Ring’s latest AI-powered tool, designed to help find lost dogs and monitor wildfires, has prompted a backlash over how far neighbourhood camera networks should go.

Search Party Expanded

Ring, owned by Amazon, has just expanded its new Search Party feature across the United States, allowing its outdoor cameras to automatically scan for missing dogs reported in the Ring app.

Opt-Out and “Function Creep”

The system is enabled by default on eligible devices, meaning users must actively switch it off if they do not want to take part, a detail that has fuelled some questions and controversy.

The company says the feature has already helped reunite “more than one lost dog a day” with its owner since launch. Privacy campaigners, meanwhile, warn it represents another example of AI-driven “function creep”, where tools introduced for safety gradually widen the scope of surveillance.

What is Search Party?

Search Party is an AI-powered feature built into Ring’s Neighbours ecosystem. With the feature, when someone creates a Lost Dog Post in the Ring app, participating outdoor Ring cameras in the surrounding area then begin scanning for dogs that resemble the missing pet.

Ring explains the process in its official help documentation: “When a neighbor reports a missing dog in the Ring app, your outdoor Ring cameras use AI to look for matches in your recordings.” If a camera spots what it believes may be the missing dog, the camera owner receives an alert that includes “A picture of the missing dog” and “Video footage from your camera”.

The footage is not automatically sent to the dog’s owner. Instead, the camera owner chooses whether to share the clip or ignore the alert. Ring says this ensures participation remains voluntary and that users retain control over their content.

The feature has now been expanded so that anyone in the US can start a Search Party in the Ring app, even if they do not own a Ring device. This broadens the potential reach of the network significantly.

Better Than Driving Around Looking For The Dog

Jamie Siminoff, Ring’s chief inventor, said: “Before Search Party, the best you could do was drive up and down the neighborhood, shouting your dog’s name in hopes of finding them. Now, pet owners can mobilise the whole community — and communities are empowered to help — to find lost pets more effectively than ever before.”

Ring adds that lost pets are among the most common posts in the Neighbours app, with “more than 1 million reports of lost or found pets made in the app last year alone”. The company estimates there are roughly 90 million dogs across around 60 million US households, underscoring the potential scale of the problem it is attempting to address.

Questions

Despite Amazon’s explanations of the value of the feature, it has sparked some controversy centring on how the technology operates.

The most contentious point appears to be that Search Party is switched on by default. That said, users were actually emailed about the change and told: “You can always turn off Search Party.” To opt out, users must navigate to the Control Centre in the Ring app and manually disable “Search for Lost Pets” for each camera.

However, critics argue that default activation shifts responsibility onto users and expands automated scanning across neighbourhoods without explicit consent from each camera owner at the outset.

Relationship With Law Enforcement

The feature also arrives against a backdrop of growing scrutiny over Ring’s relationship with law enforcement and its broader AI ambitions. Although Search Party is limited to detecting dogs and wildfire indicators, privacy advocates question how easily such systems could be adapted for other forms of tracking.

One of the key concerns is what technologists call function creep, i.e., where a tool introduced for a narrow purpose gradually evolves into something more expansive. AI-powered computer vision, once embedded across large numbers of residential cameras, can theoretically be trained to identify a wide range of objects or patterns.

Ring has stated that Search Party does not scan human faces and that sharing footage remains optional. The company’s help page makes this clear, saying: “You can choose to ignore the alert or respond to the alert and share the info with your neighbour.”

Even so, some campaigners warn that object recognition systems deployed at scale change the character of neighbourhood surveillance, even if they begin with benign goals.

Fire Watch and Broader Monitoring

Search Party is not solely about missing pets. It also incorporates a wildfire monitoring function known as Fire Watch.

According to Ring’s support materials, Fire Watch activates when Watch Duty, a non-profit wildfire monitoring organisation, reports a fire near a user’s location. During an active event, eligible outdoor cameras can use AI to monitor for “visible flames and smoke patterns”.

It should be noted here that Ring has stressed the limitations of this function, saying: “Your camera can make mistakes and might produce false positives (detecting fire when there isn’t one) or false negatives (missing actual fires). Fire Watch is not a safety alerting tool and should not be relied upon as your primary source for fire safety information.”

Users Can Choose To Share Images

Users can choose to share static image snapshots with Watch Duty for up to 24 hours at a time. Snapshot sharing ends automatically when the fire event concludes or when consent is withdrawn.

The inclusion of wildfire monitoring under the same umbrella has reinforced concerns among some critics that Search Party represents a broader shift towards AI-driven community surveillance infrastructure.

Ring’s Wider AI push

Search Party builds on Ring’s recent expansion into generative AI features. For example, in 2025, the company introduced Video Descriptions, which provides short AI-generated summaries of motion activity detected by cameras.

Siminoff described that development as “seizing on the potential of gen AI to shift more of the work of your home’s security to Ring’s AI”, signalling a strategic shift towards automated analysis rather than simple recording.

Search Party applies similar technology to neighbourhood-level scanning. For example, instead of waiting for users to manually review footage, the system proactively searches for visual matches when triggered by a Lost Dog Post or wildfire alert.

Community Empowerment

Ring seems keen to position this feature as community empowerment. For example, in its announcement, the company said: “Search Party’s expansion reflects a meaningful step forward in Ring’s mission to make neighborhoods safer — including for all our four-legged family members.”

It has also committed $1 million to equip animal shelters across the US with Ring camera systems, aiming to reduce the time lost dogs spend in shelters before being reunited with their owners.

Opting Out and User Control

Despite the controversy, participation in the feature is optional. For example, users can disable Search Party at any time in the Ring app by selecting Control Centre, choosing Search Party, and toggling off “Search for Lost Pets” for individual cameras. A separate toggle controls Fire Watch monitoring.

Non-subscribers can also still receive fire event alerts and access live view during wildfire events, but cannot use AI fire detection or share content with first responders.

Ring emphasises that camera owners decide on a case-by-case basis whether to share footage and that no automatic data transfer occurs without user action.

In essence then, the debate here centres on how much automation users are comfortable allowing within residential camera networks. For example, for some, the prospect of finding a missing dog within minutes outweighs the abstract risk of expanded AI scanning whereas, for others, the default activation of a feature that mobilises neighbourhood cameras may seem like a step too far in the normalisation of always-on visual monitoring.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The central question here is not whether finding lost dogs is worthwhile, but how much automated scanning people are prepared to accept as standard in their streets. Ring stresses that Search Party does not use facial recognition, that sharing footage is voluntary and that users can opt out at any time. It also points to early results, saying the feature has already helped reunite more than one dog a day. For many households, that practical benefit will matter.

The concern, however, is that once AI-powered object recognition is embedded across millions of cameras, the technical capability exists to expand what those systems detect. Even if it is currently limited to just spotting dogs and signs of wildfire, critics say the bigger issue is that the same technology could be adapted in future to look for other things. For example, once cameras are routinely scanning footage automatically, it will become easier to expand what they are scanning for. Also, the fact that the feature is switched on by default has intensified those concerns, because it means the system begins operating unless users actively turn it off.

It seems that for Amazon and Ring, maintaining trust will depend on transparency and meaningful user control, but for regulators and privacy groups, the rollout is reinforcing calls for clear guardrails around AI-enabled surveillance.

For UK businesses, this is a reminder that AI in security systems must be deployed with privacy by design and explicit consent, particularly under UK GDPR. For consumers, communities and emergency services, the benefits are tangible, but so too are the longer-term questions about how far automated monitoring should extend.

New research suggests that generative AI adoption may actually intensify work patterns and increase burnout risk rather than reduce workload.

Research (Inside A Live Company)

For several years, generative artificial intelligence has been promoted as a way to reduce administrative burden and free professionals to focus on higher value tasks. Tools based on large language models, systems trained on vast datasets to generate text, code and other content, are widely used to draft documents, summarise meetings and assist with programming and analysis.

However, a February 2026 article in Harvard Business Review (by Aruna Ranganathan and Xingqi Maggie Ye) reports findings from an eight month in progress study inside a 200 person United States technology company, concluding that “AI tools didn’t reduce work, they consistently intensified it.”

Eight-Month Study

Over eight months, the researchers observed day to day work inside the firm and conducted more than 40 in depth interviews across key teams, enabling them to compare how roles changed as AI use increased. Crucially, staff were not instructed to use the tools or to raise performance targets, yet workloads expanded as employees voluntarily adopted AI and took on more.

Observed Changes In Work Patterns

The researchers reported that once employees adopted AI tools, they worked at a faster pace, took on a broader scope of tasks and extended work into more hours of the day. These changes occurred without formal instructions from management to increase targets or output.

One of the main mechanisms identified was task expansion. For example, because generative AI can fill gaps in knowledge and provide rapid feedback, employees were found to have increasingly stepped into responsibilities that previously belonged to other roles. Product managers and designers began writing code, while researchers undertook engineering tasks. Over time, it was observed that individuals therefore absorbed work that might previously have required additional headcount or external contractors.

The researchers describe generative AI as providing what many workers experienced as an “empowering cognitive boost”, whereas employees referred to “just trying things” with the AI, experimenting with unfamiliar tasks. The researchers found that these experiments gradually accumulated into a widening of job scope, which in turn created additional review and oversight work for others. For example, engineers reported spending more time reviewing, correcting and guiding AI assisted work produced by colleagues, often through informal exchanges on internal messaging platforms.

Blurred Boundaries Between Work And Non Work

A second pattern identified in the study was the erosion of natural breaks in the working day. For example, because AI systems reduce the friction of starting a task, workers began prompting tools during moments that previously functioned as downtime, including lunch breaks and short pauses between meetings.

In fact, some employees even described sending “a ‘quick last prompt’ right before leaving their desk so that the AI could work while they stepped away”. Although these interactions were brief and conversational, it was noted that they reduced opportunities for recovery. The researchers observed that work became more continuous and less clearly bounded, with fewer natural pauses.

Over time, this pattern contributed to a sense that work was harder to step away from. In essence, the boundary between work and non work did not disappear, but it became easier to cross, particularly as faster turnaround times became visible and normalised within teams.

Increased Multitasking And Cognitive Load

The third form of intensification that the researchers observed involved increased multitasking. For example, workers seemed to be managing several AI assisted threads simultaneously, manually drafting material while AI generated alternatives, running multiple agents in parallel or revisiting deferred tasks because AI could handle parts of them in the background.

While this created a sense of momentum, it also required frequent checking of outputs, prompt refinement and attention switching. The study notes that higher speed did not necessarily translate into reduced busyness. For example, as one engineer summarised, “You had thought that maybe, oh, because you could be more productive with AI, then you save some time, you can work less. But then really, you don’t work less. You just work the same amount or even more.”

Risks Of Silent Workload Creep

In their article about their study, the researchers argue that voluntary expansion of work can initially appear positive for organisations, but they warn that higher short term output may conceal unsustainable intensity. For example, because additional tasks are often self initiated and framed as experimentation, leaders may not immediately recognise the cumulative increase in load.

Fatigue And Burnout

The researchers warn that what appears to be higher productivity may actually mask a more damaging pattern. “Over time, overwork can impair judgment, increase the likelihood of errors, and make it harder for organisations to distinguish genuine productivity gains from unsustainable intensity.” They add that the cumulative impact on employees can be “fatigue, burnout, and a growing sense that work is harder to step away from, especially as organisational expectations for speed and responsiveness rise.”

The study does not argue that AI fails to enhance human capability, but its central point is that when augmentation makes it possible to do more, organisations and individuals may gradually raise expectations, expand scope and accelerate pace, reshaping everyday work in ways that increase pressure rather than reduce it.

Wider Evidence On Productivity And Perception

That said, other research has produced mixed findings on AI related productivity gains. For example, a recent working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research examining AI adoption across thousands of workplaces reported average time savings of around 3 per cent, with no significant impact on earnings or hours worked across occupations.

Also, in 2025, the research organisation METR conducted a randomised trial involving experienced software developers and found that developers using AI tools took 19 per cent longer to complete certain tasks while believing they were 20 per cent faster. This study highlights the potential gap between perceived and measured productivity and the hidden time required to review and correct AI generated outputs.

Corporate surveys have also indicated that while many employees report time savings from AI, overall workload pressures often remain due to organisational factors and rising expectations for speed and responsiveness.

Implications For Organisations

It should be noted here that the study results highlighted in the Harvard Business Review do not diagnose clinical burnout among participants, but rather identify patterns that may increase burnout risk over time, including workload creep, reduced recovery periods and sustained cognitive strain.

The researchers, Ranganathan and Ye, therefore argue that organisations should establish what they call an “AI practice”, defined as intentional norms and routines governing how AI is used and how work expands in response to new capabilities. They recommend structured pauses to regulate tempo, clearer sequencing of tasks to reduce fragmentation and deliberate opportunities for human interaction to counterbalance continuous AI mediated work.

The researchers conclude that “without intention, AI makes it easier to do more—but harder to stop”, thereby showing the real issue here to be one of organisational design rather than technological failure.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

What this research ultimately seems to highlight is a governance issue rather than a technological one. When AI increases what individuals can do, organisations must decide whether to translate that into sustainable efficiency or into higher expectations and faster pace. The evidence suggests that without clear boundaries, intensification can happen quietly, even when no formal targets change.

For UK businesses investing in generative AI, that means monitoring more than output. For example, leaders may need to track workload sustainability, quality control and employee wellbeing alongside productivity metrics. AI adoption may need to be treated as organisational redesign, not simply a software rollout.

Also, the implications seem to extend beyond employers. For example, employees may feel pressure to prove the value of AI tools, managers may normalise faster turnaround without assessing long term strain, and regulators focused on workplace health may begin to examine how AI affects cognitive load and recovery time.

In essence, the research does not argue against AI, but shows that augmentation alone does not guarantee relief from pressure. The point here is that whether AI reduces workload or intensifies it will depend less on the tools themselves and more on how organisations set limits, pace expectations and define what productive work should look like.

Google has expanded its Search removal tools to make it easier for users to request the deletion of sensitive personal information and non-consensual explicit images from search results.

Announced on Safer Internet Day

The update, announced to coincide with Safer Internet Day, strengthens Google’s existing “Results about you” system and introduces a simpler process for reporting intimate imagery shared without consent. These changes come at a time of increased regulatory scrutiny of technology platforms, rising identity fraud risks and growing public concern about how personal information is exposed and circulated online.

Why Google Is Expanding These Tools

For several years, Google has allowed individuals to request removal of certain personal details from Search, including phone numbers, email addresses and home addresses. This latest update essentially broadens that scope.

For example, users can now request removal of search results containing highly sensitive identifiers such as driver’s licence numbers, passport numbers and Social Security numbers. These forms of data are frequently targeted in identity theft and financial fraud, and their exposure online can create long-term risks.

The expansion also reflects a broader environment in which technology companies face increased expectations to protect personal data. For example, in the UK and European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR, and the UK’s own version, has reinforced individuals’ rights over how personal information is processed and displayed. In the United States, a growing number of state-level privacy laws have introduced new requirements around transparency and data control.

Online abuse involving non-consensual explicit imagery also remains a significant concern, where victims often seem to have faced complex reporting systems and repeated submissions when attempting to remove harmful content from search results.

An Improvement – But Only Part Of The Solution

In its blog announcement, Google stated, “We hope that this new removal process reduces the burden that victims of non-consensual explicit imagery face.” The company also wrote, “We understand that removing existing content is only part of the solution.” These remarks indicate an acknowledgement that discoverability through search engines can intensify harm, even when content is hosted elsewhere.

Changes To The “Results About You” Tool

The “Results about you” hub is accessible through a user’s Google account in the Google app and allows individuals to monitor and manage search results that contain their personal information.

The latest update expands the categories of information that can be monitored and removed. For example, in addition to contact details, users can now add government-issued identification numbers to their monitoring list. Once details are confirmed, Google automatically scans Search results and notifies users if matching information appears.

Only Removes It From Search, Not The Website It’s On

Google says that removing a result from Search does not remove the content from the underlying website. The company notes that removing information from Search “doesn’t remove it from the web entirely”, but can help limit visibility and improve privacy.

The tool centralises removal requests within a single dashboard, enabling users to track the status of submissions and receive email notifications when decisions are made. This consolidation is designed to simplify what has previously been a fragmented process.

New Process For Removing Explicit Images

Alongside the data monitoring expansion, Google says it has also redesigned how users report non-consensual explicit imagery, and the updated process is now integrated directly into Search results. For example, users can click the three dots next to an image, select remove result, then choose “It shows a sexual image of me.” The revised system allows multiple images to be selected and submitted through a single form, removing the need to file individual reports for each result.

Google has also introduced an option to opt in to proactive safeguards. In its blog post about its latest updates, the company explained, “For added protection, the new process allows you to opt-in to safeguards that will proactively filter out any additional explicit results that might appear in similar searches.” This indicates that Google will apply additional filtering measures to reduce the likelihood of similar content reappearing in search results.

After submitting a request, users are shown links to expert organisations that provide emotional and legal support. This reflects recognition that cases involving explicit imagery often involve wider personal and legal implications.

Implications For User Privacy

For individuals, particularly those affected by doxxing, identity fraud or the distribution of intimate images without consent, the expanded tools may offer greater control over how personal information appears in search results.

Search engines play a central role in online visibility and, even if harmful content remains accessible through direct links or other platforms, removal from a dominant search engine can significantly reduce its reach.

The automatic monitoring function may also serve as an early warning mechanism. For example, if sensitive identifiers such as passport numbers appear in search results, this could indicate a broader data exposure that requires further action.

Implications

Businesses and organisations may benefit from these improved mechanisms, e.g., by being better able to protect employees, executives and customers whose data is exposed online. In cases of corporate data breaches or targeted harassment, rapid removal from Search can really limit reputational damage and reduce further risk.

That said, for businesses that publish public records or operate data aggregation services, this may mean that they may face increased removal requests. Balancing individual privacy rights with legitimate public interest information remains a complex issue, particularly where data is lawfully published.

From a regulatory perspective, search removal does not remove legal responsibility for how data is collected, stored or published. Companies must still ensure compliance with applicable data protection laws, regardless of whether search engines delist specific results.

Industry The Competition

Google’s decision is likely to influence expectations across the wider search and AI sector. For example, competing search engines, including Microsoft’s Bing, and newer AI-powered search platforms may face pressure to offer comparable privacy controls.

As generative AI systems increasingly summarise and present web content in conversational formats, questions arise about how removal requests will apply to AI-generated answers and summaries. Ensuring consistent privacy protections across traditional search results and AI outputs will be a continuing technical and policy challenge.

The update also arrives amid ongoing scrutiny of large technology platforms. Demonstrating strengthened user protection measures may contribute to broader debates about platform responsibility and digital governance.

Criticisms And Challenges

Despite the expanded tools, several limitations remain. As previously mentioned, removal from Search does not eliminate content from the internet, and material can continue to circulate through direct links, social media platforms or alternative search engines. Critics of delisting policies have also argued that removal mechanisms can conflict with transparency and public interest reporting, particularly where information is lawful and newsworthy.

Technical constraints may also limit effectiveness. For example, automated monitoring relies on identifiable patterns and structured data inputs, which may not capture all instances of exposed information, especially if data appears in unstructured formats or embedded within images.

The expanded monitoring of government identification numbers is initially rolling out in the United States, with plans to extend availability to additional regions. This phased approach reflects the fact that privacy laws and regulatory frameworks differ significantly between countries, which may shape how removal requests are assessed and how these tools are implemented in practice.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

What this ultimately demonstrates is that search visibility itself has become a central privacy issue, not just the existence of content online. By making it easier to request removals and monitor sensitive identifiers, Google is now acknowledging that discoverability through Search can materially increase harm, even where the underlying content remains legally hosted elsewhere.

For individual users, the changes provide a more structured and accessible route to reduce risk. For UK businesses, the implications are twofold. On the one hand, improved removal and monitoring tools may help limit reputational damage following data breaches, employee targeting or the exposure of sensitive executive information. On the other hand, organisations that lawfully publish data will need to be prepared for greater scrutiny and potentially higher volumes of removal requests, particularly as public awareness of these tools grows.

For regulators and policymakers, the update reinforces the idea that dominant search platforms carry practical responsibility for how information is surfaced, not just indexed. For competitors in search and AI, it sets a clearer expectation that privacy controls must be built into both traditional results and AI-generated responses.

Although these developments represent a practical improvement, the fundamental tension between visibility and free access to information remains unresolved, since search removal can reduce discoverability but does not erase content from the wider internet or eliminate all forms of online harm. The overall effectiveness of these tools will depend on how consistently they are applied, how transparently decisions are made and how well they operate across different legal jurisdictions.

Openreach has warned that more than half a million UK business lines remain on legacy copper infrastructure and will face steep price rises as the Public Switched Telephone Network approaches its January 2027 switch-off.

A Century Old Network Reaches Its End

The Public Switched Telephone Network, known as the PSTN, has carried most UK phone calls for more than a century. Built on copper wiring and analogue switching systems, it has supported traditional landlines, fax machines, card terminals, alarm systems and lift emergency lines across the country.

BT Group, Openreach’s parent company, has confirmed that the PSTN will be fully retired by 31 January 2027. As part of that programme, Openreach is withdrawing products that depend on it, including Wholesale Line Rental services used by communications providers to deliver fixed line connectivity to homes and businesses.

In a statement published on its website, Openreach said the PSTN analogue network is obsolete, becoming harder to maintain and significantly more expensive to run. The company has stated that skills and spare parts are increasingly difficult to source, while digital services such as Voice over IP, where calls are transmitted over broadband rather than traditional phone lines, have become the industry standard.

Half A Million Business Lines Still To Migrate

Openreach’s latest figures show that around 2.8 million lines in total remain on the PSTN network, with more than half a million of those serving business premises.

James Lilley, Director of All IP at Openreach, said: “There’s no time left to stall. We’ve spent the last year ensuring telecare customers can be migrated safely through our ‘Prove Telecare’ service, removing the final barrier to the switch-off. Now, the reality is simple. The PSTN analogue network is obsolete, becoming harder to maintain and significantly more expensive to run. We are passing those costs on to providers who continue to sell legacy products.”

He added: “If your business is still on this copper service, you will start to pay a premium for a service that will be switched off in 12 months. Most major Communications Providers moved their customers to digital long ago. If your provider hasn’t contacted you, you need to ask why.”

The switch-off date has been fixed, and Openreach has stated that all technical barriers to migration, including protections for vulnerable telecare users, have now been addressed through its Prove Telecare service.

Price Increases On Legacy Services

Openreach has confirmed a staged series of wholesale price increases for legacy Wholesale Line Rental products during 2026. From 1 April 2026 prices will rise by 20 per cent. From 1 July 2026 they will increase by a further 40 per cent. From 1 October 2026 a final 40 per cent rise will apply, effectively doubling the rental cost of legacy lines compared with 2025 rates.

The wholesale price increases apply to legacy WLR products and are clearly intended to encourage the final migration to digital All IP services. Openreach has also previously confirmed a special pricing offer on migrations to SOGEA, a broadband product that does not require a traditional analogue phone line. In some cases, it is already cheaper to move to newer digital services than remain on older copper-based products.

Openreach has stated that the rising costs reflect the increasing expense of maintaining a shrinking analogue network as the industry moves towards fibre and IP-based connectivity.

Impact Beyond Traditional Phones

The implications extend beyond desk telephones. In fact, the PSTN underpins a wide range of connected systems in commercial and public buildings, and Openreach has highlighted how critical hardware including fire alarms, burglar alarms and payment terminals may still rely on copper lines.

The company’s latest data indicates that more than 12,000 lift lines and around 500 lines serving CCTV networks still require upgrades. Services such as ISDN, ADSL and FTTC broadband are also affected because they depend on the underlying copper infrastructure that supports the PSTN.

Organisations may, therefore, need to review not only voice services but also embedded systems that have operated for years without change.

Role Of Communications Providers

While many major communications providers have already migrated much of their customer base, Openreach has stated that some smaller or specialist providers have been slower to act. Businesses that remain with those providers should note that they may face increased risk as the deadline approaches, particularly if legacy equipment becomes harder to maintain.

Openreach has advised businesses not to assume they are unaffected and to contact their service provider if they are uncertain about their current arrangements.

Review Test Switch Process

Openreach is encouraging businesses to follow a three-stage process of review, test and switch. Businesses should begin by reviewing their connectivity estate to identify any equipment still relying on PSTN services. If there is uncertainty, they are advised to contact their service provider rather than assume migration has already taken place.

Testing can be carried out at Openreach’s test laboratories, where equipment can be checked for compatibility with All IP networks, and the company says that this service is available free of charge to help ensure devices will function correctly once migrated.

Businesses are, therefore, being urged to move to a suitable digital solution as soon as possible, and Openreach says it can offer resources to support the transition, including assistance for more complex or edge case scenarios where temporary solutions may be required.

Resilience And Power Cut Concerns

One of the key challenges associated with the transition relates to power resilience. For example, traditional copper phone lines can be powered from the exchange, meaning they may continue to function during local power cuts. However, digital voice services delivered over broadband require electricity at the customer’s premises. This means that, in the event of a power outage, access to phone services, including emergency calls, could be disrupted unless backup power is available. Communications providers are, therefore, issuing battery backup units to vulnerable customers, typically providing at least one hour of standby power.

This aspect of the transition has drawn some scrutiny from regulators and consumer groups, particularly following severe weather events in recent years that have disrupted power supplies. Industry guidance has emphasised the need to protect vulnerable users during migration to digital services.

Implications

For UK businesses, the remaining 12 months represent a critical planning period. The staged wholesale price increases create a direct financial impact for organisations that delay migration. Companies operating multiple sites or maintaining complex estates may require time to identify dependent systems and coordinate upgrades.

The retirement of the PSTN forms part of a broader national move towards digital, fibre-based connectivity. Openreach has made clear that the January 2027 deadline will not be extended and that the focus is now on completing the final phase of migration away from copper-based services.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The timeline is fixed and the cost signals are clear, which means inaction now carries both financial and operational risk. Businesses that fail to identify and migrate remaining copper-dependent services will face rising wholesale charges during 2026 and the possibility of service disruption as the withdrawal progresses. For organisations with critical systems such as alarms, payment infrastructure or lift lines, the issue is not simply about telephony but about continuity, compliance and safety.

For communications providers, particularly smaller or specialist firms, the final year before switch-off will test their ability to complete migrations at pace while maintaining service stability. Delays or poor communication could expose them to reputational damage and customer loss. At the same time, regulators and consumer bodies will continue to scrutinise resilience arrangements, especially around power cuts and protection for vulnerable users.

For UK businesses more broadly, the remaining 12 months represent a narrowing window to audit estates, budget for upgrades and ensure that digital alternatives are fully tested. The retirement of the PSTN marks the end of a long-standing infrastructure platform and the completion of a national move to All IP connectivity. The practical consequences now depend largely on how quickly organisations act to remove their dependence on copper and prepare for a fully digital network environment.

SpaceX is now prioritising plans to build what Elon Musk describes as a “self-growing city” on the Moon, placing it ahead of its long-stated ambition to establish a settlement on Mars.

A Public Reordering Of Priorities

Elon Musk announced on X that SpaceX is focusing first on the Moon rather than Mars. He wrote: “For those unaware, SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon, as we can potentially achieve that in less than 10 years, whereas Mars would take 20+ years.”

He added: “The mission of SpaceX remains the same: extend consciousness and life as we know it to the stars.”

It Was Always Mars

For most of its 24-year history, SpaceX has presented Mars as its primary long-term destination. The new position does not abandon that objective, but does seem to change the order of SpaceX’s priorities. For example, in the same series of posts, Musk said SpaceX would “also strive to build a Mars city and begin doing so in about 5 to 7 years, but the overriding priority is securing the future of civilisation and the Moon is faster.”

Why The Moon First?

Musk’s reasoning seems to centre on orbital mechanics and launch frequency. For example, travel to Mars depends on favourable alignment between Earth and Mars, which occurs approximately every 26 months. The journey itself takes around six months using current propulsion technology.

By contrast, missions to the Moon can launch roughly every 10 days, with a transit time of about two days. As highlighted by Musk: “It is only possible to travel to Mars when the planets align every 26 months (six month trip time), whereas we can launch to the Moon every 10 days (2 day trip time). This means we can iterate much faster to complete a Moon city than a Mars city.”

This reference to iteration appears to relate to repeated testing and incremental development, which is an approach that SpaceX has used extensively in the development of its reusable rockets, particularly the Starship vehicle. Also, a closer destination allows more frequent missions, which in theory could enable faster engineering feedback and adjustment.

What Is Meant By A “Self Growing City”?

Musk has not published detailed technical plans for a lunar settlement, however the phrase “self-growing city” implies a base that can expand using local resources rather than relying entirely on supplies from Earth. This approach, which is not a new idea, is commonly described as in situ resource utilisation, meaning the extraction and processing of materials found on the Moon itself.

For example, lunar regolith, the powdery layer of dust and fragmented rock covering the surface, could potentially be used for construction. Water ice has also been identified in permanently shadowed craters near the lunar poles and could be processed into drinking water, breathable oxygen and rocket propellant. Developing such capabilities would be essential for long-term habitation.

The Law

It should also be noted here that international law provides part of the framework for these ambitions. For example, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits any nation from claiming sovereignty over the Moon. However, the United States Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 allows American companies to own and sell resources they extract from celestial bodies. The interpretation of these rules remains a subject of debate among spacefaring nations.

The Commercial And Strategic Context

The renewed emphasis on the Moon comes during a period of wider corporate change across Musk’s businesses. For example, SpaceX recently completed the acquisition of xAI, the artificial intelligence company also led by Musk, in a transaction that valued SpaceX at around one trillion dollars and xAI at 250 billion dollars, according to public reporting.

Musk has linked space infrastructure to artificial intelligence development, arguing that large-scale computing capacity will be critical in future competition. In separate public remarks, he has suggested that space-based data centres could form part of that strategy, although detailed plans have not been formally published.

SpaceX’s revenue base is also evolving. For example, Musk wrote on X that NASA will constitute less than 5 per cent of SpaceX revenue this year, adding: “Vast majority of SpaceX revenue is the commercial Starlink system.” Starlink operates thousands of satellites in low Earth orbit and provides broadband services globally.

Reports also indicate that SpaceX may be preparing for a potential public offering later in 2026. Publicly emphasising a nearer-term lunar objective may be viewed as more achievable within a defined timeframe than a multi-decade Mars programme, although no official IPO prospectus has yet been released.

NASA, Artemis And International Competition

SpaceX remains a central contractor in NASA’s Artemis programme, which aims to return astronauts to the lunar surface for the first time since Apollo 17 in 1972. Under a contract valued at approximately 4 billion dollars, SpaceX is developing a lunar lander version of its Starship rocket to transport astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface.

Public reporting has indicated that SpaceX is targeting March 2027 for an uncrewed lunar landing. Such a mission would represent a step towards sustained operations on the Moon.

Competition From China

The United States faces growing competition in lunar exploration, mainly from China, which has outlined plans for crewed lunar missions in the 2030s and is working with Russia on proposals for a joint lunar research station. The renewed focus on the Moon, therefore, seems to sit within a broader geopolitical context involving technological leadership and strategic positioning.

The Change In Tone On Mars

The new emphasis on the Moon contrasts with Musk’s earlier public comments. For example, as recently as January last year, he wrote on X in response to discussion about lunar missions: “No, we’re going straight to Mars. The Moon is a distraction.”

The current position reverses that assessment, with the Moon now being described as the faster route to securing humanity’s long-term future beyond Earth, while Mars remains a longer-term objective.

Technical And Financial Uncertainties

Establishing a permanent human presence on the Moon would require solutions to multiple, complex engineering challenges. For example, the lunar surface experiences extreme temperature variation, ranging from approximately minus 170 degrees Celsius at night to more than 120 degrees Celsius during the day. There is no atmosphere to shield inhabitants from radiation or micrometeoroids, and life support systems would need to operate reliably in a vacuum environment.

Energy supply presents another very important issue. Solar power is available during the roughly 14-day lunar daylight period, however it is absent during the equally long night. Nuclear power systems are being studied by space agencies as a possible alternative for continuous energy generation.

Transport capacity would depend heavily on the continued development of Starship, which is designed to carry large payloads to orbit and beyond. As of early 2026, Starship remains in active testing, with multiple integrated flight tests conducted but not yet a fully routine operational cadence.

Financial requirements have not been publicly detailed. However, previous discussions about interplanetary settlement have implied very large launch numbers and sustained investment over many years. Musk’s stated timeframe of under 10 years for a lunar city, which seems quite soon given the challenges, may reflect more of an aspirational target rather than a confirmed programme schedule.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

What this really represents is a change in sequence rather than a change in mission. Mars remains the long-term objective, however the Moon is now being presented as the faster and more practical proving ground. Shorter journeys and more frequent launch windows could allow quicker testing of habitats, power systems and resource extraction technologies, provided the engineering and funding challenges can be overcome.

For SpaceX, the credibility of this strategy will depend on delivery. Progress with Starship, the planned uncrewed lunar landing in 2027 and tangible advances in life support and in situ resource systems will matter more than stated timelines. Investors, regulators and NASA will be watching closely, particularly in light of any future public offering.

For UK businesses, especially those in aerospace, satellite services and advanced manufacturing, a faster-paced lunar programme could create supply chain and partnership opportunities. That said, legal, geopolitical and financial uncertainties remain significant. Whether the Moon becomes a stepping stone to Mars or a longer-term focal point will ultimately be determined by technical results rather than ambition.

AI agents running inside messaging apps can leak sensitive data through automatic link previews, researchers at AI security firm PromptArmor have warned, creating a zero-click data exfiltration risk.

The flaw reportedly exploits indirect prompt injection. For example, an attacker tricks an agent into generating a malicious URL containing sensitive information, such as API keys, in its query string. Messaging platforms like Slack, Teams, Telegram and Discord often fetch links automatically to generate previews, meaning the data-leaking URL can be requested instantly, without the user clicking it.

PromptArmor said: “In agentic systems with link previews, data exfiltration can occur immediately upon the AI agent responding to the user, without the user needing to click the malicious link.”

To test exposure, the firm created the AITextRisk.com website, which logs preview fetches from different agent and app combinations. Reported at-risk pairings include Microsoft Teams with Copilot Studio and Telegram with OpenClaw, the latter being exposed by default unless link previews are disabled in its configuration.

Businesses using AI agents in messaging platforms should review preview settings urgently, disable link previews in sensitive channels where possible, restrict agent access to secrets, and test their own app and agent pairings to identify potential zero-click data loss risks.