Fairy NuffI wasnt sold on the Switch 2, but then Nintendo promised me a remaster of a game Ive been hankering to play again for over 10 yearsA brave decision for a remake, now Im defaulting to a Day One purchaseImage credit: VG247 Article by Dom Peppiatt Editor-in-chief Published on April 2, 2025 About two days before this big Nintendo Switch 2 Direct, I purchased a new set of charging cables for my 3DS. The old ones, assumedly, are consigned to the depths of a misc draw somewhere in my house, cursed to never see the light of day again. I nabbed these 3 beauties because I have had a hankering to play some bonafide classics again, lately: Shin Megami Tensei 4, Shin Megami Tensei 4: Apocalypse, and the original Bravely Default.To see this content please enable targeting cookies. Now, Ive not been too fussed about the Switch 2 up to this point. The price point for entry, $449.99, is steep. Horribly steep, actually. And it looks like games will retail at $80 a pop, too. Were still in the dark about exactly which games will be compatible. Im not thrilled that we will have to pay for upgrades to existing Switch games if we want the nice(r) Switch 2 versions. I dont particularly have a fondness for Nintendo first-party titles, outside of Pokemon. I was a Sega kid growing up, OK?So I wasnt like you, the vast majority of the audience that has clicked through to this piece, at the beginning of the Direct: I wasnt going to get a Switch 2, day one. But Im a sucker for RPGs, man. Especially RPGs with a classic Japanese development team behind them (but do we call them JRPGs? The debate rages on). And then, as my 3DS sat on my desk idling on the Home Screen, the original little icon for Bravely Default twinkling at me seductively, whats that I hear on my TV? The battle theme? Oh my.You can see the trailer below. And you know what? This little 2.43 minute masterpiece got me; I was right there on the Nintendo site jostling desperately in the virtual moshpit trying to secure my pre-order. $450 of my hard-earned money to play an RPG from 2013 - what the hell is wrong with me?We're so back.Watch on YouTubeLook, I know the game is flawed. The late-game section is controversial, and pads out the run-time superficially - if you want to be uncharitable. But I enjoyed the way it really pushed you to be smart about how you managed battle resources and your characters HP. I know Im in the minority there, but that ending hike up a pretty steep difficulty curve put me in mind of the early Final Fantasy games. Thats not a bad thing.The main character designer and art director is Akihiko Yoshida. Yes, the mastermind behind the visual style of both Final Fantasy Tactics and Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together. The world is crafted from various cities modeled on European children's literature, a lot like Studio Ghiblis works are. The art direction (both in the original and the fancy new HD Remaster) is so specific and stylised that the game had an ageless quality even on the dinky 3DS software. It looks great on that tasty new Switch 2 screen, I bet.The script for the game was put together by Naotaka Hayashi, who you may recognize for penning Steins;Gate - and as such has a slightly more mature tone than some of the more shonen-focused games in the genre. Theres also a self-awareness in Bravely Default thats kinda charming; theres a willingness not to take things too seriously, and a penchant for sending up genre tropes. This is something the series has kept up over the next few games, too, and is really endearing against the mega-serious projects were getting elsewhere from Square Enix. No, it's not Yuna as a bunny Songstress. | Image credit: Square EnixAnd then theres the battle system. Its super compelling. As innovative in the genre as Final Fantasys ATB system. Yes, really. Being able to really lean into the risk/reward aspect of combat that RPGs had been trading on up to that point - and being rewarded greatly or punished heinously for doing so - feels wonderful. It also opens up really cool conceit ideas for bosses, and mixes gimmicks into even the most standard mob fight you can imagine that feels fresh 80 hours in.I feel a little foolish that Ill be putting down cash to play this, day one, when it releases on Nintendo Switch 2s launch day. But you know what? Its a wedge in the door, isnt it? My unapologetic lust for niche RPGs will no doubt expose me to the absolute splendour of The Duskbloods, the nonsense of Donkey Kong Bananza, or the social chaos of Mario Kart World. At some point, at least.So, dont mind me when youre all sampling the wonders of the Switch 2 launch line-up. Ill be 200 hours deep in Bravely Default Flying Fairy HD Remastered, trying to max out all the characters jobs again. And Ill be having a great time.

Pre-Order OrdersNintendo unveils its grand plan to fight Switch 2 scalpers: prioritise people with 20,000 hours in Ace Angler: Fishing SpiritsSorry, people with actual lives, this is the only way.Image credit: Nintendo News by Mark Warren Senior Staff Writer Published on April 2, 2025 The Nintendo Switch 2 Direct is now over, and details of what you'll need to do to pre-order one from Nintendo, er, directly are now live. The earliest chances to grab the console will be offered from April 8 (UK) or April 9 (US) on the Nintendo Store, but to be in with a shot, you might need to drastically up your hours playing OG Switch games.By the way, if you missed any of the details from the showcase about the Switch 2's features and its all-important price - you can find all of that right here.To see this content please enable targeting cookies. Anyway, the pre-orders. As per the UK version of the Nintendo Store, those coveted early pre-order slots will be offered from the aforementioned date on an invite-only basis and with initial priority given to "the most dedicated Nintendo Switch players". Yep, this is the moment that your 30,000 hours of Mario Kart, Kirby, or trying to outrun a giant shark in Ace Angler: Fishing Spirits finally pay dividends.Ninty says initial invitees will be selected based on three criteria: "Nintendo Switch Online membership status", having opted into Nintendo's promo emails, and your original Switch play time stats. For the first bit, you've got to have been a Nintendo Switch Online member for "at least two years continuously" by May 31, 2025 and have an active membership the day you put in your pre-order. "For family memberships, the person who purchased the membership will be eligible," Nintendo adds, "Other people in the family membership are not eligible." Image credit: Nintendo/VG247Damn, good luck breaking that last bit to your gran with 40,000 hours in Stardew Valley on Switch, but can't use a PC to save her life. Speaking of playtime, the requirements for that bit are just that you've "spent a certain amount of time playing purchased/paid Nintendo Switch games, prioritising those with more playtime". It'll also help if you've been sharing your usage information with Nintendo like a good little consumer.Is this going way overboard in what looks like an effort to stop scalpers getting in on these early pre-orders? Probably. The good news is that this is just for official pre-orders, so odds are you should be able to avoid it if other retailers get their hands on Switch 2s to sell.Are you planning on pre-ordering a Switch 2? Let us know below!

Just look at all those characters!After giving us a full trailer in today's Switch 2 Direct, Nintendo has now revealed the box art for Mario Kart World, and it's pretty darn delightful.The focus of this one is the racers. Mario takes centre stage, with a host of familiar faces spilling out behind him. Looking closely, it seems there will be a bunch of new characters hitting the track in this one, with a Goomba, Pokey, Biddybud, Mole and Penguin all spotted in their own karts on the cover.Read the full article on nintendolife.com

You'd better sit down for this...It's official, the Nintendo Switch 2 is launching on 5th June 2025 at a retail price of $449.99 / 469.99 / 395.99. But how much do the actual games cost? Well, it's a bit complicated.Not really, but it ain't simple. As reported by VGC, Mario Kart World will cost $80 / 75 physically, but will actually be cheaper if you opt for a digital copy. We don't have the US price at the time of writing, but a digital copy in the UK will set you back 66.99.Read the full article on nintendolife.com

Redwood Materials has been on an expansion tear in recent years growth that has extended the lithium-ion battery recycling and materials startups footprint well beyond its Carson City, Nevada headquarters as it locked up deals with Toyota, Panasonic, and, GM, started construction on a South Carolina factory, and made an acquisition in Europe. And yet, Redwood Materials CTO Colin Campbell saw a gap in the companys 1,100-person workforce. San Francisco was the answer, Campbell told TechCrunch, a longtime Tesla veteran who took the top tech spot in August 2023.The company, which was founded by former Tesla CTO JB Straubel, is filling that gap with a new research and development center in San Francisco. The 15,000-square-foot facility located in the citys Design District is equipped with lab space to support engineers who will eventually work on every point of the battery ecosystem from chemical engineering and cathode science to software and electrical engineering. That work could help improve cathode production, an important component of Redwoods business, which generated $200 million in revenue in 2024. The center, which Redwood moved into about a week ago, only has a handful of engineers on site. But Campbell expects it will eventually employ about 50 or more people.We had a really good year, and we had great revenue, Campbell said, adding that the company has been limited by its ability to expand. And whats limiting our ability to expand the engineering team is hiring. We just need to expand the aperture of where we can hire from. And San Francisco was sort of to a logical place for a bunch of different reasons. High on the list is deep talent pool of hardware and software engineers who are in the Bay Area, he added. Lithium-ion batteries contain three critical building blocks. There are two electrodes, an anode (negative) on one side and a cathode (positive) on the other. Typically, an electrolyte sits in the middle and acts as the courier to move ions between the electrodes when charging and discharging. Cathode foils, which account for more than half the cost of a battery cell, contain lithium, nickel, and cobalt. Redwood is able to capture all of those materials through its battery recycling and processing.But Redwood aims to do more than recycle. The startup, which has raised more than $2 billion in private funds, is building an end-to-end battery ecosystem that touches the full life cycle of lithium-ion batteries at every stage, including recycling, refining, remanufacturing as well as assessing the health and extending the life of the battery. Campbell is particularly keen for engineers to work on equipment development for Redwoods factories. A major part of why theyre (factories) are hard to build in the U.S, is that the U.S. doesnt have the industrial base to make a bunch of this machinery, and in particular, to make novel and cost effective machinery, he said. So novel process equipment engineering is a piece big piece of it.Engineers at the lab will also work on battery diagnostic methods that to help understand the health of a battery pack, which Campbell believes could benefit another piece of the business.I think its important to start with the foundation of the business, which is battery materials, and we rest all of these other projects on top of them, Campbell said adding the diagnostic tools could boost the bottom line. So if were receiving packs, and we diagnose it, and it actually is bad, thats a great advantage to us to just recycle it directly I think it could be significant.Campbell added that he didnt think diagnosis would be majority business for Redwood, but that it fits into the companys overall ethos.We have this constitutional distaste for retiring things before they need to be retired, he said So even if its not a major part of the business, its the right thing to do for this ecosystem. And we would, we would do it anyway.

Google DeepMind on Wednesday published an exhaustive paper on its safety approach to AGI, roughly defined as AI that can accomplish any task a human can.AGI is a bit of a controversial subject in the AI field, with naysayers suggesting that its little more than a pipe dream. Others, including major AI labs like Anthropic, warn that its around the corner, and could result in catastrophic harms if steps arent taken to implement appropriate safeguards. DeepMinds 145-page document, which was co-authored by DeepMind co-founder Shane Legg, predicts that AGI could arrive by 2030, and that it may result in what the authors call severe harm. The paper doesnt concretely define this, but gives the alarmist example of existential risks that permanently destroy humanity.[We anticipate] the development of an Exceptional AGI before the end of the current decade, the authors wrote. An Exceptional AGI is a system that has a capability matching at least 99th percentile of skilled adults on a wide range of non-physical tasks, including metacognitive tasks like learning new skills.Off the bat, the paper contrasts DeepMinds treatment of AGI risk mitigation with Anthropics and OpenAIs. Anthropic, it says, places less emphasis on robust training, monitoring, and security, while OpenAI is overly bullish on automating a form of AI safety research known as alignment research. The paper also casts doubt on the viability of superintelligent AI AI that can perform jobs better than any human. (OpenAI recently claimed that its turning its aim from AGI to superintelligence.) Absent significant architectural innovation, the DeepMind authors arent convinced that superintelligent systems will emerge soon if ever. The paper does find it plausible, though, that current paradigms will enable recursive AI improvement: a positive feedback loop where AI conducts its own AI research to create more sophisticated AI systems. And this could be incredibly dangerous, assert the authors.At a high level, the paper proposes and advocates for the development of techniques to block bad actors access to hypothetical AGI, improve the understanding of AI systems actions, and harden the environments in which AI can act. It acknowledges that many of the techniques are nascent and have open research problems, but cautions against ignoring the safety challenges possibly on the horizon. The transformative nature of AGI has the potential for both incredible benefits as well as severe harms, the authors write. As a result, to build AGI responsibly, it is critical for frontier AI developers to proactively plan to mitigate severe harms.Some experts disagree with the papers premises, however. HeidyKhlaaf, chief AI scientist at the nonprofit AI Now Institute, told TechCrunch that she thinks the concept of AGI is too ill-defined to be rigorously evaluated scientifically. Another AI researcher, Matthew Guzdial, an assistant professor at the University of Alberta, said that he doesnt believe recursive AI improvement is realistic at present. [Recursive improvement] is the basis for the intelligence singularity arguments, Guzdial told TechCrunch, but weve never seen any evidence for it working.Sandra Wachter, a researcher studying tech and regulation at Oxford, argues that a more realistic concern is AI reinforcing itself with inaccurate outputs. With the proliferation of generative AI outputs on the internet and the gradual replacement of authentic data, models are now learning from their own outputs that are riddled with mistruths, or hallucinations, she told TechCrunch. At this point, chatbots are predominantly used for search and truth-finding purposes. That means we are constantly at risk of being fed mistruths and believing them because they are presented in very convincing ways.Comprehensive as it may be, DeepMinds paper seems unlikely to settle the debates over just how realistic AGI is and the areas of AI safety in most urgent need of attention.

Its about time! Lionsgate Motion Picture Group chair Adam Fogelson confirmed at CinemaCon this week that John Wick: Chapter 5 is officially in development. Franchise star Keanu Reeves and director Chad Stahelski will return for the upcoming feature.Basil Iwanyk and Erica Lee will produce for Thunder Road alongside Stahelski and Reeves.Keanu, Chad, Basil and Erica would not return unless they had something truly phenomenal and fresh to say with these characters and this world, Fogelson said. We cant wait for audiences to see where the journey takes us next.Its so important to get this story right and give Johns story the proper next step, added Iwanyk and Lee in a joint statement. Its exciting to take the first step on that road.In other exciting John Wick news, a Caine spin-offstarring Donnie Yen and an animated prequel from director Shannon Tindle (Ultraman: Rising) were also announced by Fogelson. Quite a day for the chair.Additionally, Ballerina, starring Ana de Armas as an assassin trained in the traditions of the Ruska Roma, hits theaters June 5. Watch the trailer here. The film, directed by Len Wiseman, written by Shay Hatten, based on characters created by Derek Kolstad, and produced by Iwanyk, Lee, and Stahelski, will be released on June 6, 2025. Journalist, antique shop owner, aspiring gemologistL'Wrenbrings a diverse perspective to animation, where every frame reflects her varied passions.

Bryan C. Lee, Jr. is president of the National Organization of Minority Architects (NOMA); founder and director of Colloqate Design, a New Orleans and Portland, Oregonbased practice; and a lecturer at Harvard GSD. NOMA, like many organizations, is navigating our present political moment in which executive orders from the Trump administration threaten civil rights; freedom of speech; and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which are at the core of NOMAs mission.Lee became NOMAs president in January and will serve a two-year term, through 2026. AN interviewed Lee to check in about how the organization is doing and his plans for his presidency. The interview was conducted over Zoom and finalized via email. AN: What is morale like at NOMA right now? What are NOMAs current priorities?Bryan C. Lee, Jr. (BL): NOMA is an organization with a history of challenging these moments, stepping up, and being forthright about situations like this. Id say were ready for this fight, but were tired of having to keep having this fight over and over again. But, you know, weve done it before. And well do it again.Our board and membership are concerned about the rollback of DEI as it pertains to student chapters being at risk in our universities and as it relates to MWBE certification for federal and state projects. We also have concerns around issues in Palestine, the genocide, and the erasure of culture there.There are a lot of issues getting brought up that our membership is at the forefront of, whether through organizing on the ground or directly at their universities.For NOMAs board, our job right now is working through the chaos and responding in a way that actually has meaningful outputs that can make our students safer and our membership more resilient through the hardest few years were going to go through in a while. AN: How has NOMA been impacted by Trumps first round of executive orders?BL: The executive order in regard to classical architecture is a moot point because Ive never known a federal or state building to finish in four years so, theoretically, things should go back to the way they were at some point.The orders concerning language and DEI will have ramifications for procuring jobs, especially for smaller firms. I dont know what to tell the big firms, but Im not really in the business of sustaining large firms that already consume all the resources in the architecture industry either; they can survive on their own.Small and mid-sized firms like mine, however, need $500,000 and $1 million dollar contracts to survive. My concern is smaller firms that partner with larger firms will no longer have access. The larger firms have always figured out ways to work, and theyll manage because they have the resources to sustain themselves. Or theyll just fire everybody like they generally do.I think there will be a knock on firms and organizations that survive off larger projects which they wouldnt be able to get otherwise. This is significant and especially so for NOMAs membership.AN: What tangible actions can NOMA take to keep students safe?BL: We will have a student roundtable soon about this. It will be less about us making decisions for students and more about understanding what students need.I have students right now in my classes at the GSD dealing with these issues. First and foremost, I want to make sure folks who are critically impacted by any given issue are the ones who can shape institutional policy.Some students feel afraid about going back to school. I understand some of the things Columbia students might be struggling with. Some are asking, Do I go back and finish class or not? or, Maybe I was at a protest these past few years. Am I at risk? We need to advocate for students who are either at risk of being deported and not being able to go to school. We also need to deal with the sustained mental trauma and constant fear of being persecuted.Generally speaking, we want to make sure that were able to protect the identity of students who speak out. Were doing our due diligence of understanding whats going on so we can act appropriately, protect peoples privacy, and make sure they have the resources they need. We want to make sure we can speak truth to power around these issues with a student perspective in mind, even if they are not speaking directly. I can handle the heat, which is part of my job as NOMAs president. But its never just a single person who does this stuff; NOMAs board is able to take a stand, if needed.AN: What are your thoughts about the plight of Ranjani Srinivasan, a doctoral candidate at Columbia GSAPP, who was targeted by ICE?BL: Speaking for myself, I think this situation represents a concerning precedent for academic institutions and their responsibilities toward students engaged in critical discourse.Columbia University has an obligation to protect its academic community. In this instance, they have failed to uphold this fundamental duty. I would expect specific, concrete action from the institution in the form of: The full reinstatement of Ranjani as a non-residential student; the provision of all necessary resources to complete their doctoral studies; [and] institutional accountability for the disruption to Ranjanis academic career.As it relates to NOMA, this case highlights broader concerns about academic freedom and international student protections that affect many in our profession. The 140-plus student chapters of NOMA and countless international students in design programs deserve better safeguards. I encourage colleagues to consider how we might collectively address these systemic issues through professional advocacy, institutional engagement, and policy reform.AN: What are some aspects of your platform as NOMA president? What gives you hope?BL: There are fewer restraints today forcing us to uphold the existing system. When the system doesnt work, I think theres an opportunity to restructure the way procurement works and the way we talk about DEI. Im much more of a justice, equity, and liberation person myself, anyway.We can build and create spaces that are actually of service to whole communities, not simply individuals with capital; we can identify the holistic version of neighborhoods that support us; and we can potentially try reducing the amount of funding that goes to the Department of Defense and instead put that money into HUD.We can change the way we think about affordable housing. What if, for instance, instead of basing affordability on AMI, we used AWIArea Wealth Inequality? And how can we acknowledge the history of violence and capital extraction that were part of urban renewal?Toward that end, at NOMA we want to develop a Benefits Toolkit empowering communities to articulate their needs and measure outcomes in architectural projects, ensuring neighborhood voices directly shape development in historically marginalized areas.Were also working on developing a NOMA JEDI Leaders Guidebook that provides comprehensive resources for firms and individuals to implement justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion principles in leadership and practice.We also want to establish a NOMA Environmental Justice Initiative addressing how architecture contributes to climate impacts, with a specific focus on reducing the 39 percent of carbon emissions and 40 percent of energy consumption attributed to the built environment.Another goal we have is to develop and implement a spatial Design Justice Practice committee that will set new standards for equitable architectural practice across the industry.AN: How is NOMA building resiliency at an institutional level?BL: Im hoping we can partner with other institutions that are also at risk. I dont know whats going to happen with the National Museum of African American History and Culture or the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. but those Smithsonian Institutions are on the chopping block, not to mention the ones at the state and local levels.I also think we have to expand outside architecture. We have to go back to working with the Urban League, the NAACP, and La Raza. We need to work with the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Congressional Caucus. We want to support Black Lives Matter and the ACLU. Weve got to make sure we are working with institutions and organizations that support justice and equity in their work. I also want NOMA to establish stronger partnerships between HBCUs and communities to leverage both spatial and cultural knowledge in neighborhood revitalization projects.I dont want to give anyone clout at the moment, because everybody can change tomorrow. But, in terms of corporate entities, there are corporations that we would like to work with that are leaning into these issues. There are not a lot of them, and I dont know if there are any I can point to immediately, but part of our work right now is identifying whos real and whos not.

Recommended By Fox News Staff Fox News Published April 2, 2025 12:16pm EDT close Googles new AI tech may know when your house will burn down The project aims to detect a fire the size of a classroom within 20 minutes Welcome to Fox News Artificial Intelligence newsletter with the latest AI technology advancements.IN TODAYS NEWSLETTER:- Googles new AI tech may know when your house will burn down- AI's development is critically important for America and it all hinges on these freedoms- GenAI, the future of fraud and why you may be an easy target FireSat satellite AI SPOTS WILDFIRES: FireSat is a new satellite project designed to detect and track wildfires early. How early? The project aims to detect a fire that's merely 270 square feet about the size of a classroom within 20 minutes. It's also able to detect fires two to three acres in size, roughly the size of two football fields.TECHNOLOGICAL MIRACLE: The Trump administration recently asked American developers, including OpenAI, for input on what the U.S. needs to do to stay ahead in the global AI competition. We believe that preserving AIs ability to learn should be at the top of the list.GEN-AI FRAUD ALERT: Generative AI refers to so-called artificial intelligence systems that create new content text, images, audio or video based on data they've been trained on. Unlike traditional AI that analyzes existing information, generative AI produces entirely new, convincing content. The most concerning part? These powerful tools are increasingly accessible to fraudsters who use them to create sophisticated scams that are harder than ever to detect. A man typing on his laptop (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)FOLLOW FOX NEWS ON SOCIAL MEDIASIGN UP FOR OUR OTHER NEWSLETTERSDOWNLOAD OUR APPSWATCH FOX NEWS ONLINEFox News GoSTREAM FOX NATIONFox NationStay up to date on the latest AI technology advancements and learn about the challenges and opportunities AI presents now and for the future with Fox Newshere. This article was written by Fox News staff.

In mid-March 2025, Apple began a legal challenge to an order from the Home Secretary before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) in London. According to information leaked to the Washington Post in February, a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) was issued to Apple by the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper sometime in late 2024. It allegedly requires the company to remove Advanced Data Protection (ADP) from iCloud users targeted for investigation by UK police, intelligence and security services.In effect, Apple has apparently been ordered to build an encryption backdoor for ADP. In its response, Apple has announced that ADP is currently unavailable for UK users of iCloud. ADP is optional for Apple customers, and a relatively recent development. By default, iCloud users are protected by Apples Standard Data Protection protocol, which encrypts user data in transmission and in storage via encryption keys stored on the users Apple devices, like an iPhone or Macbook.However, with Standard Data Protection, Apple also stores its own set of encryption keys for each users account. This means that customers can easily retrieve data from Apple if, for example, a device is lost or stolen but it also means that Apple can decrypt any users data unilaterally in response to lawful requests from law enforcement or intelligence services. With ADP activated, by contrast, Apple retains no such key. Only the user (or a nominated recovery contact) can decrypt their data. If the authorities serve Apple with a warrant targeting an ADP users account, Apple can honestly respond that it lacks the technical capability to execute the warrant.This is where the TCN comes in. Technical Capability Notices are provided for by section 253 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. A TCN does not in itself authorise surveillance, rather it places obligations on a communications operator to provide the capability to provide any assistance required to facilitate the interception of communications, interference with communication devices to obtain communications or data, or the acquisition of communications data, all in either targeted or bulk forms. A TCN can require the removal by a relevant operator of electronic protection applied by or on behalf of that operator to any communications or data.In order to issue a TCN, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to require the operator to take the prescribed measures, having consulted the operator and taken into account the scope and impact of the obligations proposed. Their assessment must in turn be approved by a Judicial Commissioner. An operator that receives a TCN can ask that the Secretary of State review it. The review must include consultation with a Judicial Commission and with the Technical Advisory Board, a body that includes representatives from the communications industry and from the intelligence and police services, and must be approved by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, currently Sir Brian Leveson.Assuming that all these steps have been taken and the TCN has been confirmed, Apples final recourse is an appeal to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.There are two key issues: the substance of the question that the IPT must answer, and the procedure by which it answers it. How this will be done is currently unknown. There has never been a public appeal against a TCN though in theory, there may have been secret appeals.Lets start with the procedure. The key question is whether the appeal will be heard in open court, in partly-open court, or completely behind closed doors. On 10th March 2025, notice of an application in private to be held on 14th March was listed on the IPTs website. Unusually, no parties were named. Why would a private hearing be publicly listed, if the public were to be excluded from attending? By inference, the press and civil liberties campaigners guessed that it was the Apple case, and that the listing was effectively an oblique invitation to the media to make representations as to why the appeal should be dealt with in public. Representations were made and are under consideration by the IPT at time of writing. So far, no determination on whether the case will proceed in public or private has been communicated.Playing devils advocate, I expect the government is arguing against public hearings, on the basis that the IPT must not hold public hearings where doing so would compromise the secrecy of sensitive national security matters. In such cases, the tribunal can only hold public hearings insofar as there is an abstract legal question to clarify. The government will argue that the facts in the Apple case are highly sensitive, involving not just secret investigatory powers but diplomatic relations with the United States. They may also argue that the power to make a TCN is clearly set out in the legislation and accompanying Code of Practice. The details of such a proportionality assessment are highly fact-dependent and, therefore, are a matter of national security to be argued in closed hearings only. The reason the media are interested is that the facts are dramatic and were subject to an unauthorised leak to the press.In my opinion, there are overwhelmingly important reasons that hearings on the law should be held in public. According to information leaked to the Washington Post, the TCN requires Apple to, in some shape or form, selectively remove encryption. From a technical perspective, it is impossible to understand how such a move does not render the entire ADP system vulnerable to malicious actors. Creating a facility for the UKs authorities to access some encrypted data renders everyones encrypted data unsafe, and sets a dangerous precedent. The UK may have a human rights-compliant legal system but do other states, who will now ask for the same level of access? And why does the law matter when the technical weaknesses inserted into the system will apply equally in every jurisdiction? These questions go to the heart of how proportionality should be assessed in the case. Therefore, the law should be clarified before it is applied.Moving on to substance, the question turns on whether ordering Apple to compromise the integrity of the ADP system is proportionate to meeting the needs of national security and the prevention or detection of serious crime. The government will likely argue that the TCN merely requires Apple to facilitate the execution of lawful warrants which are in themselves subjected to careful necessity and proportionality checks. In theory this ensures such powers can only be used judiciously in a limited and targeted fashion.Government lawyers may also point out that Standard Data Protection still applies, and that is sufficient to protect the vast majority of users data. In effect, the governments position is that commercial service providers do not have a right to unilaterally provide customers with perfect encryption that cannot be disabled where absolutely necessary. If the TCN is overturned, legitimate targets of state surveillance, including terrorists and child abusers, will go dark.Governments always argue that they must have access to communications. Yet while there is no doubt that malicious actors and foreign agents rely on encryption, so do millions of innocent people, including lawyers, journalists, businesses, and anyone who has a duty to take care of other peoples secrets. How should that balance be assessed? It is not just Apple that need to know the answer. As I noted in an article from 2019, a TCN could theoretically order communication providers to grant UK authorities the means secretly to disable or modify the operation of encryption protocols applied on behalf of users.That was not idle speculation: in 2018, two GCHQ directors openly discussed an approach that would see encrypted platforms like WhatsApp modify the notifications function on a targets device so that a law enforcement participant could be secretly added to an apparently secure chat without the target realising. All transmissions via the app would remain encrypted, but the content would be intercepted. Whether such a capability was actually developed is unknown, but it seemed unlikely to me, given the disproportionate risks to all users that such software modifications would create.But is that correct? We do not know what the measure of proportionality is in such a profoundly important matter. The tribunal should clarify these vitally important questions in public.I expect the IPT will shortly determine whether it shall sit in public or not to consider the substantive question of proportionality in relation to the Apple TCN. Assuming the government maintains a posture of strict Neither Conform Nor Deny [NCND], there are at least four broad possible outcomes:1. Apple wins: the IPT agrees to hear arguments in open court on a hypothetical basis, and determines, as a matter of law, that the removal of encryption via backdoors like the one reported in this case is inherently disproportionate. The public would have confidence that any hypothetical order that weakens encryption systems generally would be unlawful and that ADP, if reactivated in the UK, is secure. Strong encryption is effectively protected by law.2. The government wins: the IPT hears arguments in open court and determines that requiring service providers to facilitate the removal of encryption in response to targeted warrants is in principle always proportionate. This would imply that Apples appeal would then fail in private. UK customers and others around the world would lose confidence in cloud-based encryption systems, because TCNs could be secretly issued to other platforms, requiring their encryption to be selectively removed on demand.3. An ambiguous outcome: the IPT hears arguments in open and publicly determines how the proportionality of a hypothetical TCN should be assessed, but does so in an open-ended way. It is not possible to infer how the factual assessment will be decided in private, with only Apple and the government present for the factual arguments and determination.4. A fully secret outcome: the IPT decides that no open hearings should take place because there are no points of law to determine and the case cannot be argued in public without harming national security. It carries out the appeal entirely in private. We remain in the dark as to how proportionality is reviewed and how the matter is ultimately resolved.In the long run, option one is the safest and best outcome. Anything else would mean a kind of structural paranoia would follow. Even if ADP were reactivated for UK users, we would not know with certainty whether it has integrity because Apple won in private, or whether the TCN was implemented via a secret backdoor as intended and an unreliable version of ADP is now in place.Over time, the erosion of trust in encrypted services and the potential risk of systemic vulnerabilities would be corrosive to public trust and in the UK as a free and open society, particularly as politics takes an increasingly authoritarian and anti-democratic turn. The eyes of the world are on what this secretive and unique judicial body does next.Bernard Keenan is a lecturer in law at UCL. His research focuses on surveillance, human rights, and state power alongside the development of digital technologyTimeline of UK governments order for a backdoor into Apples encrypted iCloud service7 February: Tech companies brace after UK demands backdoor access to Apple cloud The UK has served a notice on Apple demanding backdoor access to encrypted data stored by users anywhere in the world on Apples cloud service.10 February: Apple: British techies to advise on devastating UK global crypto power grab A hitherto unknown British organisation, which even the government may have forgotten about, is about to be drawn into a global technical and financial battle, facing threats from Apple to pull out of the UK.13 February: UK accused of political foreign cyber attack on US after serving secret snooping order on Apple US administration asked to kick UK out of 65-year-old UK-US Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreement after secret order to access encrypted data of Apple users.14 February: Top cryptography experts join calls for UK to drop plans to snoop on Apples encrypted data Some of the worlds leading computer science experts have signed an open letter calling for home secretary Yvette Cooper to drop a controversial secret order to require Apple to provide access to users encrypted data.21 February: Apple withdraws encrypted iCloud storage from UK after government demands backdoor access After the Home Office issued a secret order for Apple to open up a backdoor in its encrypted storage, the tech company has instead chosen to withdraw the service from the UK.26 February: US intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard probes UK demand for Apples encrypted data 5 March: Apple IPT appeal against backdoor encryption order is test case for bigger targets The Home Office decision to target Apple with an order requiring access to users encrypted data is widely seen as a stalking horse for attacks against encrypted messaging services WhatsApp, Telegram and Signal.11 March: Secret London tribunal to hear appeal in Apple vs government battle over encryption A secret tribunal is due to meet at the High Court in London to hear tech giant Apple appeal against a Home Office order to compromise the encryption of data stored by its customers on the iCloud service worldwide.13 March: US Congress demands UK lifts gag on Apple encryption order Apple and Google have told US lawmakers that they cannot tell Congress whether they have received technical capability notices from the UK.14 March: The Investigatory Powers Tribunal holds a day-long secret hearing into an appeal brought by Apple against a government notice requiring it to provide law enforcement access to data encrypted by its Advanced Data Protection service on the iCloud, despite calls for the hearing to be opened to the public.24 March: Gus Hosein, executive director of Privacy International - 'Why I am challenging Yvette Coopers secret backdoor order against Apples encryption'31 March: Apple devices are at most risk in UK following government backdoor order, Lord Strasburger tells the House of Lords as a Home Office Minister declines to give answers.