The U.K. government must move to protect the financial services industry from the potential costs of an unpredictable Trump administration, the City of London’s newly appointed artificial intelligence czar told POLITICO.  City firms which are “heavily reliant on U.S. technology” face the “risk” of changes beyond their control due to the climate of uncertainty stemming from U.S. President Donald Trump’s government, said Harriet Rees, who is one of two appointments by the U.K. Treasury to champion artificial intelligence adoption in financial services. “I definitely see a geopolitical risk right now when it comes to our relationship with U.S. technology, our reliance on it,” said Rees, who serves as the chief information officer at Starling Bank. She added: “Within my role as AI champion, I will be looking for some more confidence for the industry as to what the government is doing to protect firms, or what mitigations the industry needs to be put in place, so that we’ve got the confidence that we won’t be out of pocket for the things that we don’t have any input over.” Her warnings come as multiple sectors are eyeing ways to diversify away from the U.S., particularly in the EU, in the wake of Trump’s ongoing tariff war and threat to use force to take Greenland. In financial services, the focus is on creating a new payments system to replace U.S. card heavyweights Visa and Mastercard. Aurore Lalucq, a left-leaning member of the European Parliament, said last month: “The urgency is our payment system. Trump can cut us off from everything.” In Britain, banks will meet in mid-March to discuss account-to-account payments, a system which would also bypass Visa and Mastercard by allowing payments directly between bank accounts. But regulators in the U.K. insist plans are about “resilience” rather than an intention to cut out the U.S. Industry plans should take into account this eventuality, Rees argued. “We see that the U.S. is prepared to make changes, be it tariffs, be it the way trade operates between countries and so where we are reliant … on exports from the U.S. we need to make sure that we understand the risks,” she said, adding that it’s key to “have plans in place as an industry to be able to cope with that, should that eventuality happen, that we have the government really lobbying on our side to make sure that that is an unlikely risk to crystallize.” British firms’ reliance on American cloud service providers poses a particular risk, Rees said, with U.S. tech giants Amazon, Microsoft and Google dominating in the cloud computing space. She called on regulators to ensure the providers are adhering to legislation. Any outage of these cloud providers could cause “significant disruption” for the financial services industry, Rees said, and Britain should “ensure that we hold those technologies to the same standards as we would any other critical infrastructure here in the U.K.” A bug in automation software took down Amazon Web Services, the largest cloud provider in the world, in October last year, causing outages for thousands of sites and applications. Last month, MPs criticized the government for not acting decisively enough on cloud service providers. New rules for “critical third parties” — firms, such as cloud providers, whose disruption could impact Britain’s financial stability — came into effect in Jan. 2025. They give the U.K.’s City regulators new powers of investigation and enforcement over providers designated as critical.  Despite the regime being in place for a year, no providers have been handed the designation. MPs on the Treasury Committee queried why the government “has been so slow to use the new powers at its disposal.”

BERLIN — A multibillion-euro German military drone contract has triggered scrutiny inside Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s governing coalition over its most prominent investor, Trump-friendly billionaire Peter Thiel, putting its approval in doubt. Thiel is at the center of a political controversy over his investment in Stark, a Berlin-based defense-tech startup. German lawmakers question whether his minority stake could give him direct or indirect influence over the company’s decisions or access to sensitive defense information. They have also raised concerns about how the contract is priced and structured, saying key details on unit costs, quantities and optional volumes were redacted from documents presented to the country’s parliament. “The fact is that Peter Thiel openly rejects our democracy. We do not know how large his influence at Stark is. And even worse: The federal government cannot explain it,” Greens lawmaker Jeanne Dillschneider told POLITICO. “We need drones, no one disputes that. But the question of how large Thiel’s influence is must be clarified before we procure them.” The Thiel Foundation, a private foundation set up by Peter Thiel and contacted by POLITICO in an effort to seek a response, did not respond to emailed requests for comment. The confidential Stark contract, seen by POLITICO, is structured as a seven-year framework agreement with an initial fixed order worth €268.6 million. If all optional orders are exercised, the total value could rise to roughly €2.86 billion. The agreement covers the serial production of “deployment sets,” each consisting of 20 loitering munitions, a ground control station, spare parts and software and training packages. It would be one of Germany’s first purchases of loitering drones, which have become a low-cost weapon of choice in Ukraine after Russia’s full-scale invasion. It’s unclear what Thiel’s share in the company is. The German-born investor, who is also an American citizen, is known for his support for President Donald Trump and for bankrolling conservative candidates such as Vice President JD Vance, aligning himself with the populist wing of the Republican party. That has raised concerns among German lawmakers, affecting the outlook for parliamentary approval of the deal. Under German law, any defense contract exceeding €25 million must receive explicit approval from the parliamentary budget committee, meaning a vote scheduled for Wednesday is legally required for the deal to proceed.  Stark declined to comment on the details of its shareholder structure but said any foreign investment exceeding a 10 percent threshold would trigger a mandatory review by Germany’s Economy Ministry. The same applies below that level if special rights exist, the company said, adding: “None of this applies.”  It also stated that no shareholder has information rights relating to its products and that any transfer of technical details would be subject to German export control approval. Boris Pistorius rejected the idea that Thiel’s involvement should stall the deal. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images Defense Minister Boris Pistorius rejected the idea that Thiel’s involvement should stall the deal. Speaking to the Deutsche Welle broadcaster at the recent Munich Security Conference, he said: “I don’t know whether my information is correct or not, but as far as I’m informed, we are not talking about a key stakeholder — we are talking about somebody who has between 3 and 4.5 percent.” That, he added, means Thiel does not play “a key role as a stakeholder,” and while the issue should be considered seriously, it is “not an obstacle really to make contracts with that company.” However, the final decision lies not with his ministry but with parliament. COALITION SCRUTINY GROWS While the Greens were the first to target Thiel’s involvement, criticism has spilled over to Germany’s governing parties, the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats.  Budget lawmakers who spoke with POLITICO on the basis of anonymity to speak candidly have since broadened their review to include pricing structures, delivery timelines and the overall scale of the framework agreement’s optional volumes.  A central point of scrutiny is timing: Berlin would be committing to serial production before a full munitions safety qualification has been completed. According to the contract, the qualification is expected by Sept. 30. The agreement contains exit clauses allowing the government to withdraw if the qualification fails, if performance benchmarks such as hit probability are not met, or if changes in the company’s ownership create security concerns. Lawmakers from both ruling coalition parties have also raised concerns after portions of the Stark contract were redacted. In particular, details relating to quantities and pricing were not fully visible to MPs. They say meaningful oversight becomes difficult if key financial parameters are not fully disclosed. “Responsibility does not mean rubber-stamping,” Christian Democratic budget lawmaker Andreas Mattfeldt wrote on LinkedIn, alluding to further examination of the procurement. “Responsibility means examining, questioning and, if necessary, correcting. For a strong Bundeswehr [German armed forces] and a clean handling of taxpayers’ money.”  In an explanatory memo to lawmakers seen by POLITICO, the Defense Ministry outlines the overall contract structure and aggregate values but doesn’t provide granular figures. It confirms that the initial fixed tranches amount to roughly €270 million per supplier and that the total ceiling values — roughly €2.9 billion for Stark — would only apply if all optional orders are exercised. Bloomberg first reported on the memo. That document does not, however, directly address why specific passages were withheld from committee review. That gap has added to frustration among some coalition MPs ahead of the vote. Lawmakers from Germany’s governing parties are now preparing a conditional approval that would attach binding requirements to the contract before it takes effect. According to two officials familiar with the talks, budget lawmakers are drafting language that would require closer oversight of pricing and limit how the larger optional parts of the deal can be triggered. The move suggests the contract is likely to pass, but not without new safeguards in response to concerns raised inside the coalition. Whether Stark clears the hurdle this week will determine not only the fate of the contract, but also whether the coalition is prepared to close ranks behind one of its most politically sensitive defense procurements. Doepfner Capital, led by Moritz Döpfner, the son of Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner, is also an investor in Stark. Axel Springer owns POLITICO.

Il primo romanzo di Kurt Vonnegut, Piano meccanico, immagina un pianeta nel quale le macchine hanno tolto il lavoro alla stragrande maggioranza dell’umanità, finita a vivere in miseria estrema mentre una ridottissima classe di ingegneri accumula potere e ricchezza. Ne segue la rivolta sociale. Quell’immagine in questi giorni è stata ripresa da due differenti studi sul possibile impatto della diffusione dell’intelligenza artificiale sull’economia mondiale. Il primo studio, datato 15 febbraio, è opera di Andrea Pignataro di Ion, che con un patrimonio personale di 42,8 miliardi di dollari è appena diventato l’uomo più ricco d’Italia. L’analisi s’intitola “L’Apocalisse sbagliata” e parte dalla velocità con cui una notizia su una nuova applicazione Ai ha fatto perdere in pochi giorni oltre 2mila miliardi di dollari di valore di Borsa al settore del software. Lunedì 23 febbraio è arrivato poi un rapporto di Citrini Research, una poco nota società di servizi finanziari di New York, che ha delineato lo stesso scenario al quale era giunto Pignataro: già nel 2028 il predominio dell’intelligenza artificiale potrebbe causare il declino dell’economia dei consumi, con conseguenze disastrose per l’occupazione. L’analisi ha dato un nuovo colpo alla fiducia delle aziende che potrebbero essere sostituite dal rapido espandersi dell’Ai. La risposta politica è sempre in ritardo rispetto alla realtà economica, ma la mancanza di un piano globale sulla Ai rischia ora di accelerare una spirale deflazionistica, afferma il rapporto di Citrini. Intanto le borse vanno in sofferenza anche per effetto di queste profezie. L’osservazione da cui parte l’analisi di Pignataro è che mentre la rivoluzione della Ai si muove a velocità digitale, mimando il linguaggio delle aziende che la usano sino a diventare “migliore” e più produttiva di loro, finendo per fagocitarle e sostituirle, l’economia segue invece una velocità industriale. Tra le due velocità c’è una differenza di diversi ordini di grandezza. L’economia reale, teme Pignataro, rischia di non avere il tempo per adattarsi alla rivoluzione della Ai. Il rischio quindi è che la Ai spazzi via settore dopo settore, prendendone il posto, in tutti i campi economici che la utilizzano, ogni professione intellettuale, dalla produzione di software alle materie tecniche a quelle umanistiche. Ma le ricadute saranno ben più vaste perché il crollo di questi settori potrebbe privare di ricavi le loro attività ancillari (servizi, trasporti, immobiliare eccetera) e la riduzione del reddito di decine di milioni di professionisti e colletti bianchi finirebbe per svuotare di valore intere industrie e aree geografiche, a partire dalle città basate sulla finanza. Il problema, sottolinea Pignataro, è che cercare di fermare la Ai o non adottarla significa per molte aziende essere costrette a uscire dal mercato. Ma più aziende basate sul sapere adottano la Ai, più questa impara sino a poterle di fatto sostituire. Cosa che inizia ad avvenire: come ha rilevato il Financial Times, negli Usa l’aumento di produttività legato alla AI sta portando a un taglio delle assunzioni di nuovi lavoratori. Secondo il finanziere i mercati però non dovrebbero farsi prendere dal panico, ma piuttosto preoccuparsi di cosa accadrà quando le istituzioni scopriranno di aver insegnato all’intelligenza artificiale “a giocare senza di loro”. Pignataro dice che il futuro può anche non finire come nel romanzo di Vonnegut, ma che questo rischio comunque esiste. Il rapporto di Citrini invece ipotizza uno scenario al 2028 in cui negli Usa la disoccupazione salirà al 10,2%, innescata dai licenziamenti causati dall’adozione dell’Ai che sbaraglierà rapidamente le società che producono software e le applicazioni di consegna della Gig economy. Questa ipotetica recessione, aggravata dai default sui mutui dei lavoratori rimasti senza salari e dai default sui prestiti del private equity, potrebbe provocare un’onda d’urto nei sistemi finanziari, facendo crollare le azioni statunitensi, bloccando i mercati del credito e l’economia in generale. “Le capacità dell’intelligenza artificiale sono migliorate, le aziende hanno avuto bisogno di meno lavoratori, i licenziamenti dei colletti bianchi sono aumentati… si tratta di un circolo vizioso negativo senza un freno naturale”, ha scritto Alap Shah, autore del rapporto Citrini. Simili preoccupazioni di ampio respiro questo mese sono circolate tra gli investitori anche su alcuni blog tra i quali quello di Matt Shumer, Ceo e co-fondatore dell’azienda di intelligenza artificiale Otherside Ai. La portata del potere dirompente dell’intelligenza artificiale che per Shumer potrebbe essere “molto più grande” della crisi del Covid del 2020. Lo studio di Citrini, spiega Reuters, tocca una corda sensibile nei mercati, preoccupati dal potenziale impatto negativo dell’intelligenza artificiale. Gli investitori hanno venduto le azioni delle aziende di software e di quelle dei settori vulnerabili all’automazione. “L’intelligenza artificiale è reale… la divergenza è reale e la svendita (delle azioni delle imprese di software) è comprensibile, poiché l’intelligenza artificiale le costringerà a portare a zero la codifica del software”, ha affermato Christopher Forbes, responsabile per l’Asia e il Medio Oriente di Cmc Markets. “Chi è nella catena di fornitura ne trarrà vantaggio: chip, data center, energia permanente”. Nei giorni scorsi, dopo la diffusione della notizia che alcuni prodotti Ai sono già in grado di produrre software, migliorarlo da sé e gestire i flussi di molte aziende alle quali invece i programmi informatici sono venduti dalle aziende del settore Software as a Service (SaaS), le società quotate a Wall Street hanno perso 2mila miliardi di dollari di capitalizzazione di Borsa. L’indice azionario statunitense del software è così sceso del 24% da inizio anno e di oltre il 30% dai massimi di ottobre scorso. Sebbene i mercati azionari globali rimangano vicini ai massimi storici, queste vendite segnalano una massiccia rotazione di molte aziende esposte all’intelligenza artificiale verso titoli difensivi o verso zone redditizie della catena di fornitura. Per converso, le azioni dei giganti asiatici che producono i chip utilizzati dai datacenter di Ai sono saliti alle stelle. Da ottobre il titolo Tsmc è cresciuto del 30%, quello di Samsung Electronics è addirittura raddoppiato. Domani è attesa la trimestrale di Nvidia che potrebbe determinare una nuova spinta al trend rialzista del settore. Dopo l’analisi di Citrini l’impatto sui titoli quotati è stato immediato. Ieri a Wall Street il report della casa Usa, insieme al lancio di un nuovo prodotto da parte di Anthropic, hanno messo di nuovo a soqquadro i settori considerati perdenti nella corsa all’applicazione dell’intelligenza artificiale. L’indice S&P500 ha perso l’1,1% e il peggior settore è stato quello della finanza, -3,3%. Le principali banche degli Stati Uniti hanno lasciato sul terreno tra il 4% e il 5%. Stamane il contraccolpo si è spostato sui titoli dei servizi software indiani i quali, in linea con la svendita del settore tecnologico statunitense, sono crollati trascinando al ribasso del 4,7% l’indice settoriale Nse Nifty IT della Borsa di Mumbai, che ha toccato i minimi da agosto 2023. Le azioni di Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys e Wipro sono scese di circa il 3-4% ciascuna. Le aziende indiane di servizi IT sono emerse come il volto del “mercato della paura dell’IA” in Asia, nonostante le aziende della regione si siano rafforzate grazie all’ottimismo riguardo all’espansione dell’hardware. L’indicatore del settore è crollato del 21% a febbraio, avviandosi verso il suo peggior mese dal 2003 e cancellando capitalizzazione per oltre 54 miliardi di dollari. L'articolo L’Intelligenza artificiale ora fa paura: a Wall Street e Mumbai crollano le azioni del software proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Presidente Mattarella, i tecnici informatici che hanno opposto una convinta resistenza alla installazione permanente del software ECM nei computer del Tribunale di Torino meritano una onorificenza, per l’altro senso delle Istituzioni che hanno dimostrato. I fatti sono stati raccontati da Report (sempre più assediato dal Governo Meloni) nella puntata di domenica scorsa, ma vale la pena richiamarli ed inquadrarli nella cornice dovuta, prima che scivolino via con la velocità di una goccia di pioggia sul parabrezza. Quei tecnici informatici, dopo aver considerato la potenziale pericolosità del software installato dal Ministero della Giustizia su tutti i terminali in uso nei tribunali italiani, hanno fatto una cosa straordinariamente normale: l’hanno disinstallato, garantendo comunque l’aggiornamento e quindi la sicurezza delle macchine. Nessuna prova che qualcuno avesse abusato di quel programma per spiare atti di indagine segreti, nessun indizio che qualcuno lo avrebbe fatto, ma la semplice certezza che lo si sarebbe potuto fare ha fatto prevale sul conformismo burocratico, il principio di precauzione che fonda da sempre la ragion d’essere stessa della burocrazia di uno Stato. Prudenza e precauzione impongono di evitare di esporre una articolazione così sensibile della Repubblica al rischio dell’abuso di potere e pazienza se a questi basilari principi di buon governo sono sembrati quanto meno sordi tanto il Ministero della Giustizia quanto l’evocata Presidenza del Consiglio, c’è stato chi, da semplice “ruota del carro”, si è preso la briga di farli valere. Questi tecnici informatici hanno obiettato alla burocrazia dell’adempimento, ampiamente praticata in chiave difensiva, a prescindere dall’esito prodotto. Questi tecnici hanno esercitato fino in fondo il mandato costituzionale della sovranità popolare e si sono assunti la responsabilità di resistere, di avvertire, di ottenere una reazione ministeriale, capitolando infine soltanto a fronte di un atto formale del Ministero medesimo che confermava in maniera lapidaria e (per ora) indiscutibile la ortodossia del software. Lasciamo ai magistrati che stanno indagando la valutazione della eventuale rilevanza penale di quanto sarebbe stato documentato dai tecnici informatici stessi e rappresentato dalla puntata di Report relativamente a direttive precise targate Presidenza del Consiglio finalizzate ad ottenere, con le buone o con le cattive, la piena “controllabilità” dei computer dei magistrati, scenario questo che qualora fosse confermato avrebbe una portata talmente eversiva dell’ordine costituzionale da meritare una incriminazione per alto tradimento e concentriamoci piuttosto sulla condotta dei tecnici informatici sostenuti in questa nobile obiezione di coscienza da alcuni magistrati del distretto di Torino. Quanto vale un comportamento del genere? Sembra di sentire le parole del Presidente-partigiano Sandro Pertini “I giovani non hanno bisogno di discorsi, ma di esempi!”, o quelle di Norberto Bobbio “la democrazia vive di buone leggi e di buoni costumi”. Tra i “buoni costumi” di cui si nutre la democrazia c’è proprio l’assunzione intransigente di responsabilità a prescindere dal proprio tornaconto. Per dirla con le parole del poeta Antonio Albanese, nel pase del “Fatti i ca..i toi”, questi tecnici sono dei pericolosi sovversivi. La portata di questa rivoluzione si comprende anche riflettendo sul dilagare impressionante dello spionaggio informatico, sempre più praticato come nuova frontiera della lotta per il potere. Per carità, il potere ha sempre avuto a che fare con la disponibilità di informazioni riservate: chi sa, comanda. Ma oggi il potere dei segreti passa dalla conquista di bit invisibili, classificati, crittografati. Niente più inchiostro simpatico a base di succo di limone, ma caterve di microchip miracolosi, veloci come la luce. Pensiamo ad alcuni clamorosi casi di cronaca recente: l’agenzia Equalize a Milano, la Squadra Fiore a Roma, le denunce del ministro Crosetto che stanno facendo tremare palazzi e redazioni romane, il caso “Bellavia” con la ex collaboratrice denunciata per essersene andata portandosi via quintali di informazioni riservate, per non parlare di certi magistrati che non trovano nulla di strano nel pubblicare il contenuto di intercettazioni ancora coperte da segreto. Nel gran bazar delle informazioni questi tecnici informatici, accortisi del pericolo, non hanno avuto esitazioni ed hanno tirato il freno senza nemmeno essere sfiorati dalla tentazione di approfittare della scoperta, aprendo a loro volta un bel banco al mercato. L’hanno fatto per precauzione che è quella cosa che in un Paese evita tragedie come Vajont, Niscemi o Crans Montana. Presidente, non li condanni all’anonimato, li illumini di onore repubblicano, così che sia chiaro che a volte per ubbidire alla Costituzione bisogna avere il coraggio di disubbidire ad un ministero. L'articolo Mattarella dia un’onorificenza gli informatici del Tribunale di Torino che hanno detto no al software spia proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

PARIS — France will ban public officials from using American platforms including Google Meet, Zoom and Teams for videoconferencing, a spokesperson told POLITICO. The decision, part of an effort to shift government activities onto a home-grown technology platform, comes amid rising sensitivity in Europe about the deep reliance on U.S. services. The prime minister’s office has prepared a notice requiring state officials to use Visio, a videoconferencing software designed by the country’s Interministerial Digital Authority (Dinum). It runs on infrastructure provided by the French company Outscale. The notice will be published “in the next few days,” a spokesperson from Dinum said. That follows an announcement on Sunday by the Minister for State Reform David Amiel that France would target the adoption of a home-grown videoconferencing platform by 2027. France last summer mandated that officials get off WhatsApp and Telegram and instead use Tchap, an instant messaging service designed exclusively for civil servants. Visio is already used by 40,000 staff — including most ministries and some of their subsidiaries, such as the French National Centre for Scientific Research. Dinum is aiming for 250,000 users. The department will monitor compliance with the transition and may, in the coming months, block flows from other video tools through the state’s internet network, it said.

PARIS — Tech billionaire and early Trump backer Peter Thiel is bringing his Antichrist lecture series across the Atlantic. The famed venture capitalist and right-wing tech icon on Monday delivered an in-depth presentation on the subjects to a small audience inside the wood-paneled halls of one of France’s most prestigious bodies, the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, two attendees told POLITICO. An outline of Thiel’s 23-slide presentation, distributed to attendees by the organizer and shared with POLITICO, delves into the theory of the biblical Antichrist, a deceptive figure in Christian theology who opposes Christ and embodies ultimate evil. The presentation sheds light on the ideology of one of the most influential figures in the United States given his role at the vanguard of Silicon Valley’s ideological shift toward an ideology blending Christian conservatism with a radical libertarianism. Thiel was invited by philosopher and academy member Chantal Delsol. According to the presentation notes seen by POLITICO, which had been translated into French, Thiel said the Antichrist is “not only a medieval fantasy” but that it and the apocalypse are both linked to “the end of modernity,” which he has argued is currently happening. Thiel said the Antichrist would exploit fears of the apocalypse — for example due to nuclear armageddeon, climate change or the threat posed by AI — to control a “frightened population.” He listed, as he has on previous occasions, Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg as a possible example. The 58-year-old self-described “classic liberal” and “moderate Orthodox Christian” had previously spoken about the Antichrist at an even in San Francisco last year and also discussed his thoughts on it with The New York Times. But he called the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences “one of the few places in the world where a conference like this can take place.” The two attendees previously cited told POLITICO they weren’t exactly blown away with the talk. One called it “disjointed.” The other said: “I heard more about the Antichrist during those 45 minutes than during the rest of my life.” “I didn’t understand much,” said a third attendee who did not specify what the talk was about. Despite the 30 or so protesters outside the venue, the event was highly anticipated given Thiel’s status as one of the first major figures in the tech world to back U.S. President Donald Trump. Thiel, who co-founded PayPal with Elon Musk and was an early investor in Facebook, is also a mentor to Vice President JD Vance and donated a record-breaking amount of money to his campaign for U.S. Senate. Thiel is also a co-founder of Palantir, a software and data analysis company that provides services to France’s General Directorate for Internal Security — the French equivalent of the FBI — and the European aircraft-maker Airbus. Thiel also met with French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Noël Barrot during his visit to Paris. “Given the role he has played in shaping the doctrine that drives part of the U.S. administration, Jean-Noël Barrot has invited him for a discussion on our differences of opinion on several major issues: digital regulation, liberal democracy, European civilization, and transatlantic relations in particular,” an aide to Barrot, granted anonymity to adhere to French professional norms, told POLITICO. Giorgio Leali contributed to this report.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Europa steht wirtschaftlich und technologisch unter Druck. Im Gespräch am Rande des World Economic Forums in Davos macht Christian Klein, CEO von SAP, deutlich, warum die eigentliche Bewährungsprobe nicht bei Energiepreisen oder Hardware liegt, sondern bei der konsequenten Anwendung von Künstlicher Intelligenz. Er erklärt, weshalb Europa seine industrielle Stärke nur halten kann, wenn Unternehmen und Politik jetzt gemeinsam auf KI setzen und warum Software und hochwertige Unternehmensdaten dabei der entscheidende Hebel sind. Klein erläutert, was er von der Bundesregierung und von Brüssel erwartet, warum wirtschaftliches Wachstum Voraussetzung für den Erhalt sozialer Standards ist und weshalb eine Koalition der Willigen in Europa nötig wäre, um Wettbewerbsfähigkeit zurückzugewinnen.  Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 information@axelspringer.de Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

LONDON — British businesses that have plowed millions into border control facilities are demanding compensation from the U.K. government over its Brexit “reset” deal with the European Union. Since the U.K. left the bloc, dozens of firms importing plants and fresh produce from the continent have invested in purpose-built inspection facilities, known as “control points,” in an attempt to reduce the border friction and costs associated with EU trade.  By developing in-house facilities, businesses had hoped to bypass the expense and disruption that had plagued larger border control posts, like the government’s Sevington site in Kent. But as the U.K. and EU negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) deal — which is expected to remove the need for most border checks on food imported from the bloc — business owners now fear these facilities will be rendered redundant. Nigel Jenney, CEO of the Fresh Produce Consortium, said several members had spent “anything from a few hundred thousand to several millions” on control points to accommodate checks on imports of fresh fruit and vegetables and cut flowers. “In good faith, the industry proactively responded to the requests of government; and now it’s been hung out to dry, costing modest family businesses huge amounts of money,” Jenney added. ‘BITTERSWEET’ DEAL Provender Nurseries, a wholesaler of plants and plant products that imports 80 percent of its stock from the EU, is one of many firms in this predicament. In 2024, it splashed out around £250,000 to convert a large general-purpose barn into a control point, the culmination of three years of paperwork.   Speaking to POLITICO on site in Swanley, Kent, where workers were busy unloading a shipment of trees from Italy ready for inspection, Provender’s site operations manager Stuart Tickner said the prospect of an SPS deal was “bittersweet” for the business. “I fully support and back up the SPS agreement,” Tickner said, pointing out that it would decrease border friction with the EU. “But at the same time, we’ve spent a lot of time, money and effort to achieve it [the control point]. So it’s gutting that it’s got to go.” Investment in the control point has also restricted the business’s ability to grow, he claims.  “We’ve pumped so much money into it [the control point] that the directors are reluctant to invest in more at the moment,” Tickner added. Provender Nurseries, a wholesaler of plants and plant products that imports 80 percent of its stock from the EU, is one of many firms in this predicament. | Photo by Provender Nurseries A U.K. government spokesperson said: “We are focused on delivering a food and drink deal that could add up to £5.1 billion a year to our economy, supporting British producers and businesses, backing British jobs, and putting more money in people’s pockets.” “With negotiations ongoing, our aim is to reduce regulatory barriers, slash costs, and cut red tape for businesses, while maintaining the UK’s high biosecurity standards.” CALLS FOR COMPENSATION  Shortly after the U.K. and EU announced plans for an SPS deal last May, Tickner and two other horticultural businesses wrote to former Farming Minister Daniel Zeichner asking for a meeting on the issue of compensation for control points.   In their letter, shared with POLITICO, the businesses warned of “significant knock-on effects” for businesses like theirs that have invested in control points.  “This process involved not only major capital expenditure, but also serious operational impacts, including staffing adjustments, the implementation of import software and compliance systems, and long-term contractual commitments,” they said. “Importantly, the building of these control points also caused substantial disruption to our day-to-day operations,” they added. “Many of us had to redesign or repurpose areas of our business premises, manage construction activity around ongoing operations, and absorb the associated delays and interruptions to normal business.” Neither Zeichner nor his successor, Angela Eagle, responded to the letter or follow-up messages sent by Tickner.  These are just the latest calls for compensation for potentially redundant Brexit border facilities. Last year, POLITICO reported that the British taxpayer had spent more than £700 million on border control posts, which may no longer be needed once the SPS deal comes into effect.  That’s not counting the £120 million that British ports themselves splashed out on specialist facilities. Ports are also demanding compensation from the government.  While Tickner and his colleagues have managed to make good use of their control point since the introduction of checks on imported plants from the EU in April 2024, other businesses with control points have been less fortunate. In June last year, the government announced that it would scrap checks on fruit and vegetables in anticipation of the SPS deal, meaning many of these facilities are underused. More recently, the government announced that it would reduce inspection rates for four popular varieties of cut flowers imported from the EU. “The government is constantly changing its mind. I’ve lost count of the amount of U-turns,” Fresh Produce Consortium CEO Jenney said, the exasperation clear in his voice.  Speaking to POLITICO on site in Swanley, Kent, where workers were busy unloading a shipment of trees from Italy ready for inspection, Provender’s site operations manager Stuart Tickner said the prospect of an SPS deal was “bittersweet” for the business. | Photo by Provender Nurserie “We have secured confirmation of a low-risk position for fruit and vegetables and most cut flowers from Europe. But that’s after the industry has spent a small fortune doing what the government wanted us to do. There is now no likelihood of future income because the reset would appear to remove that requirement.” PILOT SCHEME SCRAPPED To make matters more difficult for these businesses, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last year cancelled the rollout of an “Authorised Operator Scheme,” which would have allowed businesses to carry out their own checks on imports, following a pilot.  Firms running control points must instead rely on government inspectors to check imports, who only work certain hours of the week, defeating a key purpose of control points. “Government gave businesses a clear message and advice that for those importing perishable and sensitive goods at scale, investing in control points to then have the chance to achieve Authorised Operator Status was the best option to control your supply chains and give critical certainty,” said Jennifer Pheasey, director of policy and public affairs at the Horticultural Trades Association.  By canning the Authorised Operator Scheme scheme and agreeing to an SPS deal, control points “cannot deliver real returns and will be underutilized,” she added. HTA is now joining calls for government support for businesses that have invested in control points to help them mitigate and repurpose.  Like plant importers, Jenney would also like to see his members compensated for their investment in control points.  “We’d love to see businesses compensated for the losses they’ve incurred through no fault of their own — but we also accept that the government might find that difficult. What there does need to be is a genuine awareness of the cost burden that they’ve placed on industry and to make sure it never, ever happens again.”

Report rivela che tutti i computer dei magistrati d’Italia sono resi vulnerabili da un software installato su 40mila terminali che consente di accedere da remoto ai pc senza che loro se ne accorgano. Il Ministero ammette che questo software esiste, ma sostiene che non è attivato e che richiede il consenso. Lo scontro diventa subito politico, con il Pd che chiede le dimissioni del ministro e Carlo Nordio che nega ogni rischio e ribalta la questione: “Ci accusate di spiare i magistrati, una cosa gravissima”. E rincara: “Ranucci crea allarme sociale”. > Visualizza questo post su Instagram > > > > > Un post condiviso da ReportRai3 (@reportrai3) Eppure la prova provata c’è, e l’ha fatta proprio un magistrato. con un test autorizzato che ha dimostrato il contrario: un tecnico è entrato nel suo pc senza alcun alert. Il giudice Aldo Tirone del tribunale di Alessandria ha autorizzato un tecnico locale a intrufolarsi nel suo computer per verificare di persona se il software ECM/SCCM di Microsoft consente davvero il controllo remoto invisibile. Ha provato. Ha ottenuto accesso totale. Senza neanche una notifica sullo schermo. Senza alcun alert che chiedesse il consenso. Sigfrido Ranucci ha mostrato questa “prova pratica” in un video di anticipazione della puntata che andrà in onda domenica sera su Rai3 alle 20.30. Tirone cha accettato di mettere la faccia, raccontando in chiaro come un tecnico si sia introdotto nel suo desktop mentre lui era seduto al tavolo di lavoro, osservando ogni movimento sullo schermo, ogni file aperto, ogni operazione compiuta. Nessun segnale visibile dell’accesso remoto. Nessun modo per il magistrato di sapere che stava accadendo in tempo reale. Non solo. Report raccoglie anche la testimonianza di un esperto di cyber sicurezza indipendente che lavora con le procure. Mostrerà come funziona nella pratica: qualsiasi tecnico con privilegi amministrativi può entrare nei setting del software, riconfigurarlo, disabilitare gli alert in modo che non compaia nessuna richiesta di autorizzazione all’utente. Le tracce dell’accesso rimangono nei log solo per 10 minuti. Dopo si cancellano. Impossibile sapere a posteriori se qualcuno è stato nel computer. Il software è ECM/SCCM, un prodotto Microsoft per la gestione centralizzata dei dispositivi: aggiornamenti software, configurazioni, manutenzione da remoto. Dal 2019 è installato su 40mila computer in procure e tribunali. Il Ministero della Giustizia sostiene che il controllo remoto è disattivato come impostazione predefinita e che se attivato chiederebbe il consenso. Ma gli esperti sentiti da Report spiegheranno invece che è uno strumento pensato per i totem delle metropolitane o i registratori di cassa dei supermercati: completamente inadatto per computer che trattano fascicoli sensibili dello Stato e informazioni coperte da segreto istruttorio. Nel 2024 la Procura di Torino ha sollevato il problema direttamente al Ministero della Giustizia. Cosa è successo? La questione è stata “archiviata” rapidamente. Una testimonianza raccolta da Report racconta che un dirigente ministeriale locale ha comunicato ai colleghi della Procura una direttiva precisa: “Non devono rompere ” perché “questa cosa ce l’ha chiesta la Presidenza del Consiglio“. Report ha chiesto chiarimenti a Palazzo Chigi sulla questione. Il Ministero sostiene pubblicamente che la gestione del sistema è limitata a un “ristretto nucleo di persone”. Non è così. I tecnici con accesso amministrativo sono centinaia: i tecnici locali in ogni distretto giudiziario (Piemonte, Lombardia, Lazio, ecc.), il personale del Dipartimento per i servizi tecnologici a Roma, le ditte esterne in appalto per la manutenzione. Uno solo compromesso, uno solo mosso da cattive intenzioni, avrebbe accesso ai computer di qualsiasi magistrato della Repubblica. Il Ministero non ha risposto alle richieste di chiarimenti di Report, dicendo che i contratti con Microsoft sono coperti da “clausole di segretezza”. La difesa ministeriale si regge sull’affermazione che il software è disattivato nelle configurazioni standard, ma come spiegheranno gli esperti, chiunque con privilegi di amministratore può riattivarlo senza lasciare tracce verificabili. La cronologia dei fatti parla da sola: una Procura segnala il rischio nel 2024. Il Ministero lo archivia. Un magistrato fa una prova autorizzata e scopre che il rischio è reale. Il Ministero continua a negare. E aspetta che sia la televisione a raccontare quello che lui non ha voluto dire. Report trasmette l’inchiesta completa domenica alle 20.30 su Rai3. L'articolo “È possibile spiare i pc dei magistrati”. Nordio nega: “Accuse surreali”. Ma Report mostra la prova in diretta proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

The message from Capitol Hill on both sides of the aisle is clear: Get ready for U.S. relations with China to spiral all over again in the new year. The one-year trade truce brokered in October between President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping is already looking shaky. And lawmakers are preparing to reup clashes over trade, Taiwan and cyber-intrusions when they return in January. “It’s like a heavyweight fight, and we’re in that short time period in-between rounds, but both sides need to be preparing for what is next after the truce,” Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), a member of the House Select Committee on China, said in an interview. POLITICO talked to more than 25 lawmakers, including those on the House Select Committee on China, the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s East Asia subcommittee and the Congressional Executive Commission on China, for their views on the durability of the trade treaty. Both Republicans and Democrats warned of turbulence ahead. More than 20 of the lawmakers said they doubt Xi will deliver on key pledges the White House said he made in October, including reducing the flow of precursor chemicals to Mexico that cartels process into fentanyl and buying agreed volumes of U.S. agricultural goods. “China can never be trusted. They’re always looking for an angle,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said. That pessimism comes despite an easing in U.S.-China tensions since the Trump-Xi meeting in South Korea. The bruising cycle of tit-for-tat tariffs that briefly hit triple digits earlier this year is currently on pause. Both countries have relaxed export restrictions on essential items (rare earths for the U.S., chip design software for China), while Beijing has committed to “expanding agricultural product trade” in an apparent reference to the suspension of imports of U.S. agricultural products it imposed earlier this year. This trend may continue, given that Trump is likely to want stability in the U.S.-China relationship ahead of a summit with Xi planned for April in Beijing. “We’re starting to see some movement now on some of their tariff issues and the fentanyl precursor issue,” Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said. But a series of issues have been brushed aside in negotiations or left in limbo — a status quo the Trump administration can only maintain for so long. The U.S.-China trade deal on rare earths that Bessent said the two countries would finalize by Thanksgiving remains unsettled. And the White House hasn’t confirmed reporting from earlier this month that Beijing-based ByteDance has finalized the sale of the TikTok social media app ahead of the Jan. 23 deadline for that agreement. “The idea that we’re in a period of stability with Beijing is simply not accurate,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Shaheen has been sounding the alarm on China’s national security threats since she entered the Senate in 2009. But even some lawmakers who have been more open to engagement with Beijing — such as California Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna and Ami Bera — said that they don’t expect the armistice to last. The White House is more upbeat about the prospects for U.S.-China trade ties. “President Trump’s close relationship with President Xi is helping ensure that both countries are able to continue building on progress and continue resolving outstanding issues,” the White House said in a statement, adding that the administration “continues to monitor China’s compliance with our trade agreement.” It declined to comment on the TikTok deal. Still, the lawmakers POLITICO spoke with described four issues that could derail U.S.-China ties in the New Year: A SOYBEAN SPOILER U.S. soybean farmers’ reliance on the Chinese market gives Beijing a powerful non-tariff trade weapon — and China doesn’t appear to be following through on promises to renew purchases. The standoff over soybeans started in May, when China halted those purchases, raising the prospect of financial ruin across farming states including Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and Indiana — key political constituencies for the GOP in the congressional midterm elections next year. The White House said last month that Xi committed to buying 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans in November and December. But so far, Beijing has only purchased a fraction of that agreed total, NBC reported this month. “What agitates Trump and causes him to react quickly are things that are more domestic and closer to home,” Rep. Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii) said. China’s foot-dragging on soybean purchases “is the most triggering because it’s hurting American farmers and consumers, so that’s where we could see the most volatility in the relationship,” she said. That trigger could come on Feb. 28 — the new deadline for that 12 million metric ton purchase, which Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced earlier this month. The Chinese embassy in Washington declined to comment on whether Beijing plans to meet this deadline. The White House said one of the aspects of the trade deal it is monitoring is soybean purchases through this growing season. THE TAIWAN TINDERBOX Beijing’s threats to invade Taiwan are another near-term potential flashpoint, even though the U.S. hasn’t prioritized the issue in its national security strategy or talks between Xi and Trump. China has increased its preparations for a Taiwan invasion this year. In October, the Chinese military debuted a new military barge system that addresses some of the challenges of landing on the island’s beaches by deploying a bridge for cargo ships to unload tanks or trucks directly onto the shore. “China is tightening the noose around the island,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who joined a bipartisan congressional delegation to China in September and returned calling for better communications between the U.S. and Chinese militaries. Some of the tension around Taiwan is playing out in the wider region, as Beijing pushes to expand its military reach and its influence. Chinese fighter jets locked radar — a prelude to opening fire — on Japanese aircraft earlier this month in the East China Sea. “There is a real chance that Xi overplays his hand on antagonizing our allies, particularly Australia and Japan,” Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) said. “There is still a line [China] cannot cross without making this truce impossible to sustain.” The U.S. has a decades-long policy of “strategic ambiguity” under which it refuses to spell out how the U.S. would respond to Chinese aggression against Taiwan. Trump has also adhered to that policy. “You’ll find out if it happens,” Trump said in an interview with 60 Minutes in November. MORE EXPORT RESTRICTIONS ON THE WAY Beijing has eased its export restrictions on rare earths — metallic elements essential to both civilian and military applications — but could reimpose those blocks at any time. Ten of the 25 lawmakers who spoke to POLITICO said they suspect Beijing will reimpose those export curbs as a convenient pressure point in the coming months. “At the center of the crack in the truce is China’s ability to levy export restrictions, especially its chokehold on the global supply of rare earths and other critical minerals,” Rep. André Carson (D-Ind.) said. Others are worried China will choose to expand its export controls to another product category for which it has market dominance — pharmaceuticals. Beijing supplies 80 percent of the U.S. supply of active pharmaceutical ingredients — the foundations of common drugs to treat everything from high blood pressure to type 2 diabetes. “Overnight, China could turn off the spigot and many basic pharmaceuticals, including things like aspirin, go away from the supply chain in the United States,” Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas) said. China restarted exports of rare earths earlier this month, and its Commerce Ministry pledged “timely approval” of such exports under a new licensing system, state media reported. Beijing has not indicated its intent to restrict the export of pharmaceuticals or their components as a trade weapon. But the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission urged the Food and Drug Administration to reduce U.S. reliance on Chinese sources of pharmaceuticals in its annual report last month. The Chinese embassy in Washington didn’t respond to a request for comment. GROWING CHINESE MILITARY MUSCLE China’s drive to develop a world-class military that can challenge traditional U.S. dominion of the Indo-Pacific could also derail relations between Washington and Beijing in 2026. China’s expanding navy — which, at more than 200 warships, is now the world’s largest — is helping Beijing show off its power across the region. The centerpiece of that effort in 2025 has been the addition of a third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, which entered into service last month. The Fujian is two-thirds the size of the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier. But like the Ford, it boasts state-of-the-art electromagnetic catapults to launch J-35 and J-15T fighter jets. The Trump administration sees that as a threat. The U.S. aims to insulate allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific from possible Chinese “sustained successful military aggression” powered by Beijing’s “historic military buildup,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said earlier this month at the Reagan National Defense Forum. Five lawmakers said they see China’s increasingly aggressive regional military footprint as incompatible with U.S. efforts to maintain a stable relationship with Beijing in the months ahead. “We know the long-term goal of China is really economic and diplomatic and military domination around the world, and they see the United States as an adversary,” Moran said. Daniel Desrochers contributed to this report.