Connect with us

World

Here’s the latest.

Published

on

Here’s the latest.

The military conflict between India and Pakistan expanded in the days after the first airstrikes that followed a deadly terrorist attack last month on the Indian-controlled side of the disputed Kashmir region.

The confrontation was the latest escalation of a decades-long conflict over Kashmir, a scenic valley in the Himalayas that is wedged between the two nations. Kashmiris have rarely had a say in their own fate.

Here is a history of the dispute.

1947

Fraught Beginnings

Indian soldiers arriving in Srinagar, Kashmir, in November 1947 to fight Pakistani militias for control of the region. Credit…Bettmann

Contention over Kashmir began nearly as soon as India and Pakistan were formed.

Advertisement

In 1947, Britain divided India, its former colony, into two countries. One was Pakistan, with a Muslim majority. The other, made up mostly of Hindus, kept the name India. But Kashmir’s fate was left undecided.

Within months, both India and Pakistan had laid claim to the territory. A military confrontation ensued. The Hindu ruler of Kashmir, who had at first refused to abdicate his sovereignty, agreed to make the region part of India in exchange for a security guarantee, after militias from Pakistan moved into parts of his territory.

What followed was the first war that India and Pakistan would fight over Kashmir.

Years later, in 1961, the former ruler of Kashmir passed away in Bombay. In an obituary, The New York Times summarized his decision to cede the territory to India in words that would prove true for decades to come. His actions, the article said, had contributed to “a continuing bitter dispute between India and Pakistan.”

1949

Advertisement

A Tenuous Cease-Fire


In January 1949, the first war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir concluded after the United Nations intervened to broker a cease-fire.

Advertisement

Under the terms of the cease-fire, a line was drawn dividing the territory. India would occupy about two-thirds of the area, and Pakistan the other third.

The dividing line was supposed to be temporary, pending a more permanent political settlement.

1965

War Breaks Out Again

A picture dated Aug. 12, 1965, shows an Indian artillery team during the second war that India and Pakistan fought over Kashmir.Credit…Panasia-Files, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Tensions were already high between India and Pakistan in the summer of 1965. There had been a skirmish between their forces along the border earlier in the year, in an area south of Kashmir.

When Pakistan conducted a covert offensive across Kashmir’s cease-fire line in August, the fighting quickly escalated into a full-scale war. The clash was short-lived — only about three weeks long — but bloody.

Advertisement

In January 1966, India and Pakistan signed an agreement to settle future disputes through peaceful means.

But the peace would not last.

1972

An Official Division

President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan, center, shaking hands with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India in June 1972 after they agreed to establish the “line of control” in Kashmir. To Mr. Bhutto’s left is his daughter Benazir Bhutto, who would become Pakistan’s prime minister years later.Credit…Punjab Press, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

After a regional war in 1971 that led to the creation of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India decided to revisit the unsolved issue of Kashmir.

In December 1972, the countries announced that they had resolved the deadlock over Kashmir’s cease-fire line. But little changed besides the designation. The temporary cease-fire line from 1949 became an official “line of control.” Each country retained the section of Kashmir that it had already held for more than 20 years.

Advertisement

While the agreement did little to change the status quo in Kashmir, it came with an aspiration to improve the volatile relationship between India and Pakistan.

Reporting on the deal from New Delhi, a Times correspondent wrote of the two countries: “Official sources here indicated that they were satisfied with the settlement, which they said had been reached ‘in an atmosphere of goodwill and mutual understanding.’”

1987

The Rise of Insurgency

Indian police officers taking position after Kashmiri militants opened fire on government forces in Srinagar in 1989.Credit…Habib Naqash/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

During a period of particular political turmoil — aggravated in 1987 by disputes over local elections that many thought were rigged — some Kashmiris turned to militancy, which Pakistan would eventually stoke and support.

Over the next decade or so, state police in Kashmir recorded tens of thousands of bombings, shootouts, abductions and rocket attacks.

Advertisement

That violence began to moderate around the 2000s, but the years of intense insurgency had further eroded the fragile relationship between Pakistan and India.

1999

Peace Talks Come Up Short

War raged over Kashmir between India and Pakistan in 1999, just months after the countries agreed to pursue a more lasting peace.Credit…Aijaz Rahi/Associated Press

As a new millennium neared, India and Pakistan seemed poised to establish a more permanent peace.

In a gesture of goodwill, Pakistan’s prime minister hosted his Indian counterpart for a weekend of jocular diplomacy in February 1999. No Indian prime minister had visited Pakistan in a decade.

The summit — between the leaders of adversaries that each now had nuclear arms — produced signed documents affirming their mutual commitment to normalizing relations.

Advertisement

“We must bring peace to our people,” Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, said at a news conference, as Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India smiled at his side. “We must bring prosperity to our people. We owe this to ourselves and to future generations.”

Three months later, their countries were at war. Again, Kashmir was the point of discord.

Fighting broke out after infiltrators from Pakistan seized positions within the Indian-administered part of Kashmir. India claimed that the infiltrators were Pakistani soldiers, which Western analysts would also come to believe. Pakistan denied that its forces were involved, insisting that independent freedom fighters were behind the operation.

The war ended when Mr. Sharif called for the infiltrators to withdraw (he maintained all along that they were not Pakistani forces and that Pakistan did not control them). A few months later, Mr. Sharif was deposed in a military coup led by a Pakistani general who, it was later determined, had directed the military incursion that started the war.

2019

Advertisement

India Cracks Down

Protesters throwing stones in Srinagar in August 2019, days after India stripped Kashmir of its partial autonomy.Credit…Atul Loke for The New York Times

After the war in 1999, Kashmir remained one of the world’s most militarized zones. Near-constant unrest in the territory brought India and Pakistan to the brink of war several times in the years that followed.

The last major flare-up was in 2019, when a bombing in Kashmir killed at least 40 Indian soldiers. Indian warplanes conducted airstrikes in Pakistan in retaliation, but the conflict de-escalated before becoming an all-out war.

A more lasting move came later that year, when the Indian government stripped Kashmir of a cherished status.

For all of Kashmir’s modern history — since its Hindu ruler acceded to India — the territory had enjoyed a degree of autonomy. Its relative independence was enshrined in India’s Constitution. But in August 2019, India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, rolled back Kashmir’s privileged status.

The crackdown came with a quick succession of draconian measures: Thousands of Indian troops surged into the territory. Internet connections were severed. Phone lines were cut. Mr. Modi’s government began directly administering the territory from New Delhi, and it imprisoned thousands of Kashmiris, including political leaders who had long sided with India in the face of separatist militancy.

Advertisement

The government’s heavy-handed approach stunned observers around the world. But the results, as far as India was concerned, justified the means. A new era of peace seemed to ensue. Acts of terrorism declined. Tourism flourished.

It was an illusion.

2025

A Terrorist Attack

Indian security officers near Pahalgam, in southern Kashmir, after gunmen attacked Indian tourists there on April 22.Credit…Dar Yasin/Associated Press

On April 22, militants shot and killed 26 people, mostly tourists from different parts of India, near Pahalgam, Kashmir. Seventeen others were wounded. It was one of the worst terror attacks on Indian civilians in decades.

Almost immediately afterward, Indian officials suggested that Pakistan had been involved. Mr. Modi, the prime minister, vowed severe punishment for the attackers and those giving them safe haven, though he did not explicitly mention Pakistan. Pakistan swiftly denied involvement and said it was “ready to cooperate” with any international inquiry into the terrorist attack.

Advertisement

But India was not placated.

Its retaliatory move came on Wednesday. India said it struck sites in Pakistan and on Pakistan’s side of Kashmir, after it accused Pakistan of being involved in the April attack. Pakistan denied those claims and vowed to retaliate, and witnesses and Indian officials said that at least two Indian jets had crashed.

The clashes on Friday escalated into the two archrivals’ most expansive military conflict in decades. India said that Pakistan had launched attacks using drones and other weapons along its entire western border, while Pakistan rejected those claims. Shelling and gunfire was exchanged on both sides of the disputed border, blacking out towns and killing civilians.

Mujib Mashal, Salman Masood and John Yoon contributed reporting.

Advertisement

World

AI notetakers promise easy meeting recaps, but some professionals question their use

Published

on

AI notetakers promise easy meeting recaps, but some professionals question their use

NEW YORK (AP) — Launching an artificial intelligence tool to take notes and summarize important information from a virtual meeting can be alluring. Seconds after one of the agents attends an hour-long video conference, it can deliver a recap of key points and outline a to-do list for all the participants.

But the way popular AI notetakers accomplish those tasks makes some people avoid using them. The technology turns everything said during meetings into data. Confidential personnel information, corporate strategies, trade secrets and remarks that could later be seen as incriminating — all of it could end up in the wrong hands.

“There are huge risks to the organization on AI notetakers,” Amy Dufrane, the chief executive of human resources training and certification provider HRCI, said. “I don’t think companies should use it at all.”

An AI notetaker is a software application or device that uses artificial intelligence, speech recognition and large language models to record, transcribe and summarize conversations. The tools are intended to save time and improve participation, but professionals in a number of fields say there are reasons to be wary.

This article is part of AP’s Be Well coverage, focusing on wellness, fitness, diet and mental health. Read more Be Well.

Advertisement

Chief among them is uncertainty about where the collected data is stored and for how long. Privacy advocates worry the companies behind the AI notetakers are creating voiceprints without consent. Voiceprints — a type of biometric profile similar to a fingerprint but tuned to the unique intonations and characteristics of one’s voice — can be used to access restricted or confidential information, including the contents of bank accounts.

Some tech companies resell data from the notetaking tools they created or use confidential meeting transcripts and recordings to train their AI models. There’s also the risk that conversations between an attorney and client could become fair game in legal proceedings; a New York federal judge in February ordered a criminal defendant to provide prosecutors with documents he created for his lawyers because it already had been shared with a third party, which was Anthropic’s Claude.

“People who use AI notetakers, they don’t always know where the data goes,” said Justin Daniels, an Atlanta-based corporate attorney at law firm Baker Donelson. “And in my context, if the data goes anywhere else and they’re not aware of it, that attorney-client-privileged conversation may not be attorney-client-privileged anymore.”

Here are some tips on the etiquette of kicking an AI notetaker out of a meeting, the risks of using one and how to protect yourself.

The first step when you join a meeting is check for bots

When you join a meeting, make it a habit to check whether an AI notetaker is present. It might appear as a meeting attendee, often labeled as an AI notetaker, or a pop-up message on the screen informing participants the meeting is being recorded. The latter could signal the presence of an AI notetaker.

Advertisement

Virtual meeting platforms such as Zoom and Google Meet let users know when recording is underway, but some meeting software does not make it clear when a notetaker is present, according to Thorin Klosowski, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s senior security and privacy analyst.

Sign up for Morning Wire:
Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Advertisement

Participants also may use personal notetaking devices that are separate from the meeting platform, in which case the other attendees wouldn’t necessarily know a discussion was being recorded and transcribed.

“You hope the other person would tell you that they’re doing that,” Klosowski said. “Asking everyone for consent before doing a sensitive meeting would be the most polite approach to take.”

If you’re unsure whether someone has deployed an AI notetaker, you can ask. You can also state at the beginning that a meeting is not authorized for recording.

A polite way to establish such a boundary is to say, “Our company policy is that this meeting cannot be recorded,” Dufrane suggested. This relieves the employee, such as a salesperson who wants to make a good impression, of having to be the “bad guy,” putting the onus on the company instead, she said.

Advertisement

Another option is to allow the notetaker for part of the gathering but turn if off at the end to dedicate time for more delicate topics.

“I won’t start talking about anything substantive until it’s shut off, because I just don’t want to take the risk,” Daniels said.

Assert your privacy rights to protect voiceprints

Many AI notetakers determine unique acoustic signatures, or voiceprints, for each speaker in the room, said Chris Pluymers, associate attorney at The Dillon Law Group in East Lansing, Michigan. That’s how the companies distinguish one speaker from another, labeling them with monikers “Speaker 1” or “Speaker 2.”

One way voiceprints are used is to verify the identities of bank account holders over the phone. If bad actors got ahold of a person’s vocal signature, they could use it to access files, commit fraud or take over accounts, he said.

Laws in some states govern how voiceprints can be created and stored and provide rights that individuals can assert to object to the use of an AI notetaker during meetings they attend.

Advertisement

In Illinois, voiceprints are considered biometric identifiers, similar to fingerprints, and are covered under the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act, which requires written notice and informed consent before an AI notetaker or other agent collects voiceprints. The law also mandates a documented data retention schedule and destruction policy, Pluymers said. But most companies using the tools have none of those systems in place, Pluymers said.

“In the world of AI, the world of data and privacy, the world of biometric identification, I don’t think you can have such a lax approach to it,” Pluymers said. “I think getting out ahead of it is crucial.”

Under the Illinois law, employees can say they don’t want to attend a meeting with an AI notetaker until they have assurances of where and why the data is being stored, and when it will be deleted, Pluymers said. They can also ask if there is a policy and written consent form to sign.

If an AI notetaker shows up at a meeting unexpectedly, a participant could say, “I prefer we keep this meeting without AI recording or transcript tools and I’d be happy to take my own notes and share a recap if that’s helpful,” Pluymers suggested. “Just being warm and genuine about it and asking them to respect your wishes.”

Know where your data goes

When working with AI notetaking apps, find out whether the companies that built them retain recordings, transcripts or metadata indefinitely or use them to train AI models, said Danielle Kays, a partner at Fisher Phillips who represents businesses on privacy and employment law matters.

Advertisement

“If there is some sort of speaker ID or voice recognition, really understand what that is and how it works,” Kays said.

Even when content is deleted, metadata about meetings can remain stored with the vendor, meaning sensitive business information could influence how the model behaves and in some cases could be memorized or reproduced, she said.

AI notetakers generate text, and that’s easier for outsiders to search through than video or audio files, according to EFF.

“Storing a bunch of video isn’t easy, it’s costly and hard to look through, but text is much easier to search and cheaper to store,” said Klosowski of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

___

Advertisement

Share your stories and questions about workplace wellness at [email protected]. Follow AP’s Be Well coverage, focusing on wellness, fitness, diet and mental health at https://apnews.com/hub/be-well

Continue Reading

World

Argentinian flight instructor jumps to death from plane, 22-year-old student forced to land alone

Published

on

Argentinian flight instructor jumps to death from plane, 22-year-old student forced to land alone

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A flight instructor jumped to his death out of a small aircraft over Argentina, forcing the student pilot he was teaching to land the plane herself.

Leandro Andrés Bertazzo, 42, was on board a two-seat Cessna 150G on Saturday when he made the decision to jump out over the province of Córdoba, according to CNN, which cited its Argentinian affiliate TN.

“He made this tragic decision on board an aircraft with another person by his side,” Eduardo Álvarez, director of the Flying Parrot Córdoba flying school where Bertazzo worked, told TN. “It’s impossible to think about it or understand it, but the human mind is so complex.”

An undated photo of Leandro Andrés Bertazzo, a 42-year-old pilot who jumped to his death from a plane on Saturday, July 4 in Argentina. (Instagram/Leandro Bertazzo)

Advertisement

PILOT DECLARES MAYDAY BEFORE SEAPLANE COMES DOWN IN NEW YORK CITY’S EAST RIVER

Rosario, the 22-year-old student, later told authorities that Bertazzo told her, “You know what you have to do, carry on,” before taking off his gear, opening the door and leaping out, according to Álvarez.

Opening the door of a plane midair is incredibly difficult. Álvarez said it would be akin to trying to open the door of a car traveling 124 miles per hour.

Cessna 150m FRA150M climbing out after take-off with flaps deployed and hills behind. (aviation-images.com/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

FRANTIC SEARCH UNDERWAY FOR CREW AFTER BOEING 737 WRECKAGE FOUND BY OFFICIALS

Advertisement

Álvarez said that Rosario managed to land the plane safely, despite being in “complete shock.” There was no damage to the plane, according to TN.

Álvarez noted that Bertazzo had gone on a flight with another student earlier in the day.

A view from the main road of the flight school Bertazzo worked at, Flying Parrot Córdoba. (Google Maps)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Álvarez also told TN that Bertazzo had visited a psychiatric institute, something that was only known by his family prior to his death.

Advertisement

Prosecutors in Córdoba will lead the investigation into Bertazzo’s death. The plane he jumped from is now in police custody.

Continue Reading

World

Former US Olympian pleads not guilty in DC reflecting pool vandalism case

Published

on

Former US Olympian pleads not guilty in DC reflecting pool vandalism case

Former Olympic canoeist David Hearn denies damaging US President Donald Trump’s Washington, DC reflecting pool renovation.

A former US Olympian has pleaded not guilty to vandalising the newly renovated Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, in a case that has drawn national attention amid accusations that the administration of US President Donald Trump is trying to shift blame for a troubled renovation.

David “Davey” Hearn, a 67-year-old three-time Olympic canoe racer, entered his plea in federal court on Thursday after prosecutors accused him of “maliciously” damaging the “American flag blue” lining installed at the bottom of the reflecting pool at Trump’s request ahead of celebrations taking place at Washington’s National Mall for the 250th anniversary of the United States’ independence on July 4.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Federal prosecutors allege Hearn pulled at the liner on June 19, causing more than $1,000 in damage. He has been charged with destruction of government property, an offence that carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years.

Advertisement

Hearn denied the allegations. He admitted he stopped at the pool during a bike ride, reached inside and touched a section of lining that was already peeling away, but that he did not remove or damage it. He told The Associated Press he let go when a park employee told him to stop.

Hearn’s lawyers argue the prosecution is an attempt by the Trump administration to deflect attention from what they describe as a botched renovation project.

“This indictment reflects the administration’s effort to shift blame for their own failures,” they said in a statement. “The justice system exists to determine facts, not to provide political cover.”

The 620-metre (2,030-foot) reflecting pool reopened in June after Trump ordered the new liner to be installed across the bottom. He said he was compelled to go ahead with the $14.7m renovation after a friend visiting from Germany called the pool dark and disgusting.

But within days, algae began to spread across the surface, the water turned chartreuse green, and sections of the liner began peeling away.

Advertisement

Experts have explained that the dark new coat of paint at the bottom of the pool would elevate the temperature and allow algae to grow, and that algae blooms in water are common at this time of year, especially in shallow, stagnant water like that of the pool.

Trump blamed the issues on vandals, claiming without evidence that “corrosive and destructive chemicals” were poured into the pool and that vandals “took some form of knife or blade” and put a long “gash into the beautiful facade”, although no one has been charged over those alleged acts.

The US president warned that anyone who allegedly damaged the pool could face long prison terms. “Please remember that there is a 10 year prison sentence for the destruction, or even the attempted destruction, of such things — Which will be fully enforced!” he wrote on Truth Social.

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 02: U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro speaks during a press conference at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia on July 02, 2026 in Washington, DC. Pirro announced that former Olympic canoeist David Hearn has been indicted by a grand jury on charges related to alleged vandalism of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/AFP (Photo by Anna Moneymaker / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / Getty Images via AFP)
US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro announces on July 2, 2026, that former Olympic canoeist David Hearn has been indicted by a grand jury on charges related to alleged vandalism of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool [Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/AFP]

Last week, US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro announced the indictment against Hearn, accusing him of intentionally damaging the liner.

The US Department of the Interior has said that at least six people were arrested on suspicion of vandalising the pool in the weeks after it reopened. National Guard troops and US Park Police were deployed to protect the site, which was fenced off during July 4 celebrations.

Thursday’s hearing drew a packed courtroom, with dozens of supporters waiting outside after Hearn entered his plea.

Advertisement

The reflecting pool’s problems have continued, with Trump acknowledging it will need to be drained again so the damaged liner can be repaired.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending