Tech
How to Set Up an Apple Watch for Your Kids
Unpairing is supposed to erase all content and settings on your watch, but in my case, it did not. If it doesn’t work for you either, tap Settings on the watch, then General > Reset > Erase All Content and Settings.
At this point, you can have your kid put it on (if it’s charged). The watch will say Bring iPhone Near Apple Watch. If you open the Watch app, it lets you choose to Set Up for a Family Member. Aim the phone’s viewfinder at the slowly moving animation to pair, or select Pair Manually.
Apple’s tutorial is pretty straightforward from this point. I picked a passcode that’s easy for my daughter to remember and picked her from my family list. I continued cellular service. Then I set up all the usual features and services for an Apple Watch, including Ask to Buy so she couldn’t buy anything from the app store without my permission, Messages, and Emergency SOS.
I also chose to limit my daughter’s contacts on the watch. First, go to Settings > iCloud > Contacts on your phone and make sure it’s toggled on. Then click out, go back to Settings > Screen Time > Family Member > Communication Limits. You need to request your child’s permission to manage their contacts and approve it from the kid’s watch. On their watch, you can add and rename contacts from your contact list (Dad becomes “Grandpa,” Tim becomes “Uncle Timmy,” and so on).
The last step is turning on Schooltime, which is basically a remote-controlled version of an adult Work Focus. It blocks apps and complications, but emergency calls can still come through. The setup tutorial walks you through how to set up Schooltime on your child’s watch, but if you skip it during setup, you can manage it later. On your iPhone, tap All Watches > Your Child’s Watch > Schooltime > Edit Schedule.
I elected to turn Schooltime on when my child is in school and turn it off during afterschool care, but you can also click Add Time if you’d like to turn it on during a morning class, take a break for lunch, and then turn it back on again. Your kid can just turn the digital crown to exit Schooltime, but that’s OK—you can check their Schooltime reports on your iPhone too.
To manage your child’s watch, go to your Watch > All Watches > Family Watches > Your Kid’s Apple Watch. This is how you install updates and manage settings. For more settings that you can turn on or off, check out Apple’s full list here. For example, you can check health details, set up a Medical ID, or even edit their smart replies.
Fun for Everyone
Just as with a grown-up Apple Watch, the first thing you’ll probably want to do is switch the watch face. Hold down the screen and wait for the face to shrink, and swipe to switch. (You probably also want to buy a tiny kid-specific watch band.)
We got my daughter an Apple Watch, so I’d be able to see her on Find My, and she could contact me via phone or the Messages app, which she does with regrettable frequency.
Tech
AI Industry Rivals Are Teaming Up on a Startup Accelerator
The largest western AI labs are taking a break from sniping at one another to partner on a new accelerator program for European startups building applications on top of their models. Paris-based incubator Station F will run the program, named F/ai.
On Tuesday, Station F announced it had partnered with Meta, Microsoft, Google, Anthropic, OpenAI and Mistral, which it says marks the first time the firms are all participating in a single accelerator. Other partners include cloud and semiconductor companies AWS, AMD, Qualcomm, and OVH Cloud.
An accelerator is effectively a crash course for early-stage startups, whereby founders attend classes and lectures, consult with specialists, and receive introductions to potential investors and customers. The broad aim is to help startups bring ideas to market as quickly as possible.
The 20 startups in each F/ai cohort will undergo a curriculum geared specifically toward helping European AI startups generate revenue earlier in their lifecycle, in turn making it easier to secure the funding required to expand into the largest global markets. “We’re focusing on rapid commercialization,” says Roxanne Varza, director at Station F, in an interview with WIRED. “Investors are starting to feel like, ‘European companies are nice, but they’re not hitting the $1 million revenue mark fast enough.’”
The accelerator will run for three months, twice a year. The first edition began on January 13. Station F has not revealed which startups make up the cohort, but many were recommended by Sequoia Capital, General Catalyst, Lightspeed, or one of the other VC firms involved in the program. The startups are all building AI applications on top of the foundational models developed by the partnering labs, in areas ranging from agentic AI to procurement and finance.
In lieu of direct funding, participating founders will receive more than $1 million in credits that can be traded for access to AI models, compute, and other services from the partner firms.
With very few exceptions, European companies have so far lagged behind their American and Chinese counterparts at every stage of the AI production line. To try to close that gap, the UK and EU governments are throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at attempts to support homegrown AI firms, and develop the domestic data center and power infrastructure necessary to train and operate AI models and applications.
In the US, tech accelerators like Y Combinator have produced a crop of household names, including Airbnb, Stripe, DoorDash, and Reddit. OpenAI was itself established in 2015 with the help of funding from Y Combinator’s then research division. Station F intends for F/ai to have a similar impact in Europe, making domestic AI startups competitive on the international stage. “It’s for European founders with a global ambition,” says Varza.
The program also represents a chance for the US-based AI labs to sow further seeds in Europe, using subsidies to incentivize a new generation of startups to build atop their technologies.
Once a developer begins to build on top of a particular model, it is rarely straightforward to swap to an alternative, says Marta Vinaixa, partner and CEO at VC firm Ryde Ventures. “When you build on top of these systems, you’re also building for how the systems behave—their quirkiness,” she says. “Once you start with a foundation, at least for the same project, you’re not going to change to another.”
The earlier in a company’s lifecycle it begins to develop on top of a particular model, says Vinaixa, the more that effect is magnified. “The sooner that you start, the more that you accumulate, the more difficult it becomes,” she says.
Tech
The Security Interviews: Mick Baccio, Splunk | Computer Weekly
A lot of people struggle to pronounce the name of American politician Pete Buttigieg. When Mick Baccio, now global security advisor at Splunk SURGe and Cisco Foundation AI, went to work for him in a previous life, it was helpfully spelled out in large letters on the office wall. Buttigieg says it ‘Boot-edge-edge’, if you were wondering.
“I was like, oh that’s clever, thank you for that,” says Baccio. “I’m going to meet the man in a second, I should know this!”
A former US Navy Reserve intelligence officer who began his political career as the mayor of South Bend in Indiana, Buttigieg served as secretary of transportation during the administration of US president Joe Biden, from 2021 to 2025.
However, before that, he had a tilt at the White House himself, running a primary campaign that won in the state of Iowa, before he dropped out at the start of March 2020 as the Democrats rallied behind Biden.
It was on this campaign that Baccio met Buttigieg, and in conversation with Computer Weekly, he reflects on the experience of bootstrapping cyber security for a US presidential campaign.
Baccio admits he was sceptical about taking the gig at first, having just escaped Washington DC himself after serving as a threat intelligence expert for the Executive Office of the President under both Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
“I got a call one day. They said, ‘Hey, do you want to come be CISO [chief information security officer] for the Buttigieg campaign?’ I said ‘no’. I was like, ‘I’m good’,” he says.
“When you look at a political campaign in the United States, win or lose, you’re going to be unemployed in November.”
Someone must have kept on at him, because the record shows he took the job, and even though “president Buttigieg” did not take the job, Baccio has no regrets about his choices.
“It’s the most fun you’ll have,” he says. “The closest thing to a political campaign, I think, is a startup, but a campaign is a most unique organisation because it’s a non-profit funded entirely by donations and its sole purpose is to elect your mascot.
“Now, I say mascot not in a mean way, but secretary Buttigieg was not involved in day-to-day operations. He didn’t run things in the campaign – he was the campaign. He’s not even the CEO, he’s who we are – we’re Pete for America.”
In such a campaign, the role of CISO takes on a fundamentally different aspect, says Baccio. To start with, most campaign staffers are volunteers, or in their first or second jobs after university. “Most of them don’t even know what a CISO is. I had to explain that a lot, why I was there and what I was doing – teaching folks how to ‘do the cybers’,” says Baccio.
Such a campaign faces challenges that large organisations with security budgets and supportive boards do not. For one thing, every dollar that a political campaign spends on something like cyber security, office furniture, or coffee and doughnuts is a dollar it is not spending on winning votes, so Baccio quickly learned he had to operate lean and operate cheaply.
But despite what tales of Russian espionage and interference in US election cycles might lead you to believe, the campaign faced a threat environment much like any ordinary business.
“I think one of the most under-appreciated threat vectors is just plain old fraud and business email compromise,” says Baccio.
“This is a $100bn a year industry, and we talk a lot about the agentic AI [artificial intelligence] threat, polymorphic-enabled malware, APT [advanced persistent threat], blah blah blah – everybody wants it to be that, but it’s generally fraud,” he adds.
“I never underestimate folks who are just trying to do their job. If your job is to process invoices, it’s all you do all day, if you get a PDF labelled ‘invoice’ you’re going to open it. Fraud is a bigger problem than any APT or AI attack, but I don’t think it’s sexy enough to get column inches.”
Five a day
Indeed, an often-neglected security message, and one Splunk is keen to repeat, is the importance of eating your cyber vegetables – that is to say, nailing the basics.
Having driven around this block several times over the years, Baccio thinks these vegetables account for at least the bottom third of the cyber food pyramid.
“You know you’re supposed to drink lots of water, you’re supposed to eat lots of green things, and if you don’t, your body reflects that,” says Baccio. “And you know you’re supposed to MFA [multifactor authenticate] all the things, you know you’re supposed to segment your network, you know you’re supposed to patch your things – and if you don’t, your network gets popped.
“I’m not saying do all these things and you’ll be okay, I’m saying do all these things and you’ll be in a better position.
“Hackers don’t hack the cloud, they log in. They’ve already bought those credentials from an access broker. They’re not hacking anything. But if I have phishing-resistant MFA available to me, they might not be able to log in, the account takeover won’t happen, and the rest of the cyber attack changes going forward. So it’s those things that I think go a long, long way towards raising that overall bar.”
Blue collar for the blue team
Splunk SURGe was set up to help defenders tackle real-world problems that they face today, with a mix of actionable guidance, in-depth analysis on cyber issues and practical solutions during fast-moving security panics. Think of its output as a cyber buffet with excellent vegetarian options.
SURGe had its genesis during one of the “headless chicken” moments, when unit founder Ryan Kovar was poring over various Slack groups one evening and spotted a lot of chatter surrounding an apparent SolarWinds compromise – heralding the now legendary Sunburst/Solorigate incident.
In the wake of this, Kovar realised there was a big gap in Splunk’s offering, in that the company had pretty good tech and processes when it came to applying data science to security, but wasn’t so hot at cutting through to the human side of things.
In short, it wasn’t being holistic enough.
That said, Kovar – in his own words – “wasn’t sure the world needed yet another security vendor research team”, so he formed SURGe to be a practical resource for users, or “blue collar for the blue team”.
Baccio was intimately involved in the unit’s creation – Kovar credits him with coming up with the “blue collar” line – and several years down the line, he still spends a lot of time helping Splunk’s customers make sense of the security landscape through blogs and other forms of outreach, as well as participating in a regular series, Coffee talk with SURGe.
He reflects: “I’m really lucky that I was in the Buttigieg campaign, that I was at the White House prior to that, the Pentagon, HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services], the CDC [Centre for Disease Control], and I’m now able to take all of that experience and bring it into SURGe and say, ‘These are the security things I’ve seen in my career – this is what I believe people want’.”
Threat intel at the foundations of AI
However, since July 2025, SURGe’s core mission has changed somewhat, after it transitioned to work within Cisco Foundation AI, a new initiative by Splunk’s network-centric parent that is developing open-weight, security-specific AI models.
In April 2025, Foundation AI launched Foundation-sec-8b, an eight-billion-parameter large language model (LLM) expressly designed to enable security teams to work faster, act more precisely and scale their operations without compromise.
You might reasonably wonder what a threat intelligence unit is doing jumping into bed with a bunch of LLM developers. Baccio himself declares he was shocked when it happened, but now he thinks it may be the smartest move Cisco has made since acquiring Splunk.
He characterises it as bringing SURGe’s collective experience as a steward of threat intelligence and a trusted advisor to customers to bear on a highly technical field and build AI tools that actually help security teams.
The advent of agentic AI in the past 12 to 18 months helps drive this narrative forward, says Baccio, and makes the promise of AI more real, at least compared to where it was a couple of years ago.
“If I throw generalised AI at a cyber problem, it’s not going to be great. But if I built a very specific model to do a very specific thing, then, yeah, that’s what I wanted a year ago when you sold me this AI hype,” he says. “Agentic is focused on one task, and it’s going to do it really well, but don’t ask it to do anything else.”
He cites the work of his colleague Shannon Davis, a principal AI researcher at Foundation AI, as a case in point. Davis created a tool called PLoB – standing for post-logon behaviour – to help detect intrusions instantaneously.
“To my point where you don’t hack the cloud, you just log in, after you have done so, PLoB detects all the activity that you’re doing and will be able to say, ‘This is a malicious actor’ or ‘This is just Mick from research’,” he says.
“Being able to do that at machine speed is something we’re going to have to lean into more when you take into account API calls, non-human identities, and all these things we’re introducing to the Rube Goldberg machine of the internet.
“Learning how agentic is applied becomes critical,” says Baccio as he looks ahead. “We have some stuff going on in the background that I can’t speak to, but we’re actively working together to brainstorm ideas and build these things to help move that Sisyphean security rock further up the hill. I’m excited about that. We’re going to help to keep someone’s security programme a little more secure.”
Tech
UK government datacentre planning decisions queried over environmental oversight admission | Computer Weekly
Permission for the development, dubbed the West London Technology Park (WLTP) by its developers Greystoke, was granted by the government in early July 2025. This is despite Buckinghamshire Council twice denying planning permission for the project on green belt protection grounds.
In Foxglove and Global Action Plan’s view, planning permission for the project should not have been granted without an environmental impact assessment (EIA) being carried out first.
For context, Buckinghamshire Council initially stated the developers did not need to submit an EIA, having received assurances from them about how little impact the project would have on local energy and water supplies.
This view was later upheld by the planning inspectorate, when the government placed Buckinghamshire Council’s planning permission denial for the project under review.
Government U-turns on planning approvals
However, ahead of the court case’s first hearing on 22 January 2026, the government issued a legal letter admitting that its decision to grant planning permission for the project should be quashed.
The government said in the letter – seen by Computer Weekly – that it had received assurances that a “suite of mitigation measures” would be in place that would negate the need for an EIA, but it admitted that not all of these measures were secured at the time permission for the project was granted.
“The secretary of state accepts that in screening out EIA based on mitigation measures, but then failing to secure those measures, there was a serious logical error… [and] the secretary of state accepts that the [legal] claim is arguable and permission [for the project] should be quashed.”
This admission has now prompted calls for a reassessment of two other hyperscale datacentre projects the government has previously decided should go ahead, despite planning permission for them being initially denied at local authority level.
Among those calling for a reassessment of past projects the government has given the green light to, in the wake of the government’s U-turn on the WLTP project, is Tom Hegarty, head of communications at Foxglove.
“That should be an urgent wake-up call to halt the mad rush to build out massive datacentres at any cost that has been an obsession of this government,” he told Computer Weekly. “Having acknowledged the shoddy state of their decision at [WLTP], we have to hope ministers will now learn that pushing these power-guzzling monsters through without a thought for the environmental consequences is not the right way forward.”
This is a also view shared by Mark Butcher, founder and director of IT sustainability consultancy Posetiv Cloud, who said the government’s stance on the WLTP development makes it “difficult, if not impossible” to justify not re-examining other large datacentres approved under similar circumstances.
“At the very least, [these projects] should be reviewed for consistency,” Butcher told Computer Weekly. “This is not about opposing datacentres in principle, but from a planning and legal perspective, [it is] about ensuring there is credibility in the planning system and that due process has been followed.
“There is also an important planning-system angle here. Inconsistent application of EIAs creates real problems for planners. It undermines professional judgement, increases legal and judicial review risk, and makes future decisions harder to defend.”
The government’s other green-lit projects
Out of the other projects the government has given its seal of planning approval to, one is also based in Iver, Buckinghamshire and is being overseen by US investment company Affinius Capital. The government granted that development permission to proceed in December 2024.
Computer Weekly contacted Affinius Capital for an update on how the project was progressing, given more than a year has passed since approval for the build was granted. At the time of writing, no response had been received.
However, Computer Weekly is aware that the go-live date for that development hinges on work the National Grid is doing in the local area to bolster energy availability through the creation of its new Uxbridge Moor substation, which is due for completion in 2029.
The other hyperscale datacentre the government has given its blessing to is another Greystoke development, located in Abbots Langley, Hertfordshire. Planning for that project was originally denied by Three Rivers District Council in January 2024, before the government overturned that decision in May 2025.
As is the case with the WLTP development, the local councils overseeing both projects said the developers did not need to submit an EIA as part of their planning applications.
Computer Weekly contacted Greystoke for a progress update on the Abbots Langley development, but the company said it had no comment to make regarding the project at this time.
According to Butcher, the fact one of these approved developments has been retrospectively deemed to require an EIA leaves the government open to questions about why other projects of comparable scale are being treated differently. And that kind of uncertainty and inconsistency is likely to concern investors, but also developers plotting similar projects across the UK, he continued.
“[It will] likely push more cautious capital towards regions with clearer, more predictable planning frameworks,” he said. “From a government perspective, the approach also looks hugely short-sighted. By prioritising speed of approval and treating datacentres as nationally critical infrastructure without robust scrutiny, environmental and social risks are effectively pushed down to local authorities and communities.”
As mentioned, two of the projects the government has approved are in the same area, with approximately 10 miles separating them. They are also set to be built on the outskirts of West London and within the South East, which are already densely populated with datacentres.
If developers were mandated, for example, to complete an EIA as part of their planning permission applications, it would make it easier to assess the combined and cumulative impact of building so many datacentres in one area, added Butcher.
“Individually, sites may appear manageable, but without EIAs there is no proper mechanism to assess the combined effect of multiple hyperscale developments on regional power capacity, water stress, carbon intensity and community infrastructure,” he said. “That is exactly what we are now seeing in London and the South East, and is a significant part of wider infrastructure and resilience risk assessments.”
One of the drawbacks of planning for projects being viewed in this siloed way can be seen from the concerns previously raised about the impact that the influx of datacentres into West London, specifically, has had on the region’s energy security.
Speaking to Computer Weekly, John Booth, managing director of sustainability-focused IT consultancy Carbon3IT, said this is precisely why the UK datacentre industry is so keen to see the government deliver on its promised national planning policy statement.
“We’ve been asking for planning guidance for years and were advised that a national planning policy statement would be published in December 2025, but we are still waiting,” he said. “If planning guidance was in place, EIAs would be required, but most operators ask for a screening assessment for EIA prior to outline planning. If a local authority says no, then the EIA is still probably done but just not submitted.”
And datacentre operators are keen to do the right thing and would rather submit an EIA than not because they want to be seen as good citizens in the local communities where they are plotting to build their server farms, said Booth, adding: “Datacentres are trying to be as environmentally sound as they can be, but with a confused policy environment, this is difficult for them – hence our desire for guidance.”
Having planning approvals for datacentres based on a set of standards that are being “consistently applied” across different projects would be a huge benefit to operators, said Positiv Cloud’s Butcher. “Failing to do [so] risks the accusations and perceptions that the planning system is biased and being applied selectively, which ultimately slows the sector down through opposition, legal challenge and loss of trust,” he said.
In terms of what should be contained in such guidance, Foxglove’s Hegarty said it would be good to see the inclusion of an EIA made a “mandatory baseline for any datacentre planning application” as a starting point.
“[We also need to] mandate credible and enforceable conditions that require each datacentre operator, from Amazon to Equinix, to supply the full power needs of each site through new renewables at all times, so they don’t drain the grid and jack up prices for everyone else,” he said. “Otherwise, ministers will have demonstrated once again they are happy for Big Tech to reap the profits of polluting datacentres while our environment carries the cost.”
Computer Weekly contacted the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for comment on the points raised in this story, but no response was forthcoming by the time of publication.
-
Entertainment5 days agoHow a factory error in China created a viral “crying horse” Lunar New Year trend
-
Business1 week agoNew York AG issues warning around prediction markets ahead of Super Bowl
-
Fashion1 week agoIntertextile Shanghai 2026 to debut pet boutique zone
-
Fashion1 week agoICE cotton slides as strong dollar, metal sell-off hit prices
-
Business5 days agoStock market today: Here are the top gainers and losers on NSE, BSE on February 6 – check list – The Times of India
-
Tech5 days agoNordProtect Makes ID Theft Protection a Little Easier—if You Trust That It Works
-
Tech5 days agoPrivate LTE/5G networks reached 6,500 deployments in 2025 | Computer Weekly
-
Business1 week agoWhy Are Gold Prices Swinging? Nirmala Sitharaman Breaks It Down
