, compliance, and fraud detection.

However, concerns about data privacy and regulation remain. The UK’s AI Safety Summit in 2023 signalled a commitment to ensuring AI development aligns with ethical standards, and companies leveraging AI agents must be mindful of GDPR compliance and transparency in AI-driven decision-making.

The bottom line here is that UK businesses may now need to start exploring AI-readiness strategies, not just for SEO, but for operations, security, and customer engagement. Those who embrace AI-driven automation early may stand to gain a competitive advantage in what looks likely to become an increasingly autonomous digital landscape.

IPv4.Global, the world’s largest marketplace for IPv4 addresses, has launched a loan programme that allows businesses to use their IPv4 addresses as collateral.

A New Way To Get Funding

This new initiative gives companies access to funding while still retaining full use of their IP assets, responding to the strong ongoing demand for IPv4 despite the slow transition to IPv6.

Who is IPv4.Global?

IPv4.Global is the largest and most transparent marketplace for IPv4 addresses, i.e. the unique numerical identifiers assigned to devices on a network, allowing them to communicate over the internet. The company facilitates the buying, selling, leasing and now the lending of these assets. A division of Hilco Streambank, IPv4.Global has completed more transactions in this space than any other provider, having brokered the sale of over 55 million addresses. With a reputation for credibility and efficiency, it has become the go-to platform for organisations looking to monetise their IPv4 holdings.

How the Loan Programme Works

The idea of using IPv4 addresses as financial instruments is not entirely new. For example, network operator Cogent previously issued $206 million worth of debt notes backed by its IPv4 assets. However, IPv4.Global has gone a step further by offering loans directly secured by these addresses.

Under the new scheme, businesses can leverage their IPv4 holdings to access loans while still retaining full use of their addresses. This differs from previous models that used lease revenues as security, as the addresses themselves now serve as collateral.

Lee Howard, Senior Vice President of IPv4.Global, highlighted the unique nature of the initiative, saying: “We just successfully implemented our lending programme for a data centre operator so they can grow their cloud business, making us the first and only company lending against IPv4 addresses today.”

The programme does not have a strict minimum or maximum address requirement, with each loan’s terms tailored to the borrower’s financial standing and balance sheet. However, Howard has noted that a key consideration is how quickly the market could absorb the addresses in case of default, meaning larger loans may require more structured risk assessments.

Why This Matters

Despite the slow transition to IPv6 (a newer protocol designed to replace IPv4 with a vastly larger address pool), demand for IPv4 addresses remains strong, driving their market value upwards. AWS, for example, rents public IPv4 addresses for $43.80 per year, and recent transactions have seen them sell for around $30 per address.

By allowing businesses to use these digital assets as collateral, IPv4.Global is effectively unlocking a new source of liquidity for organisations in need of working capital. This is particularly useful for companies in cloud computing, data centre operations, and telecoms, where maintaining access to IPv4 resources is crucial for day-to-day operations.

The Key Benefits of IPv4-Based Loans

Some of the key benefits of IPv4-based loans include:

– Immediate access to capital. Companies can leverage their IPv4 holdings for financial flexibility without selling them outright.

– Retained operational control. Unlike asset sales, using IPv4 addresses as collateral allows businesses to keep them in use.

– It’s a new financing avenue. Many commercial lenders do not consider IPv4 holdings in loan assessments, making this a unique funding opportunity.

– Support for growth. Businesses needing capital to expand, particularly in cloud and hosting sectors, can now do so without disrupting operations.

Challenges and Potential Risks

While the benefits are clear, using IPv4 addresses as collateral is not without its risks. For example, these include:

Market fluctuations. The value of IPv4 addresses depends on supply and demand, which could shift as more organisations adopt IPv6.

The risk of default. If a borrower fails to repay their loan, they could lose control over vital IPv4 assets, potentially affecting their network operations.

Regulatory concerns. As IPv4 addresses take on greater financial significance, they could attract new regulatory scrutiny, particularly in markets with evolving digital asset laws.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

By providing businesses with an alternative means of securing capital without relinquishing operational control, IPv4.Global’s move (to accept IPv4 addresses as loan collateral) opens up new financial opportunities, particularly for organisations in sectors such as cloud computing, data centre management, and telecoms, where IPv4 addresses remain an essential resource.

For UK businesses, this could offer a novel way to raise funds while preserving critical network infrastructure. Many companies still rely on IPv4 addresses for their digital operations, and with limited availability continuing to drive market prices higher, leveraging these assets for financing could be a practical solution for those looking to scale without selling off key resources. At the same time, lenders entering this space may see potential in offering similar financing models, although risk management will be crucial given the uncertainty surrounding long-term IPv4 valuations.

For other stakeholders, including investors and policymakers, this development highlights the growing financialisation of internet infrastructure. While it demonstrates the enduring demand for IPv4 and its potential as a financial instrument, it also raises questions about market stability, regulatory oversight, and the eventual transition to IPv6. If IPv4 addresses continue to be treated as high-value assets, the shift to IPv6 could be further delayed, creating ongoing complexities for businesses and regulators alike.

It seems, therefore, that IPv4.Global’s initiative reinforces the idea that digital assets are becoming increasingly intertwined with traditional financial mechanisms. Whether this approach gains widespread adoption remains to be seen, but for now, it offers a fresh avenue for businesses seeking capital while demonstrating the lasting relevance of IPv4 in a changing technological landscape.

From March 28, a change to a long-standing Amazon Echo privacy feature will mean that every Alexa request will be transmitted to Amazon’s cloud by default, rather than being processed locally on the device.

What’s Changing?

For years, Amazon Echo users had the option to keep some of their voice interactions with Alexa private. For example, select Echo devices, including the Echo Dot (4th Gen), Echo Show 10, and Echo Show 15, offered a setting called “Do Not Send Voice Recordings.” This allowed Alexa to process certain requests locally on the device, meaning users’ voices never left their homes. However, this is about to change.

Every Command To Be Sent To Amazon’s Servers

Amazon has confirmed that from March 28, 2025, every single voice command issued to an Echo device will be transmitted to its cloud servers for processing. The company is discontinuing the local processing option entirely, regardless of user preference. Even if customers select the “Don’t save recordings” setting, voice data will still be sent to Amazon’s servers, although the company says it will delete it once processed.

Emailed Explanation

In an email to affected users, Amazon explained the change, stating:
“We are reaching out to let you know that the Alexa feature ‘Do Not Send Voice Recordings’ that you enabled on your supported Echo device(s) will no longer be available beginning March 28, 2025. As we continue to expand Alexa’s capabilities with generative AI features that rely on the processing power of Amazon’s secure cloud, we have decided to no longer support this feature.”

Why Is Amazon Making This Change?

In short, the official reason for the change is generative AI. Amazon says Alexa is evolving, and the latest advancements require more computational power than what’s possible on an Echo device. Instead of processing requests locally, Alexa will therefore leverage Amazon’s cloud-based AI to provide more sophisticated responses.

This change aligns with Amazon’s push for Alexa+, a new AI-powered version of the voice assistant expected to roll out later this year. The upgrade promises a more human-like, conversational Alexa experience (closer to ChatGPT), offering smarter interactions and better understanding of user requests.

According to Panos Panay, Amazon’s Senior VP of Devices & Services:
“Alexa+ is more conversational, smarter, and personalised. It understands what you mean, even if your request is half-formed or vague. This kind of AI capability requires cloud processing.”

What Does This Mean for Echo Users?

For those who had privacy concerns and enabled “Do Not Send Voice Recordings,” this update removes an important layer of control. Essentially, from March 28 onwards:

– Everything you say to Alexa will be sent to Amazon’s servers.

– Local processing will no longer be an option.

– If you select “Don’t save recordings,” it won’t store your voice data, but Amazon will still process it in the cloud.

– Voice ID (used for personalised features like recognising different users) will no longer work unless you allow recordings to be saved.

– For users who bought their Echo devices under the assumption that they could keep their voice data private, this could feel like a fundamental change to what they originally purchased.

How Have Users Reacted?

The announcement has sparked backlash online, with many questioning Amazon’s motives. Privacy advocates argue that this is less about AI improvements and more about data collection and monetisation. Some commentators have reacted suspiciously, suggesting that this could be a step towards making Amazon’s ecosystem more reliant on surveillance-driven AI.

On Reddit, frustrated Echo users have been voicing their concerns, with some suggesting it may be time to switch to an alternative. Also, many have pointed to previous scandals, such as when Amazon admitted in 2019 that human reviewers were listening to some Alexa recordings, and in 2023, the company was fined $25 million for storing voice recordings of children.

Privacy-conscious users may now be looking for alternatives, e.g. Apple’s on-device Siri processing or open-source voice assistants like Mycroft AI.

What About Echo Devices in Businesses and Home Offices?

The change doesn’t just impact home users because businesses that use Alexa-powered devices may also need to rethink their approach. For example:

– Conference rooms and smart offices. If companies have Alexa-enabled speakers in workspaces, they now need to consider the implications of sending voice data to Amazon’s servers.

– Home offices. Professionals who use Alexa for reminders, to-do lists, or calendar management may be less comfortable knowing all voice data is processed externally.

– Regulatory compliance. Businesses that handle sensitive information may need to reassess their data security policies, especially in industries like finance, healthcare, and law, where client confidentiality is critical.

Some businesses could choose to disable Alexa in certain settings altogether, particularly where privacy concerns are paramount.

What Are the Wider Implications for Amazon?

Amazon is betting big on Alexa+ and generative AI, hoping to keep pace with competitors like Apple and Google. But this shift also risks alienating privacy-conscious customers.

At the moment, less than 0.03% of Alexa users had the “Do Not Send Voice Recordings” setting enabled, according to Amazon. However, the backlash suggests that even users who didn’t enable this option are now thinking twice about trusting Alexa.

The move could, for example:

– Drive privacy-focused users to competitors like Apple’s Siri, which processes more requests on-device.

– Open the door for legal challenges around how Amazon informs users about data processing.

– Hurt trust in Alexa, at a time when voice assistants are already facing stagnating growth.

While Amazon insists that security remains a priority, the fact remains that this is a fundamental change to how Alexa works, and it’s happening whether users like it or not.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

While Amazon is framing this change as a necessary evolution to support more advanced AI-driven capabilities, many users clearly see it as a loss of control over their privacy. By removing the ability to keep voice commands on-device, Amazon appears to be fundamentally altering the way Echo devices function, a move that some customers feel undermines the trust they originally placed in the product.

For everyday users, this means having to accept that their voice data will always pass through Amazon’s servers, even if it is not stored long-term. While Amazon has pledged that recordings will be deleted after processing, past controversies involving stored conversations and human reviewers have left some sceptical. Those who put a great deal of emphasis on privacy may now feel compelled to seek alternatives, such as Apple’s Siri, which offers more on-device processing, or open-source options that provide greater transparency.

The implications of this change stretch beyond individual households. For example, UK businesses using Echo devices in offices, meeting rooms, or customer-facing environments may now need to reassess their approach. Many industries, particularly those handling sensitive client data, already have strict privacy policies in place. With all Alexa commands now routed through Amazon’s servers, businesses will need to consider whether continuing to use these devices aligns with their compliance requirements. Some may opt to disable Alexa in certain settings, while others might look for alternative solutions that allow for local voice processing.

From Amazon’s perspective, this change is about keeping Alexa competitive in an AI-driven world. With Google and Apple enhancing their voice assistants, and ChatGPT-like models becoming increasingly integrated into everyday tech, Amazon is pushing Alexa to become more responsive, conversational, and intelligent. However, this ambition looks likely to come at a cost. By prioritising cloud-based AI, Amazon risks alienating a portion of its user base, particularly those who bought Echo devices for their privacy features.