Paramount Skydance is accusing Netflix of maintaining a campaign against its proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD).
In a June 5 letter (PDF) addressed to Jared A. Hughes, acting section chief of the Media, Entertainment, and Communications Section of the US Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Antitrust Division, and A. Maya Kahn, a trial attorney for the Antitrust Division, and first reported on by Politico today, Paramount chief legal officer Makan Delrahim accused Netflix of trying to influence stakeholders about the merger. The letter reads:
Indeed, Netflix’s panic-level response and scorched-earth campaign to try and poison regulators and other stakeholders against the Transaction shows just how seriously Netflix takes Paramount as a scaled competitor.
The letter from Delrahim, a former assistant attorney general for the Antitrust Division, is a response to a letter that The International Brotherhood of Teamsters sent to the DOJ in March. The teamsters' letter argued that Paramount and WBD's merger would threaten film and TV workers. The union, which has 1.3 million members, asked the DOJ to block the merger "unless substantial and enforceable safeguards are put in place to increase domestic production and protect jobs," per an announcement from the group.
© Mike Cohen/Getty Images for The New York Times
One day after WIRED revealed that Meta had quietly embedded an unreleased face-recognition system into an app installed on more than 50 million phones, the company removed it, according to a WIRED analysis of the latest version’s code.
The most recent version of Meta AI, a companion app for its line of smart glasses, strips out the unactivated software components that powered the system Meta internally called NameTag. The version published the day of WIRED’s report included several code libraries explicitly named for face recognition. Friday’s release includes none of them.
Andy Stone, Meta's vice president of communications, told WIRED on Monday that the feature is purely exploratory, adding: “No final decision has been made on what to do here, if anything.”
© David Paul Morris/Bloomberg/Getty
A drone boat picked up two US Army pilots from waters near the Strait of Hormuz after their helicopter gunship went down, US military officials said. The incident apparently represents the first time the US military has used a drone for such a rescue mission at sea.
The two crew members from the US Army AH-64 Apache were “rescued by American forces” at 7:33 pm US Eastern Time after their helicopter went down off the coast of Oman on June 8, according to a US Central Command press release. That press release mentioned support from US Navy units including the US 5th Fleet’s Task Force 59, which is charged with integrating uncrewed aerial, surface, and underwater vehicles, alongside AI, into 5th Fleet maritime operations.
Anonymous US military officials initially told CBS News that the Apache air crew was rescued by an uncrewed surface drone operated by Task Force 59 from the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. The officials also described the incident as the first time the military had used a drone to rescue people from the water.
© Saronic Technologies
AST SpaceMobile decoupled from recent launch disappointments by scheduling the orbital deployment of its next three satellites on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket.
The space-based mobile network company hopes to blast its BlueBird 8, 9 and 10 satellites into low Earth orbit (LEO) on 17 June. As ever, launches are dependent on various environmental and other factors, so precise timing is fluid.
AST SpaceMobile expects the latest satellites to deliver almost twice the data rates of its initial BlueBird models, which it noted recently hit 98.9Mb/s in the downlink.
Company president Scott Wisniewski said the significance of the satellites goes beyond expanding its constellation and coverage: they represent the culmination of an in-house manufacturing drive and bolster claims to having birds with the largest phase-arrayed antennas at LEO heights.
AST SpaceMobile stated the trio of satellites are already stacked using a proprietary architecture and ready to be integrated with the SpaceX rocket.
The scheduled launch is something of a firing back by AST SpaceMobile at commentators who questioned whether a recent failure of a Blue Origin New Glenn rocket during a test would impact a plan to conduct regular launches throughout 2026.
The post AST SpaceMobile turns to SpaceX for next launches appeared first on Mobile World Live.
A new proposed Senate bill aims to establish clear guardrails for the U.S. military’s use of artificial intelligence (AI), drawing a definitive line on one of the most consequential questions in modern warfare: who has the final say when lethal force is used?
On June 8, Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced the proposed Human Authority in Lethal Operations Act of 2026, or “HALO Act,” which would impose sweeping requirements on the Department of War (DoW) to ensure that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems remain under meaningful human control.
The legislation would establish new design standards, testing requirements, oversight procedures, and legal safeguards for military systems that use artificial intelligence to identify, recommend, prioritize, or engage targets.
The bill aims to ensure that responsibility for battlefield decisions remains with human commanders, rather than shifting to algorithms. The legislation would require the Pentagon to designate accountable commanders for any engagement involving AI-enabled autonomous or semi-autonomous weapons and mandates that those commanders retain “ultimate discretion, judgment, and control over the use of force.”
“The past few months have shown us that there is an urgent need for commonsense guardrails to ensure the Defense Department’s use of AI is in line with Americans’ national security and privacy priorities,” Sen. Schiff said in a press release. “There are good reasons to use AI technology to advance our national security,” although he emphasized that, like with any tool, AI should not be allowed solely to guide human enterprises, “particularly when the risks of harm can be fatal.”
The proposal arrives amid growing concern among policymakers, military planners, and technology experts about the increasing role of artificial intelligence in combat operations.
Significantly, these concerns are no longer theoretical. As The Debrief previously reported, Israel’s reported use of the AI targeting system “Lavender” in Gaza triggered renewed debate over how much trust militaries should place in algorithmic target selection, particularly when civilian lives may be at risk.
Other recent examples have added to the concern, including studies showing that AI models can escalate dangerously in simulated war games, as well as the Pentagon’s continued push toward autonomous drones, AI-controlled aircraft, and robotic battlefield systems.
Even Pope Leo XIV recently weighed in on the issue in Magnifica Humanitas, his first encyclical, or formal papal teaching letter, warning that autonomous weapons could make war more feasible and less subject to human control, and arguing that lethal decisions must not be delegated to opaque or automated processes.
While the Pentagon has repeatedly stressed its commitment to responsible AI development, the HALO Act would codify many of those principles into law and create new statutory requirements governing how military AI systems are designed, tested, approved, and monitored.
Among the bill’s most significant provisions are requirements that autonomous weapon systems operate within predefined geographic areas, target sets, and timeframes. If a system cannot complete an engagement within those authorized parameters, it would be required to terminate the engagement until additional human operator and commander review is completed.
The legislation also calls for extensive record-keeping, cybersecurity protections, and continuous oversight to guard against unintended engagements and hostile manipulation.
The bill would also require senior Pentagon officials to conduct formal reviews before AI-enabled weapons enter development and again before they are fielded. Those reviews would assess legal compliance, operational safety, reliability, cybersecurity, and risks to civilians and protected infrastructure under the Law of Armed Conflict.
Beyond battlefield autonomy, the legislation targets several controversial uses of artificial intelligence in national security. It would prohibit covered Defense Department AI capabilities from inferring a person’s religion, race, political identity, sexual orientation, or emotional state. It would also restrict the purchase or receipt of Americans’ personal data from data brokers or other third-party sources when that data was obtained in a manner that would violate the bill’s rules.
Perhaps most notably, the proposed HALO Act explicitly forbids removing humans from decision-making processes involving presidential actions related to nuclear weapons.
“No covered artificial intelligence capability may be used with the intent, purpose, or outcome of… removing a human from the chain of decisionmaking for actions critical to informing and executing decisions by the President, including initiating or terminating nuclear weapons employment,” the proposed bill reads.
The measure also includes whistleblower protections for personnel working on military AI systems, mandates regular reporting to Congress, and requires the Pentagon to identify and remediate any fielded systems that fail to meet the law’s requirements.
Existing autonomous systems would undergo a comprehensive review, and any system found to be noncompliant could face retirement, modification, or suspension pending corrective action.
While the bill includes exemptions for certain defensive systems, cyber capabilities, mines, and other categories of military technology, its wider message is that as artificial intelligence becomes more deeply integrated into national defense, Congress wants humans, not machines, to remain responsible for high-stakes decisions.
The HALO Act is not the only effort underway on Capitol Hill to establish guardrails around military AI.
In March, Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) introduced the AI Guardrails Act. Last week, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) introduced separate legislation that would similarly prohibit the Pentagon from using artificial intelligence to launch nuclear weapons, conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans, or deploy fully autonomous weapons.
“Right now, the Pentagon is moving toward deploying incredibly powerful AI technology without commonsense guardrails in place, which could have catastrophic consequences that make all of us less safe,” Sen. Gillibrand said in a statement. “We must act now – not to stifle technological progress, but to establish clear rules of the road that keep humans in charge and keep AI’s use in warfare smart and safe.”
The competing proposals could set the stage for a broader congressional debate over the role of artificial intelligence in future military operations, particularly if lawmakers seek to incorporate them into the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Before that can happen, however, the HALO Act and similar proposals must navigate the legislative process. The bills will first be considered by the relevant Senate committee, where lawmakers may hold hearings, debate their provisions, amend the text, or decline to advance them. If approved, it would then need to pass both the Senate and the House before being sent to the president for signature, either as a standalone measure or as part of a larger NDAA.
“My legislation would protect Americans from unlawful domestic surveillance, ensure that humans in the chain of command exercise responsibility for the use of any lethal technology, and maintain strong ethical protections in the deployment of autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons,” Sen. Schiff said in a statement.
Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan. Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com
As Apple announced last year, this year's macOS release will end support for Intel Macs. The macOS 27 Golden Gate release will require a Mac with an Apple Silicon chip inside, including the original M1 that launched in the MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, and Mac mini back in late 2020.
Intel Macs running macOS 26 Tahoe can expect security and Safari patches for about two more years after the release of macOS 27 Golden Gate. Macs running macOS 15 Sequoia will receive one more year of updates. Apple Silicon Macs will still be able to run Intel Mac apps via the Rosetta 2 compatibility layer in macOS 27, but future releases will begin to limit the technology (Apple has said it will mainly be used to support older games that still use Intel code).
This change has been a long time coming, and every new macOS release has left a longer and longer list of Intel Macs behind. But many Mac owners who purchased late-model Intel machines in 2019 and 2020 could still run the latest version of the operating system, and third-party utilities like the OpenCore Legacy Patcher helped more adventurous Mac owners use their unsupported hardware a bit longer.
© Apple
If you're using older iPhone or iPad hardware and you're hoping to keep running Apple's latest operating systems, this year's releases bring mostly good news. The iOS 27 update will run on all iPhones that can run iOS 26, all the way back to the iPhone 11 and second-generation iPhone SE. The iPadOS 27 update is slightly less generous, dropping support for the 3rd-generation iPad Air, 8th-generation iPad, and 5th-generation iPad mini (all of these devices used an older A12 Bionic chip; supported devices now use an A13 or better).
Apple says owners of older devices should see performance improvements in iOS 27, thanks in part to an updated CPU scheduler. This scheduler was apparently already included with newer iPhones but has been ported back to older devices with this release.
But many of the new features Apple mentioned require support for Apple Intelligence, which remains confined to newer devices with at least 8GB of RAM. Apple Intelligence still requires an iPhone 15 Pro or newer, an iPhone 16 or newer, or an iPhone Air. On the iPad, support requires an iPad Air or iPad Pro with an M1 or newer.
© Apple
Login