Version 1.0.0 By Robert Jan van Pelt (Park Books, 2025) The largest artifact in the touring exhibition Auschwitz. Not Long Ago. Not Far Away., currently on display at the ROM in Toronto, is a wooden barracks building. It’s from the Auschwitz-Monowitz camp, a satellite to Auschwitz created to provide slave labour to the IG Farben corporation for the construction of a synthetic rubber factory.  The discovery of a sister building, back in 2012, led exhibition chief curator and architectural historian Robert Jan van Pelt, University Professor at the Waterloo School of Architecture, on a research journey to write a comprehensive history of the barracks—temporary buildings that have not only housed prisoners, but also provided shelter for military servicemen and women, refugees, and natural disaster survivors. “Many people have experienced, for shorter or longer time periods, life in a barrack, and for all of them it represented life on the edge, for better or worse,” writes Van Pelt. Worm’s eye axonometric of Renkioi Hospital Barrack, a prefabricated hospital designed by Ismabard Kingdom Brunel for a site in Turkey, 1857. Van Pelt’s book criss-crosses with ease through architectural history, military history, and the history of medicine—all of which played crucial roles in the evolving development of this seemingly simple building type. The book is arranged in a dozen episodes, with the barrack at the centre of each, serving as an anchor point for unfolding the rich intellectual and historical context shaping the way these structures were developed and deployed. The book is richly illustrated with archival materials—a feat in itself, given that the documentation for temporary buildings, particularly before 1900, is scarce. These drawings, photos, and paintings are supplemented with 20 worm’s eye views of key buildings, carefully composed by a team of Waterloo architecture school students and alumni.  Thomas Thomaszoon, View of the headquarters of the Spanish in the Huis tea Kleef during the siege of Haarlem, 1572-73. Collection of Noord-Hollands Archief, Haarlem; courtesy Robert Jan van Pelt Like many vernacular buildings, temporary structures larger than a tent, designed to house soldiers in the field, have existed at least since Ancient Rome. One of the first visual accounts of barracks came centuries later, in the winter of 1572, when the Spanish laid siege to the Dutch city of Haarlem, and cartographer Thomas Thomaszoon sketched the position of dozens of Spain’s wood-and-straw structures outside the city. The siege was successful, but only a few years later, the Dutch Republic gained the upper hand. As part of the creation of a standing army, they began to develop more precise instructions for the layout of camps, including the construction of temporary barracks. Antoine-François Omet des Foucaux, Barrack constructed in Hendaye, France, 1793. From Jean-Charles Krafft, Plans, coupes et élévations de diverses productions de l’art de la charpente, 1805. Collection of Bilbliothèque Nationale de France, Paris. Courtesy Robert Jan van Pelt The Napoleonic army made use of barracks in both military camps and training camps; by the mid-1800s, the construction of various barrack types was detailed in field construction manuals issued to officers in many European armies. During the Crimean War (1853-56), over 3,500 prefabricated barracks were manufactured in a Gloucester factory, as a solution to the appalling conditions at the front. But when the structures arrived at port, British forces were not able to unload and erect them—the materials for a single building weighed more than two tons, and each would require 60 horses (or 150 men) to transport to camp on the muddy roads.  The US (Union) Army’s Lincoln Hospital, Washington, DC, 1865. Collection of Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Courtesy Robert Jan van Pelt Prefabrication was also used, with somewhat more success, towards the end of the conflict to erect field hospitals designed by British engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel with a priority on cross-ventilation to limit the spread of disease. Low mortality rates from similar structures led to a continued preference for “barrack hospitals” based on groupings of low-slung, well-ventilated pavilions, rather than conceived as single grand structures. The model was further refined with the addition of primitive underfloor heating and ridge ventilation by former surgeon William A. Hammond for the Union Army during the American Civil War (1861-65).  Barrack hospitals were constructed for civilian use, as well. Following the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian war (1870-71), such designs were built to house patients with infectious diseases in Berlin and proposed as a means to bring professional medical care to Germany’s rural areas. A barracks-inspired hospital was built in Saint Petersburg, Russia, in 1889, and continues to be operational.  If the barrack as an accommodation for the sick is a progressive tale, the 19th-century history of the barrack is equally checkered by the building type’s use for prisoner accommodation, including in the penal colonies of Australia and French Guiana. In North America, barracks were used in an internment camp for Native American Dakotas, and Civil War-era Union barracks at Camp Douglas were used to house Confederate prisoners. The oldest preserved barrack in the world may be in Canada, at Grosse Isle national park. Here, barrack-style quarantine sheds were used to detain thousands of Irish immigrant families during the typhoid fever epidemic of 1846-47, and their damp, fetid conditions contributed to many deaths—an episode Van Pelt describes as a “blot on the national consciousness of Canada.” A single Doecker Hut contains an operation room, pharmacy and hospital management office. The prefabricated, portable hospitals were developed in 1885, and used around the world, including in the First World War. In America, they were marketed for managing epidemics in the wake of the 1892 typhus fever outbreak in New York. Courtesy Berlin State Library and Robert Jan van Pelt   At the turn of the 19th century, the prefabricated portable barrack came to the fore with the manufacturing of the Doecker barracks, by Christoph & Unmack, a firm based in Copenhagen and Germany. Developed by a former military officer-turned-tentmaker, the technically sophisticated model used large rectangular frames that could be clipped together, and covered with “felt-cardboard”—dense felt pressed onto canvas and impregnated with linseed oil. The self-supporting structures proved easy to set up, dismount, and transport, making them suitable for both military applications—and, with little modification, for humanitarian aid. The Red Cross deployed Doecker barracks for use as field hospitals in Manchuria and Yokohama during the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05).  The Barrack, 1572-1914 wraps up in in the early 20th century, but with the note that in the ensuing decades until 1945, millions of barracks were produced by many of the world’s major nations—and that most of these were erected in barbed-wire-ringed compounds. “This is the period in which tens if not hundreds of millions of people, many of whom were civilians, were forced to live in barracks, as refugees, as expellees, as civilian internees, as forced laborers, as prisoners or war, as concentration camp prisoners, and as people made homeless by the destruction wrought by war,” writes Van Pelt. Up until 1914, he notes, this building type largely carried a sense of achievement—an image that would change sharply with the Age of the Camps. But although a WWII barrack was responsible for instigating Van Pelt’s initial investigation, that time period will need to await a second volume on this simple building type with a rich, complex, and complicated history.   As appeared in the June 2025 issue of Canadian Architect magazine  The post Book Review: The Barrack, 1572-1914—Chapters in the History of Emergency Architecture appeared first on Canadian Architect.

How Deepfakes Are Created Generative AI models enable the creation of highly realistic fake media. Most deepfakes today are produced by training deep neural networks on real images, video or audio of a target person. The two predominant AI architectures are generative adversarial networks (GANs) and autoencoders. A GAN consists of a generator network that produces synthetic images and a discriminator network that tries to distinguish fakes from real data. Through iterative training, the generator learns to produce outputs that increasingly fool the discriminator¹. Autoencoder-based tools similarly learn to encode a target face and then decode it onto a source video. In practice, deepfake creators use accessible software: open-source tools like DeepFaceLab and FaceSwap dominate video face-swapping (one estimate suggests DeepFaceLab was used for over 95% of known deepfake videos)². Voice-cloning tools (often built on similar AI principles) can mimic a person’s speech from minutes of audio. Commercial platforms like Synthesia allow text-to-video avatars (turning typed scripts into lifelike “spokespeople”), which have already been misused in disinformation campaigns³. Even mobile apps (e.g. FaceApp, Zao) let users do basic face swaps in minutes⁴. In short, advances in GANs and related models make deepfakes cheaper and easier to generate than ever. Diagram of a generative adversarial network (GAN): A generator network creates fake images from random input and a discriminator network distinguishes fakes from real examples. Over time the generator improves until its outputs “fool” the discriminator⁵ During creation, a deepfake algorithm is typically trained on a large dataset of real images or audio from the target. The more varied and high-quality the training data, the more realistic the deepfake. The output often then undergoes post-processing (color adjustments, lip-syncing refinements) to enhance believability¹. Technical defenses focus on two fronts: detection and authentication. Detection uses AI models to spot inconsistencies (blinking irregularities, audio artifacts or metadata mismatches) that betray a synthetic origin⁵. Authentication embeds markers before dissemination – for example, invisible watermarks or cryptographically signed metadata indicating authenticity⁶. The EU AI Act will soon mandate that major AI content providers embed machine-readable “watermark” signals in synthetic media⁷. However, as GAO notes, detection is an arms race – even a marked deepfake can sometimes evade notice – and labels alone don’t stop false narratives from spreading⁸⁹. Deepfakes in Recent Elections: Examples Deepfakes and AI-generated imagery already have made headlines in election cycles around the world. In the 2024 U.S. primary season, a digitally-altered audio robocall mimicked President Biden’s voice urging Democrats not to vote in the New Hampshire primary. The caller (“Susan Anderson”) was later fined $6 million by the FCC and indicted under existing telemarketing laws¹⁰¹¹. (Importantly, FCC rules on robocalls applied regardless of AI: the perpetrator could have used a voice actor or recording instead.) Also in 2024, former President Trump posted on social media a collage implying that pop singer Taylor Swift endorsed his campaign, using AI-generated images of Swift in “Swifties for Trump” shirts¹². The posts sparked media uproar, though analysts noted the same effect could have been achieved without AI (e.g., by photoshopping text on real images)¹². Similarly, Elon Musk’s X platform carried AI-generated clips, including a parody “Ad” depicting Vice-President Harris’s voice via an AI clone¹³. Beyond the U.S., deepfake-like content has appeared globally. In Indonesia’s 2024 presidential election, a video surfaced on social media in which a convincingly generated image of the late President Suharto appeared to endorse the candidate of the Golkar Party. Days later, the endorsed candidate (who is Suharto’s son-in-law) won the presidency¹⁴. In Bangladesh, a viral deepfake video superimposed the face of opposition leader Rumeen Farhana onto a bikini-clad body – an incendiary fabrication designed to discredit her in the conservative Muslim-majority society¹⁵. Moldova’s pro-Western President Maia Sandu has been repeatedly targeted by AI-driven disinformation; one deepfake video falsely showed her resigning and endorsing a Russian-friendly party, apparently to sow distrust in the electoral process¹⁶. Even in Taiwan (amidst tensions with China), a TikTok clip circulated that synthetically portrayed a U.S. politician making foreign-policy statements – stoking confusion ahead of Taiwanese elections¹⁷. In Slovakia’s recent campaign, AI-generated audio mimicking the liberal party leader suggested he plotted vote-rigging and beer-price hikes – instantly spreading on social media just days before the election¹⁸. These examples show that deepfakes have touched diverse polities (from Bangladesh and Indonesia to Moldova, Slovakia, India and beyond), often aiming to undermine candidates or confuse voters¹⁵¹⁸. Notably, many of the most viral “deepfakes” in 2024 were actually circulated as obvious memes or claims, rather than subtle deceptions. Experts observed that outright undetectable AI deepfakes were relatively rare; more common were AI-generated memes plainly shared by partisans, or cheaply doctored “cheapfakes” made with basic editing tools¹³¹⁹. For instance, social media was awash with memes of Kamala Harris in Soviet garb or of Black Americans holding Trump signs¹³, but these were typically used satirically, not meant to be secretly believed. Nonetheless, even unsophisticated fakes can sway opinion: a U.S. study found that false presidential ads (not necessarily AI-made) did change voter attitudes in swing states. In sum, deepfakes are a real and growing phenomenon in election campaigns²⁰²¹ worldwide – a trend taken seriously by voters and regulators alike. U.S. Legal Framework and Accountability In the U.S., deepfake creators and distributors of election misinformation face a patchwork of tools, but no single comprehensive federal “deepfake law.” Existing laws relevant to disinformation include statutes against impersonating government officials, electioneering (such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which requires disclaimers on political ads), and targeted statutes like criminal electioneering communications. In some cases ordinary laws have been stretched: the NH robocall used the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and mail/telemarketing fraud provisions, resulting in the $6M fine and a criminal charge. Similarly, voice impostors can potentially violate laws against “false advertising” or “unlawful corporate communications.” However, these laws were enacted before AI, and litigators have warned they often do not fit neatly. For example, deceptive deepfake claims not tied to a specific victim do not easily fit into defamation or privacy torts. Voter intimidation laws (prohibiting threats or coercion) also leave a gap for non-threatening falsehoods about voting logistics or endorsements. Recognizing these gaps, some courts and agencies are invoking other theories. The U.S. Department of Justice has recently charged individuals under broad fraud statutes (e.g. for a plot to impersonate an aide to swing votes in 2020), and state attorneys general have considered deepfake misinformation as interference with voting rights. Notably, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is preparing to enforce new rules: in April 2024 it issued an advisory opinion limiting “non-candidate electioneering communications” that use falsified media, effectively requiring that political ads use only real images of the candidate. If finalized, that would make it unlawful for campaigns to pay for ads depicting a candidate saying things they never did. Similarly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have signaled that purely commercial deepfakes could violate consumer protection or election laws (for example, liability for mass false impersonation or for foreign-funded electioneering). U.S. Legislation and Proposals Federal lawmakers have proposed new statutes. The DEEPFAKES Accountability Act (H.R.5586 in the 118th Congress) would, among other things, impose a disclosure requirement: political ads featuring a manipulated media likeness would need clear disclaimers identifying the content as synthetic. It also increases penalties for producing false election videos or audio intended to influence the vote. While not yet enacted, supporters argue it would provide a uniform rule for all federal and state campaigns. The Brennan Center supports transparency requirements over outright bans, suggesting laws should narrowly target deceptive deepfakes in paid ads or certain categories (e.g. false claims about time/place/manner of voting) while carving out parody and news coverage. At the state level, over 20 states have passed deepfake laws specifically for elections. For example, Florida and California forbid distributing falsified audio/visual media of candidates with intent to deceive voters (though Florida’s law exempts parody). Some states (like Texas) define “deepfake” in statutes and allow candidates to sue or revoke candidacies of violators. These measures have had mixed success: courts have struck down overly broad provisions that acted as prior restraints (e.g. Minnesota’s 2023 law was challenged for threatening injunctions against anyone “reasonably believed” to violate it). Critically, these state laws raise First Amendment issues: political speech is highly protected, so any restriction must be tightly tailored. Already, Texas and Virginia statutes are under legal review, and Elon Musk’s company has sued under California’s law (which requires platforms to label or block deepfakes) as unconstitutional. In practice, most lawsuits have so far centered on defamation or intellectual property (for instance, a celebrity suing over a botched celebrity-deepfake video), rather than election-focused statutes. Policy Recommendations: Balancing Integrity and Speech Given the rapidly evolving technology, experts recommend a multi-pronged approach. Most stress transparency and disclosure as core principles. For example, the Brennan Center urges requiring any political communication that uses AI-synthesized images or voice to include a clear label. This could be a digital watermark or a visible disclaimer. Transparency has two advantages: it forces campaigns and platforms to “own” the use of AI, and it alerts audiences to treat the content with skepticism. Outright bans on all deepfakes would likely violate free speech, but targeted bans on specific harms (e.g. automated phone calls impersonating voters, or videos claiming false polling information) may be defensible. Indeed, Florida already penalizes misuse of recordings in voter suppression. Another recommendation is limited liability: tying penalties to demonstrable intent to mislead, not to the mere act of content creation. Both U.S. federal proposals and EU law generally condition fines on the “appearance of fraud” or deception. Technical solutions can complement laws. Watermarking original media (as encouraged by the EU AI Act) could deter the reuse of authentic images in doctored fakes. Open tools for deepfake detection – some supported by government research grants – should be deployed by fact-checkers and social platforms. Making detection datasets publicly available (e.g. the MIT OpenDATATEST) helps improve AI models to spot fakes. International cooperation is also urged: cross-border agreements on information-sharing could help trace and halt disinformation campaigns. The G7 and APEC have all recently committed to fighting election interference via AI, which may lead to joint norms or rapid response teams. Ultimately, many analysts believe the strongest “cure” is a well-informed public: education campaigns to teach voters to question sensational media, and a robust independent press to debunk falsehoods swiftly. While the law can penalize the worst offenders, awareness and resilience in the electorate are crucial buffers against influence operations. As Georgia Tech’s Sean Parker quipped in 2019, “the real question is not if deepfakes will influence elections, but who will be empowered by the first effective one.” Thus policies should aim to deter malicious use without unduly chilling innovation or satire. References: https://www.security.org/resources/deepfake-statistics/. https://www.wired.com/story/synthesia-ai-deepfakes-it-control-riparbelli/. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107292. https://technologyquotient.freshfields.com/post/102jb19/eu-ai-act-unpacked-8-new-rules-on-deepfakes. https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/we-looked-at-78-election-deepfakes-political-misinformation-is-not-an-ai-problem. https://www.npr.org/2024/12/21/nx-s1-5220301/deepfakes-memes-artificial-intelligence-elections. https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-elections-disinformation-chatgpt-bc283e7426402f0b4baa7df280a4c3fd. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/new-and-old-tools-to-tackle-deepfakes-and-election-lies-in-2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/regulating-ai-deepfakes-and-synthetic-media-political-arena. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/political-deepfakes-and-elections/. https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/deceptive-audio-or-visual-media-deepfakes-2024-legislation. https://law.unh.edu/sites/default/files/media/2022/06/nagumotu_pp113-157.pdf. https://dfrlab.org/2024/10/02/brazil-election-ai-research/. https://dfrlab.org/2024/11/26/brazil-election-ai-deepfakes/. https://freedomhouse.org/article/eu-digital-services-act-win-transparency. The post The Legal Accountability of AI-Generated Deepfakes in Election Misinformation appeared first on MarkTechPost.

The so-called Russian Wedding Ring was a jewelry design that allegedly emerged from 19th-century Russia. It consists of three interlocked rings, each of them sized slightly larger than the target finger size, so that all three together will slide smoothly onto a finger. In the 1920s Cartier co-opted the design, releasing their Trinity Ring. Each of the three rings was a different tone of gold: Rose, yellow and white. (In a bit of marketing spin, it was even claimed that the poet Jean Cocteau designed these for Cartier; in fact, it appears he was simply associated with them as the 20th-century version of an influencer.) So how are these made? If you're familiar with casting, you'll have figured out that if they were all the same metal, you could cast it all as one piece with thinner supporting structures connecting the rings; you'd break those off, then grind and polish the rings smooth. It would likely be a nightmare for the craftsperson charged with the finishing tasks, as two rings would always be in the way while you worked on the third. However, the casting method is out if you're using different metals. So how was it done? In this short video, silversmith Jessica Hickman-Woolcott of the Cognac Jewellery School shows you how. (Although she's using the same metal for all three rings, you get the idea.)

A US Air Force F-16 fighter jet takes off from an airbase in Germany. Photo by Boris Roessler/picture alliance via Getty Images 2025-05-31T12:20:02Z Save Saved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? A Russian company said it paid 12 soldiers a combined $195,000 for shooting down an F-16 jet. Fores said it presented the soldiers the cash at a ceremony near the Russia-Ukraine border on Thursday. Kyiv had long coveted the US-made F-16. It received its first of the jets in 2024. A Russian oil company said it had awarded a total of 15 million rubles (around $195,000) to Russian soldiers who it credited with downing the first US-made F-16 fighter jet in Ukraine.In a press release, Fores, a fracking parts manufacturer, said it had presented 12 servicemen with the cash at a ceremony near the Russia-Ukraine border on Thursday."Fores fulfilled its earlier promise and paid 15 million rubles to Russian servicemen for destroying the first F-16 fighter jet in the special operation zone," the company said.The firm announced the bounty system in 2023, promising cash rewards for soldiers who destroyed certain Western-supplied military equipment.The company said it had so far paid out just over 52 million rubles (around $670,000) for the destruction of the F-16 and an unspecified number of Leopard 2 and Abrams tanks.Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had long coveted the F-16 as he sought to bolster Ukraine's air defenses, and Kyiv received its first delivery of the jet in the summer of 2024. Ukraine's forces have so far lost at least three F-16s in combat, with the General Staff confirming the first loss in August last year.The F-16 has nevertheless seemingly proved a hit over the battlefield.Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli, the US's top general in Europe, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in April that F-16s were flying "every day" in Ukraine and that they had been successful in both air defense and offensive operations."They've defeated a large number of cruise missile threats, and they've delivered an awful lot of offensive attacks as well," he said, adding: "Specifically, bombing attacks in the east."

Image by Jim Watson / AFP via Getty / FuturismRx/MedicinesGenerally speaking, drug testing in the workplace is supposed to be conductd at random intervals — but according to insider sources, that's not the case for the sometimes-world's richest man.A New York Times exposé about Elon Musk's fear and loathing on the campaign trail found that the billionaire not only has been on boatloads of risky and illegal drugs during his turn into hard-right politics, but was also being tipped off about when he'd be tested for them.As we've long known, SpaceX's federal contractor status requires that all its employees — including its mercurial CEO — pass drug tests. Given Musk's admitted penchant for mind-altering substances, and for ketamine in particular, his ability to pass those tests has long been a concern.If the NYT's sources are to be believed, we may now know how the 53-year-old keeps passing: because he's been warned in advance when the "random" tests are going to occur, and been able to plan accordingly.(Though those sources didn't get into it, anyone who's ever had to pass a drug test themselves knows that there are typicaly two options: drink so much water that you pee all the drugs out of your system, or get urine or hair from someone else and pass it off as your own.)As those same sources allege, Musk's substance use increased significantly as he helped propel Donald Trump to the White House for a second time. He purportedly told people that his bladder had been affected by his frequent ketamine use, and had been taking ecstasy and psilocybin mushrooms too.The multi-hyphenate businessman and politico also carried around a daily medication box with at least 20 pills in it — including ones with markings that resemble the ADHD drug Adderall, according to people who saw photos of it and regaled it back to the NYT. (He's also been linked to cocaine and a cornucopia of other substances.)When it comes to stimulants like Adderall and anything else in Musk's daily pill box — which, despite how the article makes it sound, is not that abnormal a thing for a man in his 50s to be carrying around — there's a good chance that the billionaire has prescriptions that could excuse at least some abuse. He also has claimed that he was prescribed ketamine for depression, though to be fair, taking so much that it makes it hard to pee would suggest he's far surpassed his recommended dosage.As Futurism has noted before, Musk's drugs of choice described here are not often screened for on standard drug panels. Though we don't know how in-depth federal drug tests are, standard tests primarily screen for cocaine, cannabis, amphetamines, opiates, and PCP, though some include ecstasy/MDMA as well. Testing for ketamine is, on the other hand, pretty rare.If Musk is being tipped off about his drug tests — and is either flushing his system or taking a sober underling's urine or hair — none of that would matter. But given that the worst of his purported substance abuse revolves around ketamine, there's always a chance that he's in a recurring K-hole and getting off scot-free, unlike his employees, who are held to a much higher standard.More on Musk's drug use: Ex-FBI Agent: Elon Musk's Drug Habit Made Him an Easy Target for Russian SpiesShare This Article

Published May 27, 2025 10:00am EDT close Deepfake technology 'is getting so easy now': Cybersecurity expert Cybersecurity expert Morgan Wright breaks down the dangers of deepfake video technology on 'Unfiltered.' Imagine your phone rings and the voice on the other end sounds just like your boss, a close friend, or even a government official. They urgently ask for sensitive information, except it's not really them. It's a deepfake, powered by AI, and you're the target of a sophisticated scam. These kinds of attacks are happening right now, and they're getting more convincing every day.That's the warning sounded by the 2025 AI Security Report, unveiled at the RSA Conference (RSAC), one of the world's biggest gatherings for cybersecurity experts, companies, and law enforcement. The report details how criminals are harnessing artificial intelligence to impersonate people, automate scams, and attack security systems on a massive scale.From hijacked AI accounts and manipulated models to live video scams and data poisoning, the report paints a picture of a rapidly evolving threat landscape, one that's touching more lives than ever before. Illustration of cybersecurity risks. (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)AI tools are leaking sensitive dataOne of the biggest risks of using AI tools is what users accidentally share with them. A recent analysis by cybersecurity firm Check Point found that 1 in every 80 AI prompts includes high-risk data, and about 1 in 13 contains sensitive information that could expose users or organizations to security or compliance risks.This data can include passwords, internal business plans, client information, or proprietary code. When shared with AI tools that are not secured, this information can be logged, intercepted, or even leaked later.Deepfake scams are now real-time and multilingualAI-powered impersonation is getting more advanced every month. Criminals can now fake voices and faces convincingly in real time. In early 2024, a British engineering firm lost 20 million pounds after scammers used live deepfake video to impersonate company executives during a Zoom call. The attackers looked and sounded like trusted leaders and convinced an employee to transfer funds.Real-time video manipulation tools are now being sold on criminal forums. These tools can swap faces and mimic speech during video calls in multiple languages, making it easier for attackers to run scams across borders. Illustration of a person video conferencing on their laptop. (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)AI is running phishing and scam operations at scaleSocial engineering has always been a part of cybercrime. Now, AI is automating it. Attackers no longer need to speak a victim’s language, stay online constantly, or manually write convincing messages.Tools like GoMailPro use ChatGPT to create phishing and spam emails with perfect grammar and native-sounding tone. These messages are far more convincing than the sloppy scams of the past. GoMailPro can generate thousands of unique emails, each slightly different in language and urgency, which helps them slip past spam filters. It is actively marketed on underground forums for around $500 per month, making it widely accessible to bad actors.Another tool, the X137 Telegram Console, leverages Gemini AI to monitor and respond to chat messages automatically. It can impersonate customer support agents or known contacts, carrying out real-time conversations with multiple targets at once. The replies are uncensored, fast, and customized based on the victim’s responses, giving the illusion of a human behind the screen.AI is also powering large-scale sextortion scams. These are emails that falsely claim to have compromising videos or photos and demand payment to prevent them from being shared. Instead of using the same message repeatedly, scammers now rely on AI to rewrite the threat in dozens of ways. For example, a basic line like "Time is running out" might be reworded as "The hourglass is nearly empty for you," making the message feel more personal and urgent while also avoiding detection.By removing the need for language fluency and manual effort, these AI tools allow attackers to scale their phishing operations dramatically. Even inexperienced scammers can now run large, personalized campaigns with almost no effort. Stolen AI accounts are sold on the dark webWith AI tools becoming more popular, criminals are now targeting the accounts that use them. Hackers are stealing ChatGPT logins, OpenAI API keys, and other platform credentials to bypass usage limits and hide their identity. These accounts are often stolen through malware, phishing, or credential stuffing attacks. The stolen credentials are then sold in bulk on Telegram channels and underground forums. Some attackers are even using tools that can bypass multi-factor authentication and session-based security protections. These stolen accounts allow criminals to access powerful AI tools and use them for phishing, malware generation, and scam automation. Illustration of a person signing into their laptop. (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)Jailbreaking AI is now a common tacticCriminals are finding ways to bypass the safety rules built into AI models. On the dark web, attackers share techniques for jailbreaking AI so it will respond to requests that would normally be blocked. Common methods include:Telling the AI to pretend it is a fictional character that has no rules or limitationsPhrasing dangerous questions as academic or research-related scenariosAsking for technical instructions using less obvious wording so the request doesn’t get flaggedSome AI models can even be tricked into jailbreaking themselves. Attackers prompt the model to create input that causes it to override its own restrictions. This shows how AI systems can be manipulated in unexpected and dangerous ways.AI-generated malware is entering the mainstreamAI is now being used to build malware, phishing kits, ransomware scripts, and more. Recently, a group called FunkSac was identified as the leading ransomware gang using AI. Its leader admitted that at least 20% of their attacks are powered by AI. FunkSec has also used AI to help launch attacks that flood websites or services with fake traffic, making them crash or go offline. These are known as denial-of-service attacks. The group even created its own AI-powered chatbot to promote its activities and communicate with victims on its public website..Some cybercriminals are even using AI to help with marketing and data analysis after an attack. One tool called Rhadamanthys Stealer 0.7 claimed to use AI for "text recognition" to sound more advanced, but researchers later found it was using older technology instead. This shows how attackers use AI buzzwords to make their tools seem more advanced or trustworthy to buyers.Other tools are more advanced. One example is DarkGPT, a chatbot built specifically to sort through huge databases of stolen information. After a successful attack, scammers often end up with logs full of usernames, passwords, and other private details. Instead of sifting through this data manually, they use AI to quickly find valuable accounts they can break into, sell, or use for more targeted attacks like ransomware.Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web Poisoned AI models are spreading misinformationSometimes, attackers do not need to hack an AI system. Instead, they trick it by feeding it false or misleading information. This tactic is called AI poisoning, and it can cause the AI to give biased, harmful, or completely inaccurate answers. There are two main ways this happens:Training poisoning: Attackers sneak false or harmful data into the model during developmentRetrieval poisoning: Misleading content online gets planted, which the AI later picks up when generating answersIn 2024, attackers uploaded 100 tampered AI models to the open-source platform Hugging Face. These poisoned models looked like helpful tools, but when people used them, they could spread false information or output malicious code.A large-scale example came from a Russian propaganda group called Pravda, which published more than 3.6 million fake articles online. These articles were designed to trick AI chatbots into repeating their messages. In tests, researchers found that major AI systems echoed these false claims about 33% of the time. Illustration of a hacker at work (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)How to protect yourself from AI-driven cyber threatsAI-powered cybercrime blends realism, speed, and scale. These scams are not just harder to detect. They are also easier to launch. Here’s how to stay protected:1) Avoid entering sensitive data into public AI tools: Never share passwords, personal details, or confidential business information in any AI chat, even if it seems private. These inputs can sometimes be logged or misused.2) Use strong antivirus software: AI-generated phishing emails and malware can slip past outdated security tools. The best way to safeguard yourself from malicious links that install malware, potentially accessing your private information, is to have strong antivirus software installed on all your devices. This protection can also alert you to phishing emails and ransomware scams, keeping your personal information and digital assets safe. Get my picks for the best 2025 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android & iOS devices.3) Turn on two-factor authentication (2FA): 2FA adds an extra layer of protection to your accounts, including AI platforms. It makes it much harder for attackers to break in using stolen passwords.4) Be extra cautious with unexpected video calls or voice messages: If something feels off, even if the person seems familiar, verify before taking action. Deepfake audio and video can sound and look very real.5) Use a personal data removal service: With AI-powered scams and deepfake attacks on the rise, criminals are increasingly relying on publicly available personal information to craft convincing impersonations or target victims with personalized phishing. By using a reputable personal data removal service, you can reduce your digital footprint on data broker sites and public databases. This makes it much harder for scammers to gather the details they need to convincingly mimic your identity or launch targeted AI-driven attacks.While no service can guarantee the complete removal of your data from the internet, a data removal service is really a smart choice.  They aren’t cheap - and neither is your privacy.  These services do all the work for you by actively monitoring and systematically erasing your personal information from hundreds of websites.  It’s what gives me peace of mind and has proven to be the most effective way to erase your personal data from the internet.  By limiting the information available, you reduce the risk of scammers cross-referencing data from breaches with information they might find on the dark web, making it harder for them to target you. Check out my top picks for data removal services here. 6) Consider identity theft protection: If your data is leaked through a scam, early detection is key. Identity protection services can monitor your information and alert you to suspicious activity. Identity Theft companies can monitor personal information like your Social Security Number (SSN), phone number, and email address, and alert you if it is being sold on the dark web or being used to open an account.  They can also assist you in freezing your bank and credit card accounts to prevent further unauthorized use by criminals. See my tips and best picks on how to protect yourself from identity theft.7) Regularly monitor your financial accounts: AI-generated phishing, malware, and account takeover attacks are now more sophisticated and widespread than ever, as highlighted in the 2025 AI Security Report. By frequently reviewing your bank and credit card statements for suspicious activity, you can catch unauthorized transactions early, often before major damage is done. Quick detection is crucial, especially since stolen credentials and financial information are now being traded and exploited at scale by cybercriminals using AI.8) Use a secure password manager: Stolen AI accounts and credential stuffing attacks are a growing threat, with hackers using automated tools to break into accounts and sell access on the dark web. A secure password manager helps you create and store strong, unique passwords for every account, making it far more difficult for attackers to compromise your logins, even if some of your information is leaked or targeted by AI-driven attacks. Get more details about my best expert-reviewed Password Managers of 2025 here.9) Keep your software updated: AI-generated malware and advanced phishing kits are designed to exploit vulnerabilities in outdated software. To stay ahead of these evolving threats, ensure all your devices, browsers, and applications are updated with the latest security patches. Regular updates close security gaps that AI-powered malware and cybercriminals are actively seeking to exploit. Kurt's key takeawaysCybercriminals are now using AI to power some of the most convincing and scalable attacks we’ve ever seen. From deepfake video calls and AI-generated phishing emails to stolen AI accounts and malware written by chatbots, these scams are becoming harder to detect and easier to launch. Attackers are even poisoning AI models with false information and creating fake tools that look legitimate but are designed to do harm. To stay safe, it’s more important than ever to use strong antivirus protection, enable multi-factor authentication, and avoid sharing sensitive data with AI tools you do not fully trust.Have you noticed AI scams getting more convincing? Let us know your experience or questions by writing us at Cyberguy.com/Contact. Your story could help someone else stay safe.For more of my tech tips & security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/NewsletterAsk Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to coverFollow Kurt on his social channelsAnswers to the most asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com.  All rights reserved. Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson is an award-winning tech journalist who has a deep love of technology, gear and gadgets that make life better with his contributions for Fox News & FOX Business beginning mornings on "FOX & Friends." Got a tech question? Get Kurt’s free CyberGuy Newsletter, share your voice, a story idea or comment at CyberGuy.com.

Microsoft has shed light on a previously undocumented cluster of malicious activity originating from a Russia-affiliated threat actor dubbed Void Blizzard (aka Laundry Bear) that it said is attributed to "worldwide cloud abuse." Active since at least April 2024, the hacking group is linked to espionage operations mainly targeting organizations that are important to Russian government objectives, including those in government, defense, transportation, media, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and healthcare sectors in Europe and North America. "They often use stolen sign-in details that they likely buy from online marketplaces to gain access to organizations," the Microsoft Threat Intelligence team said in a report published today. "Once inside, they steal large amounts of emails and files." Attacks mounted by Void Blizzard have been found to disproportionately single out NATO member states and Ukraine, suggesting that the adversary is looking to collect intelligence to further Russian strategic objectives. Specifically, the threat actor is known to target government organizations and law enforcement agencies in NATO member states and countries that provide direct military or humanitarian support to Ukraine. It's also said to have staged successful attacks aimed at education, transportation, and defense verticals in Ukraine. This includes the October 2024 compromise of several user accounts belonging to a Ukrainian aviation organization that had been previously targeted by Seashell Blizzard, a threat actor tied to the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), in 2022. The attacks are characterized as opportunistic and targeted high-volume efforts that are engineered to breach targets deemed of value to the Russian government. Initial access methods comprise unsophisticated techniques like password spraying and stolen authentication credentials. In some of the campaigns, the threat actor has utilized stolen credentials likely sourced from commodity information stealer logs available on the cybercrime underground to access Exchange and SharePoint Online and harvest email and files from compromised organizations. "The threat actor has also in some cases enumerated the compromised organization's Microsoft Entra ID configuration using the publicly available AzureHound tool to gain information about the users, roles, groups, applications, and devices belonging to that tenant," Microsoft said. As recently as last month, the Windows maker said it observed the hacking crew shifting to "more direct methods" to steal passwords, such as sending spear-phishing emails that are engineered to trick victims into parting with their login information by means of an adversary-in-the-middle (AitM) landing pages. The activity entails the use of a typosquatted domain to impersonate the Microsoft Entra authentication portal to target over 20 NGOs in Europe and the United States. The email messages claimed to be from an organizer from the European Defense and Security Summit and contained a PDF attachment with fake invitations to the summit. Present wishing the PDF document is a malicious QR code that redirects to an attacker-controlled domain ("micsrosoftonline[.]com") that hosts a credential phishing page. It's believed that the phishing page is based on the open-source Evilginx phishing kit. Post-compromise actions after gaining initial access encompass the abuse of Exchange Online and Microsoft Graph to enumerate users' mailboxes and cloud-hosted files, and then make use of automation to facilitate bulk data collection. In select instances, the threat actors are also said to have accessed Microsoft Teams conversations and messages via the web client application. "Many of the compromised organizations overlap with past – or, in some cases, concurrent – targeting by other well-known Russian state actors, including Forest Blizzard, Midnight Blizzard, and Secret Blizzard," Microsoft said. "This intersection suggests shared espionage and intelligence collection interests assigned to the parent organizations of these threat actors." Void Blizzard Linked to September Breach of Dutch Police Agency In a separate advisory, the Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) attributed Void Blizzard to a September 23, 2024, breach of a Dutch police employee account via a pass-the-cookie attack, stating work-related contact information of police employees was obtained by the threat actor. Pass-the-cookie attack refers to a scenario where an attacker uses stolen cookies obtained via information stealer malware to sign in to accounts without having to enter a username and password. It's currently not known what other information was stolen, although it's highly likely that other Dutch organisations were also targeted. "Laundry Bear is looking for information about the purchase and production of military equipment by Western governments and Western supplies of weapons to Ukraine," said MIVD director, Vice Admiral Peter Reesink, in a statement. Found this article interesting? Follow us on Twitter  and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post.

The first observance of what came to be known as Memorial Day was on May 30, 1868, when a Civil War general called on Americans to commemorate the sacrifices of Union soldiers. It was initially called Decoration Day, for the practice of decorating graves with wreaths and flags. And there were so many graves — more than 300,000 men had died on the Union side, and nearly as many for the Confederacy. In total, more died on both sides of the Civil War than in every other US conflict through the Korean War, combined. It wasn’t long, though, before remembrance began to be overshadowed by celebration. Within a year, the New York Times opined the holiday would no longer be “sacred” if parades and speeches became more central than the act of memorializing the dead. Which is precisely what happened, especially after Congress in 1971 fixed Memorial Day as the last Monday in May, making it the perfect launchpad for summer, with an increasingly perfunctory nod to the holiday’s original purpose.The gap between those for whom Memorial Day is a moment of remembrance versus three days of hot dogs and hamburgers will likely only grow in the future, as veterans of previous wars pass away and the divide between America’s all-volunteer military and its civilians deepens. Fewer than 1 percent of the US adult population serves in the military, and those still signing up increasingly come from a small handful of regions and families with a history of military service. (You can include my own family in that ever rarer number: My brother is a retired Army captain who served in Iraq.)With ever-inflating military spending — now nearing $1 trillion, according to one estimate — the footprint of the US military is hardly shrinking, but the number of those who will potentially be called on to give what Abraham Lincoln called the “last full measure of devotion” is.Yet there’s a greater gap embedded in Memorial Day: It’s between those who died as warfighters (to use one of the Pentagon’s terms), and the far greater number around the world who have died not as war’s participants, but as its victims. When civilians die in warThe past is not just a foreign country to us, but a bloody one. From the interpersonal to the international, conflict was a constant throughout much of human history. Between 1500 and 1800, there was hardly a year when great powers weren’t enmeshed in some kind of war. Though war became somewhat less common as we entered the 1900s, it did not become less deadly. Far from it — while the death toll of war in the past was more chiefly concentrated among combatants, the 20th century saw the awful blossoming of total war, where little to no distinction was made between those fighting the war and the civilians on the sidelines, and new weapons enabled mass, indiscriminate killing.Go back to the Civil War, which sits at the junction between battle as it had long been practiced and the greater horror it would become. Over 600,000 soldiers were killed in the conflict, against at least 50,000 civilians, ranging from those killed directly to the many who died in the wake of war, from starvation and disease. That number was terrible, yet in the wars to come, it would only grow.In the First World War, a roughly equal number of combatants and civilians were killed globally — approximately 10 million on each side. In the Second World War, more combatants were killed than in any other conflict in human history, a toll nearing 15 million. Yet for every soldier, sailor, or airman who was killed, nearly one and a half civilians would die, totaling, by one count, almost 40 million. The last of the dead would come in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when as many as 210,000 people — nearly all of them Japanese civilians — died in the first and so far only atomic bombings. Not only were these new weapons capable of murdering at a vastly larger scale than ever before, but they existed chiefly to threaten the lives of noncombatants. Thankfully, given the weapons militaries now had at their disposal, World War II was the high mark for war deaths. In the decades that followed, deaths in battle for both combatants and civilians sharply declined, minus the occasional spike in conflicts like the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Even with the recent resurgence of conflict, people around the world today are much less likely to die in war than their ancestors, which is one of the most undeniable — if tenuous — markers of our species’ under-appreciated progress.Yet even in this era of comparative peace, civilians still bear the brunt of war when it comes, including when it is fought by the United States. According to Brown University’s Costs of War project, more civilians were likely directly killed in post-9/11 conflicts than fighters on either side — and when the number of indirect deaths from starvation and destruction are included, that gulf only widens. In Ukraine, at least 12,910 civilians have been killed in the war as of March 31, including nearly 700 children, while nearly 31,000 civilians have been injured. In a single large-scale Russian missile attack on April 24, at least nine civilians were killed and 90 were injured, including 12 children.In Gaza, accurately counting the civilian death toll has been all but impossible, but the most recent UN estimates put the number of dead children, women, and elderly people at north of 27,000, with thousands of dead bodies still unidentified. Even those civilians who have escaped death face the real risk of starvation, with Israel only now allowing trickled of aid in after a blockade that has lasted more than two months. And of course, Israel itself lost nearly 700 civilians in the October 7 attacks, while many noncombatants are still held hostage by Hamas and other militant groups.And the ongoing war in Sudan — which has received only a fraction of the global attention of Ukraine and Gaza — has led to horrifying levels of civilian death. Last year Tom Perriello, then the US envoy for Sudan, estimated that at least 150,000 people had died of war-related causes, while 13 million people have been forced to flee their homes.A new kind of Memorial DayThe US has its Memorial Day to honor fallen soldiers, while other countries have their Remembrance Day, their Victory Day. Yet there are only a handful of monuments to honor the countlessly greater number of civilians killed in war.It’s not hard to imagine why. As the shift in perception around the Vietnam Veterans Memorial has shown — from unpatriotic atrocity to a celebrated work of national mourning — we can honor the sacrifice of service members who died in a war, even if we don’t believe in the war. But the death of those who died without a rifle in hand, who died in childhood and infancy, who died because they could not fight and could not be protected, shows war for what it ultimately is: a waste. And we can’t begin to know how to mark the unmarked.America has been a historical exception in many ways, but perhaps no more so than that its civilian citizens have largely escaped the scourge of war. (Though the same, of course, can hardly be said for its Indigenous populations, so long treated as enemy combatants in their own land.) Americans have fought and Americans have died, but at an ever-increasing remove, a distance that grows with each Memorial Day. The general decline of war is one of our great accomplishments as humans, something to be unequivocally celebrated. Perhaps we would feel that more if we gave the deaths of civilians the same honor as that of soldiers — a new kind of Memorial Day that can begin here. A version of this story was initially published in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to subscribe!Update, May 26, 2025, 8 am ET: This story was first published on May 31, 2023, has been updated to include new data on civilian deaths in Gaza, Israel, Sudan, and Ukraine.You’ve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you — join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

It's time to get busy bargain huntin' in the second-best time of the year—end of financial. I've scoured every store worth shopping in for the cheapest prices on the games worth caring about. I'm also all about hooking you up with the occasional free game. Check back tomorrow for yet more deals, as this list is a living one!This Day in Gaming 🎂Aussie bdays for notable games- Resident Evil – Code: Veronica (DC) 2000. Get- Monster Hunter Freedom (PSP) 2006. eBay- Rockstar Table Tennis (X360) 2006. Get- Urban Chaos: Riot Response (PS2,XB) 2006. eBay- Blur (PC,PS3,X360) 2010. eBay- Dead or Alive Dimensions (3DS) 2011. eBayContentsNintendoXboxPlayStationPCPC GearLEGOHeadphonesTVsNice Savings for Nintendo SwitchNintendo Switch players shouldn’t miss Sea of Stars (A$33.10), a love letter to SNES-era RPGs scored in part by Chrono Trigger composer Yasunori Mitsuda. Also worth grabbing is Zombie Army Trilogy (A$7.80), which lets you snipe Hitler’s undead minions. Because apparently that’s a thing.Sea of Stars (-35%) - A$33.10Rune Factory 5 (-50%) - A$37.30Sonic Colors: Ult. (-18%) - A$49.00Zombie Army Trilogy (-85%) - A$7.80Lego Harry Potter Col. (-80%) - A$8.90Expiring Recent DealsLego Skywalker Saga (-80%) - A$17.90Dead Cells (-50%) - A$18.70Jurassic World Evolution: Comp. Ed. (-80%) - A$16.90Namco Museum Archives Vol. 1 (-84%) - A$4.70Blasphemous (-75%) - A$9.30Expeditions: A MudRunner (-42%) - A$49Or gift a Nintendo eShop Card.Switch Console PricesHow much to Switch it up?Back to topExciting Bargains for XboxOver on Xbox Series X, Metro 2033 Redux is gloriously free and based on a Russian novel whose author let readers vote on major plot points in its early web-published form. Wild Hearts (A$29.60), meanwhile, is EA and Koei Tecmo’s crack at a Monster Hunter-style experience, complete with buildable contraptions mid-battle.Metro 2033 Redux (-100%) - A$0.00Wild Hearts (-73%) - A$29.60Seagate Expansion 1TB (-32%) - A$209.30Star Wars Outlaws (-64%) - A$40.00Sniper Elite Resistance (-21%) - A$79.00Xbox OneCyberpunk 2077 (-60%) - A$35.90It Takes Two (-65%) - A$20.90Halo: The Master Chief Col. (-75%) - A$14.90Expiring Recent DealsDoom: The Dark Ages (-17%) - A$99Roadcraft (-18%) - A$49Hot Wheels Unleashed (-29%) - A$39UFC 5 (-65%) - A$39Halo Infinite (-67%) - A$32.90Red Dead Redemption 2 (-73%) - A$24No Man's Sky (-60%) - A$35.90Star Wars Jedi: Survivor (-60%) - A$29.90Tiny Tina's Wonderlands (-90%) - A$10Or just invest in an Xbox Card.Xbox Console PricesHow many bucks for a 'Box?Back to topPure Scores for PlayStationPlayStation 5 users can score Persona 5 Royal (A$59.90), the definitive edition of a game whose dev team spent years mapping Tokyo’s train schedules to make the daily-life sim feel real. Or opt for Epic Mickey: Rebrushed (A$59), a cult favourite originally directed by Warren Spector, best known for Deus Ex.Ghost of Yōtei (-21%) - A$99Lego Horizon Adventures (-15%) - A$93.20Dragon Age: The Veilguard (-65%) - A$38.20Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot Leg. Ed. (-44%) - A$100.60Persona 5 Royal (-37%) - A$59.90Epic Mickey: Rebrushed (-41%) - A$59PS4GTA Trilogy Def. (-76%) - A$24Dark Souls Trilogy (-33%) - A$64EA Sports FC 25 (-36%) - A$69Expiring Recent DealsDualSense Chroma Indigo (-12%) - A$109.90Doom: The Dark Ages (-17%) - A$99Roadcraft (-18%) - A$49Tales of Arise (-69%) - A$31NBA 2K25 (-72%) - A$34Expeditions: A MudRunner (-42%) - A$49UFC 5 (-65%) - A$39Red Dead Redemption 2 (-73%) - A$24Red Dead Redemption (-48%) - A$39Octopath Traveler II (-32%) - A$57.70The Yakuza Rem. Col. (-26%) - A$40.30PS+ Monthly FreebiesYours to keep from May 1 with this subscriptionArk: Survival Ascended (PS5)Balatro (PS5/PS4)Warhammer 40,000: Boltgun (PS5/PS4)Or purchase a PS Store Card.What you'll pay to 'Station.Back to topPurchase Cheap for PCFinally, on PC, both Thief II: The Metal Age and 40K Gladius: Relics of War are completely free. One pioneered stealth gameplay in the year 2000, the other lets you wage unrelenting war as the Astra Militarum. Not bad for zero bucks.GOG FPS Sale (≤85%) -Thief II: The Metal Age (-100%) - FREE w/ Prime40K Gladius: Relics of War (-100%) - FREERed Dead 2 (-76%) - A$22Mafia Trilogy (-82%) - A$17.90Expiring Recent DealsSifu (-100%) - FREEGigapocalypse (-100%) - FREEDeliver At All Costs (-100%) - FREEHogwarts Legacy Del. (-79%) - A$21.20Razer Huntsman Mini keyboard (-23%) - A$137Metaphor: ReFantazio (-30%) - A$80.40Or just get a Steam Wallet CardPC Hardware PricesSlay your pile of shame.Laptop DealsLenovo ThinkPad P14s G5 (-29%) – A$1,855.23Lenovo ThinkPad P16s G2 (-29%) – A$1,946.23Lenovo ThinkPad X13 G4 (-29%) – A$1,483.46Lenovo IdeaPad Pro 5 16" (-28%) – A$1,539LenovoYoga Pro 7 14" AMD (-35%) – A$1,699Desktop DealsLenovo neo 50a G5 27" AIO (-47%) – A$1,379Lenovo neo 50q G4 Tiny (-35%) – A$639Lenovo neo 50t G5 Tower (-20%) – A$871.20Legion Tower 5i G8 (-29%) – A$1,899Monitor DealsSamsung QE50T 50" (-31%) – A$596ARZOPA 16.1" 144Hz (-55%) – A$159.99Z-Edge 27" 240Hz (-15%) – A$237.99Gawfolk 34" WQHD (-28%) – A$359LG 27" Ultragear (-42%) – A$349Component DealsMSI PRO B650M-A WiFi Motherboard (-41%) – A$229AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D (-7%) – A$876Corsair Vengeance 32GB (-35%) – A$82Kingston FURY Beast 16GB (-30%) – A$48Storage DealsSeagate One Touch Portable HDD (-24%) – A$228Kingston 1TB USB 3.2 SSD (-17%) – A$115SanDisk 128GB Extreme PRO (-63%) – A$29SanDisk 32GB Ultra SDHC (-53%) – A$9.90Back to topLegit LEGO DealsBotanticaal Cherry Blossoms (-35%) - A$15Technic Mercedes-AMG F1 (-27%) - A$219City Off-Road 4x4 (-27%) - A$22Harry Potter Hogwarts Castle (-27%) - A$22Expiring Recent DealsMario Kart – Yoshi (-25%) - A$15The Mighty Bowser (-14%) - A$345Star Wars R2-D2 (-30%) - A$139Star Wars Home One Starcruiser (-19%) - A$89Back to topHot Headphones DealsAudiophilia for lessEPOS 1061T ANC Headset (-41%) – A$446Jabra Evolve 20SE (-36%) – A$95Galaxy Buds2 Pro (-31%) – A$239Technics Wireless NC (-33%) – A$365SoundPEATS Space (-25%) – A$56.99Sony MDR7506 Pro (-18%) – A$199Back to topTerrific TV DealsDo right by your console, upgrade your tellyLG 43" UT80 4K (-24%) – A$635Kogan 65" QLED 4K (-50%) – A$699Kogan 55" QLED 4K (-45%) – A$549LG 55" UT80 4K (-28%) – A$866Back to top Adam Mathew is our Aussie deals wrangler. He plays practically everything, often on YouTube.