Direct File, the free, government-provided alternative to services like TurboTax, won't be available for the 2026 tax season, Bloomberg Tax reports. That's based on a letter sent from the Internal Revenue Service to participating states that says that "no launch date has been set for the future."
A Biden administration project, Direct File was designed to be an easy way for eligible taxpayers to file taxes online, without having to pay for a service like TurboTax or H&R Block to do it on their behalf. The IRS began piloting Direct File for the 2024 tax season, and opted to make it a permanent option later that year. Direct File was available for the most recent 2025 tax season in 25 states in the US.
Despite the service's success, the Trump administration appears to opposed to offering Direct File in its current form. The "Big Beautiful Bill" passed in July 2025 includes funding for the IRS to research "the cost to replace any direct e-file programs run by the Internal Revenue Service" and "the cost of developing and running a free direct e-file tax return system." Whatever the results of that research, later in July, former IRS Commissioner Billy Long seemed to suggest the e-filing option had been eliminated. "You've heard of Direct File, that's gone," Long said at a tax professional summit. "Big beautiful Billy wiped that out."
Engadget has contacted the IRS to confirm that Direct File won't be offered in 2026. We'll update this article if we hear back.
While the IRS has yet to formally announce that Direct File is going away outside of Long's comments, the tool is currently unavailable through the IRS website. Additionally, the position to lead the Direct File project inside the IRS is currently vacant under acting IRS Commissioner Scott Bessent.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/the-irs-free-tax-filing-tool-reportedly-wont-be-offered-in-2026-185430716.html?src=rss
Since being placed on a Department of Commerce entity list in 2020 over national security fears, China’s DJI has faced the threat of a US ban on its hyper-popular drones. After exhausting its appeals and losing a lawsuit last month, DJI products like the Mini 4 Pro, Avata 2 and Neo may disappear from US shelves starting December 23.
The situation could be even worse than initially expected. The FCC just gave itself the power to retroactively cut off products from companies on its “covered” list, including DJI. That gives the government the right to not just halt sales of future products, but enact rules preventing people from using drones they’ve already purchased.
DJI dominates the consumer US drone market, so a ban would be terrible news for hobbyists and creators, along with industrial and public safety operators. However, the government’s concerns about the company’s drones as potential spying tools are very real.
A brief history of DJI
DJI, or Da-Jiang Innovations, is based in Shenzhen, China and introduced its ready-to-fly, now-iconic Phantom drone in 2013. It was $629 and offered a more user-friendly experience than other drones at the time, opening up aerial photography to creators and cinematographers.
DJI Mavic 4 Pro
Steve Dent for Engadget
The company followed with increasingly sophisticated products like the Mavic Pro, Mini 3 Pro and Avata, along with larger commercial drones. It continued to expand its range with the small but powerful Air 3, Neo and Flip. As of 2020, DJI had an estimated 77 percent of the US drone market (which accounts for 40 percent of its sales), leaving rivals to fight for scraps.
Most observers attribute DJI’s dominance to its engineering-first culture. To give an idea of its technical progress, the latest 2025 Mavic 4 Pro can be flown from 25 miles away, compared to just 0.62 miles for the 2015 Phantom 3. Nearly every DJI drone feature, including video quality, battery life, range, tracking and obstacle detection, is superior to rivals.
Catching the eye of the US government
By 2016, the company had caught the attention of US regulators concerned about Chinese camera-equipped drones flying over sensitive facilities. While no one has uncovered a smoking gun proving that DJI drones spy for China, they undoubtedly pose a potential national security risk. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) laid out the dangers last year in a guidance sheet:
DJI is subject to China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, which compels companies to cooperate with state intelligence services.
The 2021 Cyber Vulnerability Reporting Law requires Chinese-based companies to disclose cyber vulnerabilities to PRC authorities prior to any public disclosure, which could allow them to exploit such flaws before they’re publicly known.
UAS (unmanned aircraft system) devices controlled by smartphones provide a path for UAS data egress and storage, which could enable intelligence gathering on US critical infrastructure.
Updates controlled by Chinese entities could introduce unknown data collection and transmission capabilities without the user’s awareness.
When a UAS is incorporated into a network, the potential for data collection and transmission of sensitive imagery, surveying data and facility layouts increases.
Photo taken by a $200 DJI Neo drone
Steve Dent for Engadget
In 2017, DJI’s drones were banned from use by the US Army. Later that year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memo stating “with moderate confidence” that DJI’s drones were “providing US critical infrastructure and law enforcement data to the Chinese government.” The agency never provided any direct proof, however, and DJI denied it.
Then in 2020, DJI was added to the US Department of Commerce’s “entity list” over claims it “enabled wide-scale human rights abuses within China.” That meant the company could no longer buy parts or services from US manufacturers, like Amazon Web Services, Texas Instruments and Intel. In response, DJI said it was “disappointed” with the decision but customers could “continue to buy and use DJI products normally.”
A year later, however, it was placed on the Treasury department's "Chinese military-industrial complex companies" list for its alleged involvement in the surveillance of Uyghur Muslim people in China. That banned US citizens from investing in the company.
The US Department of Defense (DoD) piled on in October 2022, putting DJI on a list of “Chinese military companies” operating in the US. After the DoD refused DJI’s delisting petition in 2023, the company filed a lawsuit, arguing that it was “neither owned nor controlled by the Chinese military.” Nearly three years later, a court ruled against it, saying the DoD had substantial evidence that DJI contributed to the Chinese defense industry. DJI has since appealed that decision.
In September 2024, the US House of Representatives passed the Countering CCP Drones Act. Though still pending approval in the US Senate, the law would allow the FCC to block DJI’s drones from accessing US radio waves, effectively making them unusable here. DJI denounced the action as “inaccurate and unsubstantiated.” Later that month, US Customs and Border Protection was reportedly blocking some DJI drone imports under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.
Moving closer to a ban
Operating DJI's Avata 2
Steve Dent for Engadget
Near the end of last year, the US military’s annual defense spending bill (called the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA) further boosted the possibility of a DJI ban. It required an “appropriate national security agency” to rule that a company’s products didn’t pose an “unacceptable risk” to US national security, lest it be placed on a covered list. The DoD offered DJI and other companies a year to obtain such a ruling.
Because of the DoD’s requirements, DJI paused US sales and distribution in retail channels, citing regulatory uncertainty. However, some drones that originally couldn’t be purchased in the US, like the Mavic 4 Pro, can now be found on retailers like Amazon and B&H Photo Video — albeit at inflated prices compared to other regions.
In March, DJI sent a formal letter to five national security agencies (DHS, DoD, FBI, NSA, and ODNI) requesting that any or all of them begin evaluating its products. In a June blog post, however, DJI stated that none of them had offered to perform such checks.
“If no agency steps forward and completes the review by the December 2025 deadline, the NDAA provision could trigger an automatic ban on DJI… simply because no agency chose to take on the work of reviewing our products,” the company said. DJI further explained that it was “ready” for such an audit.
Last week, the situation became potentially more dire for DJI. The FCC voted 3-0 to give itself the authority to ban devices and radio components previously approved for operation in the US. On top of the NDAA ban, the FCC would theoretically have the right to prevent DJI’s drones and other products from using US radio frequencies, effectively making them inoperable. The new regulations would also empower the FCC to bar any clones of products like the Mavic Air 3 created by alleged DJI shell companies like Anzu and Skyhigh Tech, as The Verge reported.
The DJI Flip lightweight drone
Steve Dent for Engadget
The FCC did underline that it wasn’t planning to take away drones people have already purchased. “We emphasize that we are currently not requiring manufacturers to replace equipment in the hands of consumers,” it said in a fact sheet. “The continued use of such equipment… would remain authorized.”
The FCC would be required to undertake a “public interest analysis” for each product to be banned while giving “particular weight” to national security concerns. It would also be required to allow the public to comment during a minimum 30 day period, according to a fact sheet.
The possible outcomes
Here are scenarios that could arise before the December 23 deadline:
DJI passes its audit. In the best case scenario, which looks unlikely at this point, DJI would pass its audit and not be added to the FCC’s covered list. The company could fully resume sales of new products, rather than being stuck in limbo as it is now, and existing drones would remain legal with full support.
DJI receives another extension. If this happens, the status quo would remain. New drones like the Mavic 4 Pro may still be hard to purchase, but you would likely be able to buy previously approved products like the Mavic 3 Pro. Existing drones would remain legal with full support.
The FCC blocks new DJI certifications. New drone sales would not be approved in the US. Existing drones would remain legal but possibly lose long-term support.
DJI drones are placed on the covered list. All drone sales for both new and previous models would cease. Current drones would be allowed to operate but may lose updates and future support.
DJI drones are banned retroactively. All DJI drone sales are banned and existing drones grounded or severely restricted. The FCC has said this won’t happen.
DJI Agras 50 agricultural drone
picture alliance via Getty Images
DJI has reportedly spent over $17 million since 2016 on lobbying and launched the Drone Advocacy Alliance last year to enlist support from customers. It has some allies as well, like agricultural drone operators that formed a lobby last year. Law enforcement, search and rescue and other agencies have also expressed concerns about the higher costs, lower reliability and reduced performance of non-DJI drones.
However, US politicians are largely unsympathetic. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) refused to even take meetings with DJI’s lobbyists, calling the company part of a “despicable government” that wants to “spy on us.” The same sentiment appears on the other side of the aisle. “I simply won’t stand by and accept that risk, which is why I’ll continue to support DJI being added to the list of banned telecom technology,” said Representative Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ).
So what’s liable to happen? Given the limited time left before the December 23 deadline, I believe the number three or four scenarios above are most likely: The FCC blocks new certifications and DJI drones are put on the covered list. DJI would then be forced to cease sales of new drones and possibly stop selling current models. Customers in the US would still be able to use their existing products, but may have trouble obtaining repairs and updates. If you’re a DJI drone owner in the states, you might want to formulate a contingency plan.
DJI may be resigned to that scenario as well, hoping that a ban will create enough customer outcry to stimulate political action in its favor. The company’s only other hope is that the US and China miraculously strike a trade deal that includes DJI. Given the anti-China sentiment in Washington, that looks unlikely — but then again, with Trump as president, anything is possible.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cameras/why-dji-drones-might-be-banned-in-the-us-170030273.html?src=rss
SpaceX will reportedly receive a $2 billion contract to develop satellites for the US government, according to the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ's report detailed that SpaceX will be tasked with developing up to 600 satellites that can track missiles and aircraft and will be used for President Trump's proposed "Golden Dome" project.
Announced back in May, the president introduced a project to build an anti-missile defense system that would intercept missile attacks before reaching their target. The Golden Dome is reminiscent of Israel's Iron Dome system, but the Pentagon has yet to reveal concrete details about the project. Considering the scale of the project, it's worth noting that SpaceX's reported $2 billion contract could be one of many associated with the Golden Dome. According to the report, companies like Anduril Industries and Palantir Technologies could also be involved with the development, which the Trump administration wants to complete before the end of his presidential term.
Beyond the Golden Dome, the WSJ reported that the Pentagon is planning to use SpaceX's extensive satellite network for other purposes, including military communications and vehicle tracking. While the numbers are constantly fluctuating, SpaceX currently has more than 8,000 satellites for its Starlink service.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/science/space/pentagon-will-reportedly-award-spacex-a-2-billion-contract-to-help-develop-the-golden-dome-210019325.html?src=rss
The Republican-led FCC has voted on and approved a proposal that would make it harder for consumers to receive itemized bills with accurate information from their ISPs, as originally spotted by CNET. This proposal revises previous "unnecessary" requirements on the grounds that a fact-based list of charges "may confuse customers."
These changes would minimize the benefit of the so-called "nutrition labels" which are otherwise known as Broadband Facts labels. You've likely run into these simple itemized labels when shopping for a broadband plan. They tell consumers exactly what we are paying for, even if it may "confuse" our fragile little minds.
The FCC passed a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on October 28 that would significantly scale back the Broadband Facts label. ISPs have been required to publish these labels since April, 2024. All Republican commission members voted to approve the change, while the lone Democrat dissented.
As previously noted, this is technically just an NPRM. So it's not a done deal just yet. There will be a final vote in the near future, but it's expected to pass given the political makeup of the commission.
Once passed, ISPs will no longer be required to read these labels over the phone to customers, make them available in account portals or give a complete accounting of fees to customers. The FCC previously stated that these transparency requirements are "unduly burdensome and provide minimal benefit to consumers." I happen to think that knowing what I'm shelling $100 out for each month to be of maximal benefit. Maybe that's just me.
These labels were initially proposed all the way back in 2016, before being implemented by the Biden administration in 2024. They offer a breakdown of every little thing that goes into a bill for a service plan, including many "hidden fees" that ISPs don't include in advertised plan prices.
It's worth noting that the labels will technically still exist, they will just be harder to find and won't be all that useful. Raza Panjwani, senior policy counsel at New America’s Open Technology Institute, refers to this as a political "two-step." He told CNET that the modus operandi here is to make the labels "less useful" and then say "Oh, look, it's not that useful. We should get rid of it."
Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the commission, called the proposal "one of the most anti-consumer items I have seen" and expressed extreme displeasure with the results of the vote. “What adds insult to injury is that the FCC does not even explain why this proposal is necessary,” she said. “Make it make sense.”
Despite claims to the contrary by Brendan Carr and the current FCC, consumers actually like these labels. A 2024 study of nearly 5,000 broadband customers found an 85 percent satisfaction rate.
As an aside, Americans pay a lot for internet service when compared to many other countries throughout the world. We pay around twice as much as customers in Europe and most of Asia.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/trumps-fcc-is-officially-moving-to-make-it-easier-for-internet-companies-to-charge-hidden-fees-155004909.html?src=rss
A number of US government agencies are backing a potential move by the Commerce Department to ban TP-Link routers, according to The Washington Post. Multiple sources familiar with internal deliberations spoke with the publication on the condition of anonymity, including a former senior Defense Department official.
A months-long interagency process involving the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense took place this summer to consider the sweeping move. Investigations into the company stemming from national security concerns have been taking place since at least last year.
At the heart of the potential ban is a concern that TP-Link retains ties to China, despite splitting from Chinese corporation TP-Link Technologies to become a standalone entity in 2022. A spokesperson for TP-Link denied any Chinese ties, saying "any adverse action against TP-Link would have no impact on China, but would harm an American company."
US officials told The Washington Post they are concerned because under Chinese law, TP-Link must comply with Chinese intelligence agency requests and may even be pressured to push malicious software updates to its devices. US-based TP-Link Systems said the company is “not subject to the direction of the PRC intel apparatus.”
TP-Link routers are among the most popular in the United States, with the company claiming 36 percent of US market share. Earlier this year however, former American cybersecurity official Rob Joyce testified before Congress that TP-Link’s market share was roughly 60 percent, thanks in part to selling its equipment below cost in order to drive out competition.
The potential ban of TP-Link products is another in a long list of bureaucratic moves or discussions that have come against the backdrop of trade negotiations between the US and China. While a potential breakthrough in these talks was achieved today, a source for The Washington Post said a ban on TP-Link products remains a bargaining chip for the administration.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/us-government-is-getting-closer-to-banning-tp-link-routers-145528317.html?src=rss
Donald Trump and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, have agreed to a one-year pause on the punitive Trump-instated tariffs that are at the heart of the ongoing trade war between the two superpowers. Among the issues discussed when the two leaders met face-to-face in the South Korean city of Busan were China’s chokehold on rare earth metals and the export restrictions on NVIDIA’s AI chips.
Trump had previously made some characteristically explosive threats that he would impose new 100 percent tariffs on imports from China as a retaliation to Xi’s tightening grip on rare earths, the processing of which is almost entirely controlled by China. These materials are essential for manufacturing everything from smartphones and EVs to military equipment. As part of the (for now) temporary truce, China reportedly agreed to pause the new measures for the next 12 months in exchange for Trump lowering Chinese tariffs by 10 percent.
According to The New York Times, Trump said he had discussed semiconductors during his talks with Xi, and “did not rule out” the possibility of allowing NVIDIA to sell AI chips to China. The American company was allowed to resume selling its H20 chips in China in July after an initial ban earlier in the year, only for Beijing to reportedly respond by instructing its largest tech companies not to do business until a national security review had been completed. The leaders did not discuss the possible availability of Blackwell chips — NVIDIA’s most advanced AI chip to date that is currently in development and possibly a motivating factor in China’s apparent indifference to the H20 architecture — at their meeting in South Korea.
There was also no resolution on TikTok and its future in the US. The last we heard, the Trump administration claimed to be close to agreement that would see the US gain majority ownership of the Chinese-owned social media giant where it was operating on home soil, but nothing has been finalized at the time of writing.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/us---china-trade-talks-see-one-year-pause-on-punitive-tariffs-140550358.html?src=rss
Australia is set to ban under 16s from social media services after the Senate passed a bill to that effect by 34 votes to 19. The legislation will return to the House of Representatives, which will need to approve amendments before it becomes law. That is all but a formality as the government holds a majority in that chamber. The bill, which has been fast-tracked, sailed through the lower house in a 102-13 vote earlier this week.
The government has said that the likes of Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram and X will be subject to the new rules, which won’t come into force for at least 12 months. However, officials still have to confirm which platforms the ban actually covers as they aren't detailed in the bill. The BBC notes that the country’s communications commissioner, Michelle Rowland, will determine that with help from a so-called eSafety Commissioner. The latter will be responsible for enforcing the law.
The rules will not apply to health and education services, gaming platforms or messaging apps, nor those that don’t require an account. So, the likes of Fortnite, Roblox and YouTube are likely to avoid any ban.
Companies that are subject to the legislation could face fines of up to $49.5 million AUD ($32.1 million) if they fail to comply. They will have to employ age-verification tech, though the specifics of that have yet to be determined. The government plans to assess various options in the coming months, but Rowland confirmed this week that platforms won't be able to compel users to submit a personal document (such as passport or driver license) to verify their age.
Researchers have claimed that mooted age-verification systems may not work in practice. Critics, meanwhile, have raised concerns over privacy protections.
While there are certainly valid concerns about the harms of social media, such platforms can be a lifeline for younger people when they’re used responsibly. They can help vulnerable kids find resources and peers they can turn to for advice. Social media can also help those in rural areas forge authentic social connections with others who live elsewhere.
Under 16s who continue to access banned platforms won’t be punished. Resourceful teens may find it very easy to bypass restrictions using a VPN, which could make the law largely toothless. The online world also extends far beyond the reach of a small number of centralized social media platforms. There are other pockets of the internet that teens can turn to instead. For instance, there are still a large number of active forums for various interests.
When the legislation becomes law, Australia will set the highest minimum age for social media of any jurisdiction. France has tabled legislation to block users under 15 from social media without parental consent and it’s now pushing for the European Union to move forward with a similar undertaking across the entire bloc. Norway plans to bring in legislation along those lines, while the UK's technology secretary recently indicated that it was an option for that country.
Utah last year passed laws to limit minors' social media use. The state's governor repealed and replaced those earlier this year following legal challenges. However, in September, a judge blocked the most recent legislation just days before it was set to take effect. Other states have considered similar laws.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/australia-is-one-step-away-from-banning-social-media-for-under-16s-160454882.html?src=rss
Australia’s majority party has introduced a bill in Parliament that would ban children under 16 from social media. The legislation, which would put the onus on social platforms rather than children or parents, could fine infringing companies up to AUD$49.5 million ($32.2 million).
The Labor Party’s bill would apply to (among others) Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram and X. It would require platforms to cordon off and destroy any underage user data collected. However, the legislation would include exceptions for health and education services, like Headspace, Google Classroom and YouTube.
“For too many young Australians, social media can be harmful. Almost two-thirds of 14- to 17-year-old Australians have viewed extremely harmful content online, including drug abuse, suicide or self-harm, as well as violent material,” Australia Communications Minister Michelle Rowland told Parliament on Thursday. “A quarter have been exposed to content promoting unsafe eating habits.”
Reutersnotes that the law would be one of the most aggressive globally in tackling the problems related to children’s social media use. It wouldn’t include exemptions for parental consent or pre-existing accounts. Essentially, social platforms would have to police their platforms to ensure no child under 16 can use their services.
The bill is supported by the majority (center-left) Labor Party and opposition (right) Liberal Party. “This is a landmark reform,” Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. “We know some kids will find workarounds, but we’re sending a message to social media companies to clean up their act.”
The (left) Australian Greens have criticized the legislation, saying it ignores expert evidence in “ramming” the law through Parliament without proper scrutiny. “The recent Parliamentary Inquiry into Social Media heard time and time again that an age-ban will not make social media safer for anyone,” Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said in a statement. “[The bill] is complicated to implement and will have unintended consequences for young people.”
Last year, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy sounded the alarm about the risks of underage social media use. “Children and adolescents who spend more than 3 hours a day on social media face double the risk of mental health problems including experiencing symptoms of depression and anxiety,” the 2023 advisory from the Surgeon General’s office read.
The US requires tech companies to seek parental consent to access the data of children under 13, but it doesn’t have any age restrictions. Reuters notes that France enacted a social media ban for children under 15 last year, but it allows children to still access the services with parental consent.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/australia-introduces-a-bill-that-would-ban-children-under-16-from-social-media-174547712.html?src=rss
The UK government is expected to launch a parliamentary inquiry into the roll of social media in summer riots, particularly around the use of generative AI, The Guardian reported. As part of that, MPs (members of Parliament) wish to cross-examine X owner Elon Musk, along with senior executives from Meta and TikTok, as part of a Commons science and technology select committee social media inquiry.
"[Musk] has very strong views on multiple aspects of this," said Labour chair of the select committee, Chi Onwurah. "I would certainly like the opportunity to cross-examine him to see … how he reconciles his promotion of freedom of expression with his promotion of pure disinformation. [The committee will] get to the bottom of the links between social media algorithms, generative AI, and the spread of harmful or false content."
The government is looking into the use of fake images created by generative AI, often containing Islamophobic content, which were widely shared in social media posts on Facebook and X. Such posts may have inflamed riots last August that took place after three schoolgirls were murdered. MPs are also looking into big tech business models that "encourage the spread of content that can mislead and harm."
Musk, who may soon have a large role in the US government under incoming president Trump, has criticized the UK government and isn't likely to attend. During the riots in August he said: “Civil war is inevitable," and on Monday stated that "Britain is going full Stalin."
In December, UK regulator Ofcom will publish new rules as part of the Online Safety Act. With the new regulations, it's likely that social media platforms will be forced prevent the spread of illegal materials such as CSAM and survey activities that could stir up violence. Companies like X and Facebook will then be required to remove any illegal material.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/uk-government-will-summon-elon-musk-as-part-of-social-media-inquiry-130004409.html?src=rss
Two undersea communications cables in the Baltic Sea have been knocked offline, and at least one appears to have been physically cut. CNNreceived confirmation from a local telecom company that a cable between Lithuania and Sweden was cut on Sunday morning. A second cable, about 60 to 65 miles from the first, routes communications between Finland and Germany. The cause of that outage has yet to be determined, but officials suspect “intentional damage.”
The outages follow a September warning from the US about an increased risk of Russian “sabotage” of undersea cables. That came after a joint investigation from public broadcasters from Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland that Russia had deployed a fleet of spy ships in Nordic waters. They were reportedly part of a program designed to sabotage the cables (and wind farms).
This doesn’t leave the European nations entirely without online communications, as data is typically routed through multiple cables to avoid overreliance on a single one.
Cinia, the state-controlled Finnish company that oversees the second cable, said it wasn’t yet determined what caused the outage since they haven’t yet physically inspected it. However, the sudden outage reportedly suggests it, too, was cut by an outside force.
The foreign ministers of Finland and Germany released a joint statement on Monday. “We are deeply concerned about the severed undersea cable connecting Finland and Germany in the Baltic Sea,” they wrote. “The fact that such an incident immediately raises suspicions of intentional damage speaks volumes about the volatility of our times. A thorough investigation is underway. Our European security is not only under threat from Russia‘s war of aggression against Ukraine, but also from hybrid warfare by malicious actors. Safeguarding our shared critical infrastructure is vital to our security and the resilience of our societies.”
The Lithuania-Sweden cable, which handles about a third of Lithuania’s internet capacity, is expected to be repaired “over the next few weeks,” and weather could determine the precise timing.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/computing/two-baltic-sea-communications-cables-have-been-knocked-offline-214130723.html?src=rss