€700 million crypto fraud network spanning Europe broken up

Authorities have broken an extensive cryptocurrency fraud and money laundering network that moved over EUR 700 million after years of international investigation.

The operation began with an investigation into a single fraudulent cryptocurrency platform and eventually uncovered an extensive network of fake investment schemes targeting thousands of victims.

Victims were drawn in by fake ads promising high returns and pressured via criminal call centres to pay more. Transferred funds were stolen and laundered across blockchains and exchanges, exposing a highly organised operation across Europe and beyond.

Police raids across Cyprus, Germany, and Spain in late October 2025 resulted in nine arrests and the seizure of millions in assets, including bank deposits, cryptocurrencies, cash, digital devices, and luxury watches.

Europol and Eurojust coordinated the cross-border operation with national authorities from France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Malta, Cyprus, and other nations.

The second phase, executed in November, targeted the affiliate marketing infrastructure behind fraudulent online advertising, including deepfake campaigns impersonating celebrities and media outlets.

Law enforcement teams in Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, and Israel conducted searches, dismantling key elements of the scam ecosystem. Investigations continue to track down remaining assets and dismantle the broader network.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot

Russia blocks Snapchat and FaceTime access

Russia’s state communications watchdog has intensified its campaign against major foreign platforms by blocking Snapchat and restricting FaceTime calls.

The move follows earlier reports of disrupted Apple services inside the country, while users could still connect through VPNs instead of relying on direct access. Roskomnadzor accused Snapchat of enabling criminal activity and repeated earlier claims targeting Apple’s service.

A decision that marks the authorities’ first formal confirmation of limits on both platforms. It arrives as pressure increases on WhatsApp, which remains Russia’s most popular messenger, with officials warning that a whole block is possible.

Meta is accused of failing to meet data-localisation rules and of what the authorities describe as repeated violations linked to terrorism and fraud.

Digital rights groups argue that technical restrictions are designed to push citizens toward Max, a government-backed messenger that activists say grants officials sweeping access to private conversations, rather than protecting user privacy.

These measures coincide with wider crackdowns, including the recent blocking of the Roblox gaming platform over allegations of extremist content and harmful influence on children.

The tightening of controls reflects a broader effort to regulate online communication as Russia seeks stronger oversight of digital platforms. The latest blocks add further uncertainty for millions of users who depend on familiar services instead of switching to state-supported alternatives.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Porn site fined £1m for ignoring UK child safety age checks

A UK pornographic website has been fined £1m by Ofcom for failing to comply with mandatory age verification under the Online Safety Act. The company, AVS Group Ltd, did not respond to repeated contact from the regulator, prompting an additional £50,000 penalty.

The Act requires websites hosting adult content to implement ‘highly effective age assurance’ to prevent children from accessing explicit material. Ofcom has ordered the company to comply within 72 hours or face further daily fines.

Other tech platforms are also under scrutiny, with one unnamed major social media company undergoing compliance checks. Regulators warn that non-compliance will result in formal action, highlighting the growing enforcement of child safety online.

Critics argue the law must be tougher to ensure real protection, particularly for minors and women online. While age checks have reduced UK traffic to some sites, loopholes like VPNs remain a concern, and regulators are pushing for stricter adherence.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Japanese high-schooler suspected of hacking net-cafe chain using AI

Authorities in Tokyo have issued an arrest warrant for a 17-year-old boy from Osaka on suspicion of orchestrating a large-scale cyberattack using artificial intelligence. The alleged target was the operator of the Kaikatsu Club internet-café chain (along with related fitness-gym business), which may have exposed the personal data of about 7.3 million customers.

According to investigators, the suspect used a computer programme, reportedly built with help from an AI chatbot, to send unauthorised commands around 7.24 million times to the company’s servers in order to extract membership information. The teenager was previously arrested in November in connection with a separate fraud case involving credit-card misuse.

Police have charged him under Japan’s law against unauthorised computer access and for obstructing business, though so far no evidence has emerged of misuse (for example, resale or public leaks) of the stolen data.

In his statement to investigators, the suspect reportedly said he carried out the hack simply because he found it fun to probe system vulnerabilities.

This case is the latest in a growing pattern of so-called AI-enabled cyber crimes in Japan, from fraudulent subscription schemes to ransomware generation. Experts warn that generative AI is lowering the barrier to entry for complex attacks, enabling individuals with limited technical training to carry out large-scale hacking or fraud.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Privacy concerns lead India to withdraw cyber safety app mandate

India has scrapped its order mandating smartphone manufacturers to pre-install the state-run Sanchar Saathi cyber safety app. The directive, which faced widespread criticism, had raised concerns over privacy and potential government surveillance.

Smartphone makers, including Apple and Samsung, reportedly resisted the order, highlighting that it was issued without prior consultation and challenged user privacy norms. The government argued the app was necessary to verify handset authenticity.

So far, the Sanchar Saathi app has attracted 14 million users, reporting around 2,000 frauds daily, with a sharp spike of 600,000 new registrations in a single day. Despite these figures, the mandatory pre-installation rule provoked intense backlash from cybersecurity experts and digital rights advocates.

India’s Minister of Communications, Jyotiraditya Scindia, dismissed concerns about surveillance, insisting that the app does not enable snooping. Digital advocacy groups welcomed the withdrawal but called for complete legal clarity on the revised Cyber Security Rules, 2024.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Meta expands global push against online scam networks

The US tech giant, Meta, outlined an expanded strategy to limit online fraud by combining technical defences with stronger collaboration across industry and law enforcement.

The company described scams as a threat to user safety and as a direct risk to the credibility of its advertising ecosystem, which remains central to its business model.

Executives emphasised that large criminal networks continue to evolve and that a faster, coordinated response is essential instead of fragmented efforts.

Meta presented recent progress, noting that more than 134 million scam advertisements were removed in 2025 and that reports about misleading advertising fell significantly in the last fifteen months.

It also provided details about disrupted criminal networks that operated across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

Facial recognition tools played a crucial role in detecting scam content that utilised images of public figures, resulting in an increased volume of removals during testing, rather than allowing wider circulation.

Cooperation with law enforcement remains central to Meta’s approach. The company supported investigations that targeted criminal centres in Myanmar and illegal online gambling operations connected to transfers through anonymous accounts.

Information shared with financial institutions and partners in the Global Signal Exchange contributed to the removal of thousands of accounts. At the same time, legal action continued against those who used impersonation or bulk messaging to deceive users.

Meta stated that it backs bipartisan legislation designed to support a national response to online fraud. The company argued that new laws are necessary to weaken transnational groups behind large-scale scam operations and to protect users more effectively.

A broader aim is to strengthen trust across Meta’s services, rather than allowing criminal activity to undermine user confidence and advertiser investment.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Regulators question transparency after Mixpanel data leak

Mixpanel is facing criticism after disclosing a security incident with minimal detail, providing only a brief note before the US Thanksgiving weekend. Analysts say the timing and lack of clarity set a poor example for transparency in breach reporting.

OpenAI later confirmed its own exposure, stating that analytics data linked to developer activity had been obtained from Mixpanel’s systems. It stressed that ChatGPT users were not affected and that it had halted its use of the service following the incident.

OpenAI said the stolen information included names, email addresses, coarse location data and browser details, raising concerns about phishing risks. It noted that no advertising identifiers were involved, limiting broader cross-platform tracking.

Security experts say the breach highlights long-standing concerns about analytics companies that collect detailed behavioural and device data across thousands of apps. Mixpanel’s session-replay tools can be sensitive, as they can inadvertently capture private information.

Regulators argue the case shows why analytics providers have become prime targets for attackers. They say that more transparent disclosure from Mixpanel is needed to assess the scale of exposure and the potential impact on companies and end-users.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

eSafety highlights risks in connected vehicle technology

Australia’s eSafety regulator is drawing attention to concerns about how connected car features can be misused within domestic and family violence situations.

Reports from frontline workers indicate that remote access tools, trip records and location tracking can be exploited instead of serving their intended purpose as safety and convenience features.

The Australian regulator stresses that increased connectivity across vehicles and devices is creating new challenges for those supporting victim-survivors.

Smart cars often store detailed travel information and allow remote commands through apps and online accounts. These functions can be accessed by someone with shared credentials or linked accounts, which can expose sensitive information.

eSafety notes that misuse of connected vehicles forms part of a broader pattern of technology-facilitated coercive control, where multiple smart devices such as watches, tablets, cameras and televisions can play a role.

The regulator has produced updated guidance to help people understand potential risks and take practical steps with the support of specialist services.

Officials highlight the importance of stronger safeguards from industry, including simpler methods for revoking access, clearer account transfer processes during separation and more transparent logs showing when remote commands are used.

Retailers and dealerships are encouraged to ensure devices and accounts are reset when ownership changes. eSafety argues that design improvements introduced early can reduce the likelihood of harm, rather than requiring complex responses later.

Agencies and community services continue to assist those affected by domestic and family violence, offering advice on account security, safe device use and available support services.

The guidance aims to help people take protective measures in a controlled and safe way, while emphasising the importance of accessing professional assistance.

eSafety encourages ongoing cooperation between industry, government and frontline workers to manage risks linked to emerging automotive and digital technologies.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Quantum money meets Bitcoin: Building unforgeable digital currency

Quantum money might sound like science fiction, yet it is rapidly emerging as one of the most compelling frontiers in modern digital finance. Initially a theoretical concept, it was far ahead of the technology of its time, making practical implementation impossible. Today, thanks to breakthroughs in quantum computing and quantum communication, scientists are reviving the idea, investigating how the principles of quantum physics could finally enable unforgeable quantum digital money. 

Comparisons between blockchain and quantum money are frequent and, on the surface, appear logical, yet can these two visions of new-generation cash genuinely be measured by the same yardstick? 

Origins of quantum money 

Quantum money was first proposed by physicist Stephen Wiesner in the late 1960s. Wiesner envisioned a system in which each banknote would carry quantum particles encoded in specific states, known only to the issuing bank, making the notes inherently secure. 

Due to the peculiarities of quantum mechanics, these quantum states could not be copied, offering a level of security fundamentally impossible with classical systems. At the time, however, quantum technologies were purely theoretical, and devices capable of creating, storing, and accurately measuring delicate quantum states simply did not exist. 

For decades, Wiesner’s idea remained a fascinating thought experiment. Today, the rise of functional quantum computers, advanced photonic systems, and reliable quantum communication networks is breathing new life into the concept, allowing researchers to explore practical applications of quantum money in ways that were once unimaginable.

A new battle for the digital throne is emerging as quantum money shifts from theory to possibility, challenging whether Bitcoin’s decentralised strength can hold its ground in a future shaped by quantum technology.

The no-cloning theorem: The physics that makes quantum money impossible to forge

At the heart of quantum money lies the no-cloning theorem, a cornerstone of quantum mechanics. The principle establishes that it is physically impossible to create an exact copy of an unknown quantum state. Any attempt to measure a quantum state inevitably alters it, meaning that copying or scanning a quantum banknote destroys the very information that ensures its authenticity. 

The unique property makes quantum money exceptionally secure: unlike blockchain, which relies on cryptographic algorithms and distributed consensus, quantum money derives its protection directly from the laws of physics. In theory, a quantum banknote cannot be counterfeited, even by an attacker with unlimited computing resources, which is why quantum money is considered one of the most promising approaches to unforgeable digital currency.

 A new battle for the digital throne is emerging as quantum money shifts from theory to possibility, challenging whether Bitcoin’s decentralised strength can hold its ground in a future shaped by quantum technology.

How quantum money works in theory

Quantum money schemes are typically divided into two main types: private and public. 

In private quantum money systems, a central authority- such as a bank- creates quantum banknotes and remains the only entity capable of verifying them. Each note carries a classical serial number alongside a set of quantum states known solely to the issuer. The primary advantage of this approach is its absolute immunity to counterfeiting, as no one outside the issuing institution can replicate the banknote. However, such systems are fully centralised and rely entirely on the security and infrastructure of the issuing bank, which inherently limits scalability and accessibility.

Public quantum money, by contrast, pursues a more ambitious goal: allowing anyone to verify a quantum banknote without consulting a central authority. Developing this level of decentralisation has proven exceptionally difficult. Numerous proposed schemes have been broken by researchers who have managed to extract information without destroying the quantum states. Despite these challenges, public quantum money remains a major focus of quantum cryptography research, with scientists actively pursuing secure and scalable methods for open verification. 

Beyond theoretical appeal, quantum money faces substantial practical hurdles. Quantum states are inherently fragile and susceptible to decoherence, meaning they can lose their information when interacting with the surrounding environment. 

Maintaining stable quantum states demands highly specialised and costly equipment, including photonic processors, quantum memory modules, and sophisticated quantum error-correction systems. Any error or loss could render a quantum banknote completely worthless, and no reliable method currently exists to store these states over long periods. In essence, the concept of quantum money is groundbreaking, yet real-world implementation requires technological advances that are not yet mature enough for mass adoption. 

A new battle for the digital throne is emerging as quantum money shifts from theory to possibility, challenging whether Bitcoin’s decentralised strength can hold its ground in a future shaped by quantum technology.

Bitcoin solves the duplication problem differently

While quantum money relies on the laws of physics to prevent counterfeiting, Bitcoin tackles the duplication problem through cryptography and distributed consensus. Each transaction is verified across thousands of nodes, and SHA-256 hash functions secure the blockchain against double spending without the need for a central authority. 

Unlike elliptic curve cryptography, which could eventually be vulnerable to large-scale quantum attacks, SHA-256 has proven remarkably resilient; even quantum algorithms such as Grover’s offer only a marginal advantage, reducing the search space from 2256 to 2128– still far beyond any realistic brute-force attempt. 

Bitcoin’s security does not hinge on unbreakable mathematics alone but on a combination of decentralisation, network verification, and robust cryptographic design. Many experts therefore consider Bitcoin effectively quantum-proof, with most of the dramatic threats predicted from quantum computers likely to be impossible in practice. 

Software-based and globally accessible, Bitcoin operates independently of specialised hardware, allowing users to send, receive, and verify value anywhere in the world without the fragility and complexity inherent in quantum systems. Furthermore, the network can evolve to adopt post-quantum cryptographic algorithms, ensuring long-term resilience, making Bitcoin arguably the most battle-hardened digital financial instrument in existence. 

 A new battle for the digital throne is emerging as quantum money shifts from theory to possibility, challenging whether Bitcoin’s decentralised strength can hold its ground in a future shaped by quantum technology.

Could quantum money be a threat to Bitcoin?

In reality, quantum money and Bitcoin address entirely different challenges, meaning the former is unlikely to replace the latter. Bitcoin operates as a global, decentralised monetary network with established economic rules and governance, while quantum money represents a technological approach to issuing physically unforgeable tokens. Bitcoin is not designed to be physically unclonable; its strength lies in verifiability, decentralisation, and network-wide trust.

However, SHA-256- the hashing algorithm that underpins Bitcoin mining and block creation- remains highly resistant to quantum threats. Quantum computers achieve only a quadratic speed-up through Grover’s algorithm, which is insufficient to break SHA-256 in practical terms. Bitcoin also retains the ability to adopt post-quantum cryptographic standards as they mature, whereas quantum money is limited by rigid physical constraints that are far harder to update.

Quantum money also remains too fragile, complex, and costly for widespread use. Its realistic applications are limited to state institutions, military networks, or highly secure financial environments rather than everyday payments. Bitcoin, by contrast, already benefits from extensive global infrastructure, strong market adoption, and deep liquidity, making it far more practical for daily transactions and long-term digital value transfer. 

A new battle for the digital throne is emerging as quantum money shifts from theory to possibility, challenging whether Bitcoin’s decentralised strength can hold its ground in a future shaped by quantum technology.

Where quantum money and blockchain could coexist

Although fundamentally different, quantum money and blockchain technologies have the potential to complement one another in meaningful ways. Quantum key distribution could strengthen the security of blockchain networks by protecting communication channels from advanced attacks, while quantum-generated randomness may enhance cryptographic protocols used in decentralised systems. 

Researchers have also explored the idea of using ‘quantum tokens’ to provide an additional privacy layer within specialised blockchain applications. Both technologies ultimately aim to deliver secure and verifiable forms of digital value. Their coexistence may offer the most resilient future framework for digital finance, combining the physics-based protection of quantum money with the decentralisation, transparency, and global reach of blockchain technology. 

A new battle for the digital throne is emerging as quantum money shifts from theory to possibility, challenging whether Bitcoin’s decentralised strength can hold its ground in a future shaped by quantum technology.

Quantum physics meets blockchain for the future of secure currency

Quantum money remains a remarkable concept, originally decades ahead of its time, and now revived by advances in quantum computing and quantum communication. Although it promises theoretically unforgeable digital currency, its fragility, technical complexity, and demanding infrastructure make it impractical for large-scale use. 

Bitcoin, by contrast, stands as the most resilient and widely adopted model of decentralised digital money, supported by a mature global network and robust cryptographic foundations. 

Quantum money and Bitcoin stand as twin engines of a new digital finance era, where quantum physics is reshaping value creation, powering blockchain innovation, and driving next-generation fintech solutions for secure and resilient digital currency. 

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot

Dublin startup raises US$2.5 m to protect AI data with encryption

Mirror Security, founded at University College Dublin, has announced a US$2.5 million (approx. €2.15 million) pre-seed funding round to develop what it describes as the next generation of secure AI infrastructure.

The startup’s core product, VectaX, is a fully homomorphic encryption (FHE) engine designed for AI workloads. This technology allows AI systems to process, train or infer on data that remains encrypted, meaning sensitive or proprietary data never has to be exposed in plaintext, even during computation.

Backed by leading deep-tech investors such as Sure Valley Ventures (SVV) and Atlantic Bridge, Mirror Security plans to scale its engineering and AI-security teams across Ireland, the US and India, accelerate development of encrypted inferencing and secure fine-tuning, and target enterprise markets in the US.

As organisations increasingly adopt AI, often handling sensitive data, Mirror Security argues that conventional security measures (like policy-based controls) fall short. Its encryption native approach aims to provide cryptographic guarantees rather than trust-based assurances, positioning the company as a ‘trust layer’ for the emerging AI economy.

The Irish startup also announced a strategic partnership with Inception AI (a subsidiary of G42) to deploy its full AI security stack across enterprise and government systems. Mirror has also formed collaborations with major technology players including Intel, MongoDB, and others.

From a digital policy and global technology governance perspective, this funding milestone is significant. It underlines how the increasing deployment of AI, especially in enterprise and government contexts, is creating demand for robust, privacy-preserving infrastructure. Mirror Security’s model offers a potential blueprint for how to reconcile AI’s power with data confidentiality, compliance, and sovereignty.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot