Flags at half-mast, choral performances cancelled, bells ringing, minutes of silence and altars with flowers and candles at the site of the massacre perpetrated yesterday at Charles University in Prague. The Czech Republic has experienced a day of national mourning for the 14 people shot dead by David Kozak, a 24-year-old master's student, quiet, brilliant, and allegedly mentally ill.. Hours before fulfilling the “dream of killing massively” confessed on social networks, he killed his father. The Police now consider him a suspect in the double murder that occurred a week ago in a forest near the capital, a case still to be solved..

The first identified fatality of the shooting, which also caused 25 injuries, including two Saudis and an identified Dutchman, was Lenka Hlávková, director of the Institute of Music Sciences of the Department of Philosophy of the University. She was a mother of two children. His colleagues have shared a photo of the victim and declared themselves “totally devastated” by a “senseless” murder.

The trail of blood left by Kozak began in his own home. Before traveling the 13 kilometers that separated the Czech capital from Hostoun, his hometown, he committed patricide. He was his third victim. The weapons found in the house, an arsenal of short and long weapons, link him to the deaths of a 32-year-old man and his two-month-old baby in the forest in Klanovice. More than 250 police were sent to search the area and a thermal imaging helicopter was used to search the wooded area, but no clues were found. They seemed like random murders.

Kozak, was a tuition student. This year he defended his bachelor's thesis on “Problems of Galician peasant antagonism and the Krakow uprising of 1846” and even received a prize from the Polish Institute in Prague. For his well-planned action, he armed himself to the teeth. “He had a lot of ammunition. If they had not acted quickly, there would have been many more victims,” the police maintain.

That was at least the shooter's intention. “I want to commit mass murder and possibly commit suicide,” Kozak wrote on Telegram. Some of the messages were in Russian. “Her inspirations were Ilyaz Galyaev (who in 2021 committed a shooting in a gymnasium in Kazan (Russia), killing nine people) and Alina Afanaskina (who recently committed a shooting in a school in Bryansk),” one of the messages reads. From Facebook. But Alina, 14, only killed two people before taking her own life, a balance too poor that Kozak wrote “I will fix.”

Kozak dressed in black, like a sniper, for the massacre. In the images he released, he is seen running through the building, but calmly, climbing the stairs to the upper floors and stationed on a balcony with his long-range rifle, a ZEV-30.. In one of the videos, one of the journalists who had traveled to the campus is heard shouting “shoot here, bastard” with the intention of distracting him.. Kozak stops for a moment, takes cover under a Ukrainian flag, walks to the edge of the balcony, rests his rifle on the railing and fires again.. At 4:00 p.m., after 60 long minutes of panic on campus, the police announced that the shooter had been eliminated. In reality he was shot dead.

The massacre at the Charles University of Prague, one of the oldest in Europe, leaves questions in the air and one of them is about the functioning of internet surveillance to prevent attacks. “When the monstrosity has subsided, it will be important to find out why the messages he wrote on Telegram announcing a massacre were not detected, and if they were, why nothing was done to prevent it.”. Excuses about lone wolves cannot be accepted today,” said journalist Jan Hrbáek.

For the president of the parliamentary security commission, Pavel áek, the question is different: “Should there be security in universities like there is in the United States?” Twenty-four hours after the tragedy, the security measures at Charles University in Prague were ostentatious. In classes that were not suspended, access was restricted to a maximum of 20 students.

The UN Security Council approved this Friday by majority a resolution to allow an increase in humanitarian aid in Gaza, in a decision that had 13 votes in favor and the abstention of the United States and Russia.. Despite the agreement after a week of delays and tough negotiations, the decision ratifies Washington's ironclad stance regarding the war with a diluted text that avoided talking about a ceasefire and considerably lowers the initial goals of the resolution..

What was approved requests “urgent measures to immediately allow safe and unimpeded humanitarian access”, in addition to “creating the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities”, a considerable variation with respect to the “urgent suspension of hostilities” mentioned in the statement. previous proposal presented by the United Arab Emirates and supported by several of the European countries at the table, including Russia, in favor of a ceasefire.

The other battlehorse was the control by the UN of the entry of humanitarian aid to the strip, a point of contention for the US due to the fear of Israel, its main partner in the area, that weapons and military equipment would sneak in. smuggled to help Hamas militants. It will, finally, be the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, who will be in charge of appointing a coordinator responsible for “facilitating, coordinating, monitoring and verifying” that the aid shipment is of a humanitarian nature, who would also “consult all parties relevant”.

The resolution, which is binding in nature, does not mean, by any means, that the war will stop.. The fear that the US would once again exercise its veto power over the resolution forced the search for a minimum agreement to alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.. What was seen this Friday in New York makes it clear that Washington remains alone in its support for Israel. Not even the contained fury of their Arab and European colleagues within the Security Council during the week made them change their position of unconditional support for the land and air invasion of Gaza, with a provisional toll of more than 20,000 dead, according to Palestinian health authorities. The vote should have taken place days ago, but it had not been possible to reach an agreement until now.

Finally, on Thursday night the white smoke occurred. The US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, acknowledged before the press that they had worked “diligently” to launch “a mechanism that supports humanitarian assistance” together with Egypt and the rest of the coalition of Arab countries. , without sharing how your country would vote. They kept that ace up their sleeve until the end, in a new unequivocal sign of their commitment to Benjamin Netanyahu's government.

The explanation of the agreement was in the text that began to circulate shortly after, where the ceasefire request that the US vetoed on December 8 was no longer included.. Instead, “decisive steps” were requested to facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid, leaving a bittersweet feeling even after its ratification.. “We know that this is not a perfect text. Only a ceasefire will stop the suffering,” said Lana Nusseibeh, the UAE ambassador to the UN who has been leading the negotiations.. Guterres, for his part, insisted on the urgency of “a humanitarian ceasefire” as something “necessary if we want humanitarian aid to be effective.”

Data from the organization he leads speaks of some 576,600 people in Gaza who have been completely left without food, and 100% of the population exposed to acute food insecurity, the most serious situation worldwide at the moment.. According to Steve Taravella, spokesperson for the World Food Programme, “the number of people facing catastrophic levels of hunger in Gaza is four times greater than the total number of people facing such levels of hunger worldwide.”. Taravella predicts that if the current pace of bombing and siege continues in Gaza, widespread famine will occur in February.

In addition to the weight of the more than 20,000 deaths on the Israeli army's record, an analysis published by The New York Times assures that the forces commanded by Herzi Halevi used one of their bombs with the most destructive capacity to hit areas designated as safe for the Palestinian civilian population. This is an investigation focused on 2,000 videos in an area in the southern Gaza Strip where Palestinian civilians could presumably be safe.

In the analysis, Times journalists discovered earth sinkholes that could only have been caused by one-ton bombs. An Israeli army spokesman indicated that the priority is to destroy Hamas without causing civilian casualties, although issues of this type will have to be analyzed at “a later stage.”

This Friday they once again ordered the population of central Gaza to move south immediately as the advance of their troops continues in the north and south of the Palestinian territory. The evacuation order affects the Al Bureij area, next to a refugee camp.

Ibán García del Blanco (León, 1977) was the only Spanish MEP in the 40-hour confinement that led two weeks ago to the agreement on the regulation of Artificial Intelligence. The specific details of the final text will be polished in the coming weeks, but the socialist politician defends that a more than good balance was achieved between maximalist positions: some said that it opens the door to massive technological racism and others that any regulation will leave us to the feet from China or the US.

They arrived at the room, at the last trilogues, with apparently irreconcilable positions.. There was a shared feeling among the MEPs, but also in the Council, that we necessarily had to reach an agreement, but we did not know very well how, because it is true that even in the previous meetings among ourselves there were differences on fundamental points and on The agenda had a good number of serious controversies without any progress. We didn't know how but we knew that we had to do everything necessary to not leave it hanging. And it turned out well. The legislative proposal came out years ago, it was languishing, but Chat GTP revolutionized everything. Parliament has been with this rule for five years in one way or another. With the first proposal of ethical principles applied to AI, reports from rapporteurs, the Special Committee on AI, own work with the Commission's proposal.. He was very, very mature and we thought that there was little left to scratch politically, it was time to make a move.. The Council knew that it had to be done in the Spanish Presidency, which has done the technical work, had the experts, a lot of effort with the capitals. With all this negotiation process, we all knew that it would be very difficult with another presidency, especially the informal part, which cannot be transmitted from one place to another.. We had the shared thought that it was now or never. And it is true that it was very difficult not only because of external pressure, from China or the US, but because the sector needs regulation as soon as possible.. The vacatio legis will be long, the implementation will last a few years and no longer could be expected. Everything has been very atypical in this regulation. It is inherent to the matter. The regulatory challenge that AI has is that this technology is in full evolution and growth, there is a dimension that cannot be identified. The epitome of that is the foundational models.. When talking to experts last year and before, very expert experts, they told us that it was a development that we would see in four or five years. And suddenly it exploded and surprised us all.. So we had to adapt. With the foundational models, a tailor-made suit has been made, in the sense that all regulation is based on the use of AI and the anticipation of the risk due to its use, but in the foundational models specifically, the GTP Chat, we have gone to stricter standards of control of the technology itself due to the intrinsic power it has, which has nothing to do with anything we have seen so far. It has been complicated. It was the fifth trilogue and we have broken the EU duration record. And in the last phase, the largest governments in the Union change their mind and emerge as defenders of self-regulation. The paradox arises that those who reacted first with the explosion of the GTP Chats and with the most force have also been those who have changed their position. There is a fallacious dichotomy about regulation and development, as if they were contradictory. Both China and the US are at the forefront of this technology without Europe having had a single standard to regulate.. Leadership has to do with investment, the medium and long-term strategic approach. In Europe, cooperation between all Member States is essential. We have taken many precautions so that regulation does not create any type of barrier to the development of foundational models.. And we have studied case by case, differentiating between systemic risks, where regulation must be very strict; and the foundational models that are in full growth and that do not generate the same risks. But I would say more. If one takes a look at the Chinese regulations, it is very similar in what affects the founding models to what the European Parliament proposed, which finally, in general terms, has been approved. Biden's executive order is even more ambitious in some ways. The question of whether we win or lose the AI race will have nothing to do with regulation, which is a sine qua non for respect for the rule of law.. What is the result of the agreement? Both sides were trying to safeguard public interests from different angles. Behind the Council's quest to relax prohibitions or requirements on the use of technology is the need for states and governments to anticipate crimes, identify victims, and national security issues.. It can be understood, but I think that Parliament very correctly opted for fundamental and individual rights as the ultimate touchstone.. And we have reached a balance. What was intolerable in the use of these technologies, and even more so when it is from public power, the red lines have not been crossed.. The final rule is much more similar to what the Parliament proposed than the Council. National security is a matter for the States but it could not have that inflationary tone as they sometimes said. Parliament wanted to frame what corresponds and what fits into national security, it cannot be a mixed bag. And when we have accepted exceptions, it is always with a prior analysis of the previous fundamental rights, judicial authorization, demands and guarantees.. Citizens can rest assured.
What is completely prohibited? subliminal manipulation. For example, classifying an entire population as having a 'weakness characteristic' and making segmented advertising that influences, especially minors or people with disabilities.. The use of emotion recognition in work or education is prohibited, because it was intended to control exams, for example.. It is prohibited to anticipate the commission of crimes, as if it were a dystopia like Minority Report. And remote biometric recognition by public authorities is generally prohibited, with some exceptions.. Because of that power, because of that intrusive capacity, its use will be prohibited.. We have generated certainty and security so that an operator can invest in good conditions in Europe and the citizen can rest assured, because their rights remain safe.. How do you know that what was approved today will not be obsolete in six months, seeing the explosion that was Chart GTP? We cannot know, no one can, but we want to anticipate. We have some certainty that it seems unlikely that it will be in the near future. Furthermore, regulation is flexible and can be useful in any environment, because it is based on risk and technology.. Either something arises from the brutal and differential power that the founding models have had or it would be within the parameters. If that happens, we would have to meet again, we are aware that there will be trial and error.. And a permanent council is planned so that there is a dialogue with the administration and the sector, in defense of consumers.. And a European AI Office that should provide know-how on how it evolves. While finalizing the agreement, activists denounced its capitulation, the approval of technology that establishes racism, official big brother. It's understandable. In the face of a technology that almost entails a potential civilizational change in itself, I understand that the alarms go off and the approaches are inflationary, maximalist.. Each part plays a role, the technology sector practically said that if even half a standard were applied, in Europe we would be with sticks and stones against computers. Both positions are absolutely radical but necessary to generate a game of balance that helps us politically to find a virtuous point. What must be clear is that we have not placed shackles that will prevent sufficient technological development. There is a balance, also so that in case of real urgency, of compelling need, we do not have our hands tied behind our backs and we can react, for example to a terrorist danger. With all the safeguards, but it is possible.