×
Meta’s historic loss in court could cost a lot more than 5 millionNew Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez won a historic sum of 5 million in a landmark child safety case against Meta earlier this year. But the next stage of the fight could be even more consequential for Meta and the social media industry at large.Beginning Monday, attorneys for Meta and New Mexico will return to a Santa Fe courthouse for a three-week public nuisance trial, where they’ll argue over the changes the AG wants the judge to order Meta make to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Those changes include adding age verification for New Mexico users, prohibiting end-to-end encryption for users under 18 and capping their use to 90 hours per month, limiting engagement-boosting features like infinite scroll and autoplay, and requiring Meta to detect 99 percent of new child sexual abuse material (CSAM).“From the outset, our goal was to try and change the way the company’s doing business,” Torrez told The Verge on a recent visit to Washington, DC, to advocate for new kids safety legislation. “I recognize that even at 5 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business. In fact, there’s probably some folks in that company who think of it as the cost of doing business.”“Even at 5 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business”While any changes ordered by the judge would only apply to Meta and its operations in New Mexico, the company could apply the changes in other states for the sake of simplicity. Or, as it’s threatened to do, it could simply go dark in the state. A court order could send a message to other tech companies that courts may be willing to alter their businesses if they’re found liable.During the trial, New Mexico will argue Meta has become a public nuisance by creating a public health hazard in the state. The AG’s office expects to call on about 15 witnesses, including experts who will testify to the feasibility of their proposed remedies, and fact witnesses who will testify about Meta’s alleged harms. After Meta makes its defense, Judge Bryan Biedscheid will evaluate which proposals are relevant and feasible — a process that could take some time, compared to the speedy turnaround of the jury verdict in March.A sweeping win for New Mexico could energize Torrez and thousands of other plaintiffs currently pursuing cases against tech companies. Conversely, a limited order could be a significant blow. The outcome won’t directly impact other cases, but it will almost certainly color negotiations over potential settlements.Several of Torrez’s requests are hot-button tech policy issues. Age verification would almost certainly require Meta or a third-party provider to collect more personal information on adults and minors alike, which privacy advocates have consistently warned can make users less safe. Don McGowan, who previously served on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), said that barring encrypted communications on platforms like Facebook “is a great way to make sure that nobody uses Facebook Messenger anymore and just moves their activity to other platforms that aren’t touched by this lawsuit.”The mandate may do little to change the reality of certain parts of the business — Meta recently announced it was getting rid of end-to-end encrypted messaging on Instagram that it said “very few people” actually used.Peter Chapman, associate director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute, which works to connect policymakers and others with independent tech policy research, said there could be “significant tradeoffs” to a prohibition on encryption, and other changes may be more effective. For example, evidence presented by the state showed that Meta’s own profile recommendations were connecting adults and minors, a feature that poses a clearer danger of harm without much benefit, and which Torrez is also asking the court to stop. “There’s an opportunity to intervene at that level and try to prevent more of these harmful interactions from taking place without having to tackle encryption,” said Chapman.No single feature change is likely to solve the entire child and teen safety problem, said Chapman, which is why it’s notable that Torrez plans to ask for several layers of changes. Still, the overall effectiveness of any given remedy will also depend on how it’s implemented and monitored. For instance, what would be the methodology Meta uses to report a 99 percent detection rate of new CSAM? How does it count or surmise what it hasn’t caught? The same goes for the accuracy and reliability of any mandated age verification.Meta points to this potential issue in its argument against Torrez’s proposed remedies. “Regardless of where the accuracy threshold is set, Meta would never be able to prove that the system met that standard, because doing the calculation would require that Meta detect 100% of CSAM to use as the denominator,” the company wrote in a legal filing. Torrez’s chief deputy, James Grayson, said on a press call that the court and an appointed independent monitor would have some discretion over tracking; the office hasn’t yet identified who this monitor would be.“The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation”Meta and other groups that oppose the AG’s approach say the outcomes he’s seeking are counterproductive. “The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation,” said Maureen Flatley, president of Stop Child Predators, a group that advocates for more funding for enforcement of criminal laws against child predators, and has received funding from Meta-backed trade group NetChoice. “This notion that the platforms have to be responsible for pushing all these people out would be like saying to the US Bankers Association, ‘By the way, you are responsible for all the bank robberies from now on,’ which is ludicrous.”“The New Mexico Attorney General’s focus on a single platform is a misguided strategy that ignores the hundreds of other apps teens use daily,” Meta spokesperson Chris Sgro said in a statement. “The state’s proposed mandates infringe on parental rights and stifle free expression for all New Mexicans. Regardless, we remain committed to providing safe, age-appropriate experiences and have already launched many of the protections the state seeks, including 13 safety measures this past year.”But Torrez has taken aim at the broader tech industry, too. He recently visited Washington, DC, to advocate for new protections for kids online and an overhaul of Section 230, the law that protects tech platforms from being held liable for their users’ posts. “While we were able to prevail in our district court in Santa Fe, I still think the law as it currently exists creates a lot of ambiguity,” he told The Verge on that visit. “If Section 230 were not something that these companies could hide behind, then it increases the chances that they’re going to have to actually make their case to a jury.”But Chapman said regulation through lawsuits isn’t an “uncommon sort of story” in the US. “Whether that’s tobacco, opioids, e-cigarettes, there is precedent for legal action moving a broader policy conversation.”Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Lauren FeinerCloseLauren FeinerPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Lauren FeinerLawCloseLawPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All LawMetaCloseMetaPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All MetaPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyPrivacyClosePrivacyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PrivacySpeechCloseSpeechPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All SpeechTechCloseTechPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All Tech#Metas #historic #loss #court #cost #lot #millionLaw,Meta,Policy,Privacy,Speech,Tech

Meta’s historic loss in court could cost a lot more than $375 million

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez won a historic sum of $375 million in a landmark child safety case against Meta earlier this year. But the next stage of the fight could be even more consequential for Meta and the social media industry at large.

Beginning Monday, attorneys for Meta and New Mexico will return to a Santa Fe courthouse for a three-week public nuisance trial, where they’ll argue over the changes the AG wants the judge to order Meta make to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Those changes include adding age verification for New Mexico users, prohibiting end-to-end encryption for users under 18 and capping their use to 90 hours per month, limiting engagement-boosting features like infinite scroll and autoplay, and requiring Meta to detect 99 percent of new child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

“From the outset, our goal was to try and change the way the company’s doing business,” Torrez told The Verge on a recent visit to Washington, DC, to advocate for new kids safety legislation. “I recognize that even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business. In fact, there’s probably some folks in that company who think of it as the cost of doing business.”

“Even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business”

While any changes ordered by the judge would only apply to Meta and its operations in New Mexico, the company could apply the changes in other states for the sake of simplicity. Or, as it’s threatened to do, it could simply go dark in the state. A court order could send a message to other tech companies that courts may be willing to alter their businesses if they’re found liable.

During the trial, New Mexico will argue Meta has become a public nuisance by creating a public health hazard in the state. The AG’s office expects to call on about 15 witnesses, including experts who will testify to the feasibility of their proposed remedies, and fact witnesses who will testify about Meta’s alleged harms. After Meta makes its defense, Judge Bryan Biedscheid will evaluate which proposals are relevant and feasible — a process that could take some time, compared to the speedy turnaround of the jury verdict in March.

A sweeping win for New Mexico could energize Torrez and thousands of other plaintiffs currently pursuing cases against tech companies. Conversely, a limited order could be a significant blow. The outcome won’t directly impact other cases, but it will almost certainly color negotiations over potential settlements.

Several of Torrez’s requests are hot-button tech policy issues. Age verification would almost certainly require Meta or a third-party provider to collect more personal information on adults and minors alike, which privacy advocates have consistently warned can make users less safe. Don McGowan, who previously served on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), said that barring encrypted communications on platforms like Facebook “is a great way to make sure that nobody uses Facebook Messenger anymore and just moves their activity to other platforms that aren’t touched by this lawsuit.”

The mandate may do little to change the reality of certain parts of the business — Meta recently announced it was getting rid of end-to-end encrypted messaging on Instagram that it said “very few people” actually used.

Peter Chapman, associate director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute, which works to connect policymakers and others with independent tech policy research, said there could be “significant tradeoffs” to a prohibition on encryption, and other changes may be more effective. For example, evidence presented by the state showed that Meta’s own profile recommendations were connecting adults and minors, a feature that poses a clearer danger of harm without much benefit, and which Torrez is also asking the court to stop. “There’s an opportunity to intervene at that level and try to prevent more of these harmful interactions from taking place without having to tackle encryption,” said Chapman.

No single feature change is likely to solve the entire child and teen safety problem, said Chapman, which is why it’s notable that Torrez plans to ask for several layers of changes. Still, the overall effectiveness of any given remedy will also depend on how it’s implemented and monitored. For instance, what would be the methodology Meta uses to report a 99 percent detection rate of new CSAM? How does it count or surmise what it hasn’t caught? The same goes for the accuracy and reliability of any mandated age verification.

Meta points to this potential issue in its argument against Torrez’s proposed remedies. “Regardless of where the accuracy threshold is set, Meta would never be able to prove that the system met that standard, because doing the calculation would require that Meta detect 100% of CSAM to use as the denominator,” the company wrote in a legal filing. Torrez’s chief deputy, James Grayson, said on a press call that the court and an appointed independent monitor would have some discretion over tracking; the office hasn’t yet identified who this monitor would be.

“The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation”

Meta and other groups that oppose the AG’s approach say the outcomes he’s seeking are counterproductive. “The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation,” said Maureen Flatley, president of Stop Child Predators, a group that advocates for more funding for enforcement of criminal laws against child predators, and has received funding from Meta-backed trade group NetChoice. “This notion that the platforms have to be responsible for pushing all these people out would be like saying to the US Bankers Association, ‘By the way, you are responsible for all the bank robberies from now on,’ which is ludicrous.”

“The New Mexico Attorney General’s focus on a single platform is a misguided strategy that ignores the hundreds of other apps teens use daily,” Meta spokesperson Chris Sgro said in a statement. “The state’s proposed mandates infringe on parental rights and stifle free expression for all New Mexicans. Regardless, we remain committed to providing safe, age-appropriate experiences and have already launched many of the protections the state seeks, including 13 safety measures this past year.”

But Torrez has taken aim at the broader tech industry, too. He recently visited Washington, DC, to advocate for new protections for kids online and an overhaul of Section 230, the law that protects tech platforms from being held liable for their users’ posts. “While we were able to prevail in our district court in Santa Fe, I still think the law as it currently exists creates a lot of ambiguity,” he told The Verge on that visit. “If Section 230 were not something that these companies could hide behind, then it increases the chances that they’re going to have to actually make their case to a jury.”

But Chapman said regulation through lawsuits isn’t an “uncommon sort of story” in the US. “Whether that’s tobacco, opioids, e-cigarettes, there is precedent for legal action moving a broader policy conversation.”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#Metas #historic #loss #court #cost #lot #millionLaw,Meta,Policy,Privacy,Speech,Tech

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez won a historic sum of $375 million in a landmark child safety case against Meta earlier this year. But the next stage of the fight could be even more consequential for Meta and the social media industry at large.

Beginning Monday, attorneys for Meta and New Mexico will return to a Santa Fe courthouse for a three-week public nuisance trial, where they’ll argue over the changes the AG wants the judge to order Meta make to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Those changes include adding age verification for New Mexico users, prohibiting end-to-end encryption for users under 18 and capping their use to 90 hours per month, limiting engagement-boosting features like infinite scroll and autoplay, and requiring Meta to detect 99 percent of new child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

“From the outset, our goal was to try and change the way the company’s doing business,” Torrez told The Verge on a recent visit to Washington, DC, to advocate for new kids safety legislation. “I recognize that even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business. In fact, there’s probably some folks in that company who think of it as the cost of doing business.”

“Even at $375 million for a company this big and this profitable, it’s not enough in and of itself to change the way they’re doing business”

While any changes ordered by the judge would only apply to Meta and its operations in New Mexico, the company could apply the changes in other states for the sake of simplicity. Or, as it’s threatened to do, it could simply go dark in the state. A court order could send a message to other tech companies that courts may be willing to alter their businesses if they’re found liable.

During the trial, New Mexico will argue Meta has become a public nuisance by creating a public health hazard in the state. The AG’s office expects to call on about 15 witnesses, including experts who will testify to the feasibility of their proposed remedies, and fact witnesses who will testify about Meta’s alleged harms. After Meta makes its defense, Judge Bryan Biedscheid will evaluate which proposals are relevant and feasible — a process that could take some time, compared to the speedy turnaround of the jury verdict in March.

A sweeping win for New Mexico could energize Torrez and thousands of other plaintiffs currently pursuing cases against tech companies. Conversely, a limited order could be a significant blow. The outcome won’t directly impact other cases, but it will almost certainly color negotiations over potential settlements.

Several of Torrez’s requests are hot-button tech policy issues. Age verification would almost certainly require Meta or a third-party provider to collect more personal information on adults and minors alike, which privacy advocates have consistently warned can make users less safe. Don McGowan, who previously served on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), said that barring encrypted communications on platforms like Facebook “is a great way to make sure that nobody uses Facebook Messenger anymore and just moves their activity to other platforms that aren’t touched by this lawsuit.”

The mandate may do little to change the reality of certain parts of the business — Meta recently announced it was getting rid of end-to-end encrypted messaging on Instagram that it said “very few people” actually used.

Peter Chapman, associate director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute, which works to connect policymakers and others with independent tech policy research, said there could be “significant tradeoffs” to a prohibition on encryption, and other changes may be more effective. For example, evidence presented by the state showed that Meta’s own profile recommendations were connecting adults and minors, a feature that poses a clearer danger of harm without much benefit, and which Torrez is also asking the court to stop. “There’s an opportunity to intervene at that level and try to prevent more of these harmful interactions from taking place without having to tackle encryption,” said Chapman.

No single feature change is likely to solve the entire child and teen safety problem, said Chapman, which is why it’s notable that Torrez plans to ask for several layers of changes. Still, the overall effectiveness of any given remedy will also depend on how it’s implemented and monitored. For instance, what would be the methodology Meta uses to report a 99 percent detection rate of new CSAM? How does it count or surmise what it hasn’t caught? The same goes for the accuracy and reliability of any mandated age verification.

Meta points to this potential issue in its argument against Torrez’s proposed remedies. “Regardless of where the accuracy threshold is set, Meta would never be able to prove that the system met that standard, because doing the calculation would require that Meta detect 100% of CSAM to use as the denominator,” the company wrote in a legal filing. Torrez’s chief deputy, James Grayson, said on a press call that the court and an appointed independent monitor would have some discretion over tracking; the office hasn’t yet identified who this monitor would be.

“The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation”

Meta and other groups that oppose the AG’s approach say the outcomes he’s seeking are counterproductive. “The demands that are being made in New Mexico are ill-informed and provide massive additional exposure for other kinds of exploitation,” said Maureen Flatley, president of Stop Child Predators, a group that advocates for more funding for enforcement of criminal laws against child predators, and has received funding from Meta-backed trade group NetChoice. “This notion that the platforms have to be responsible for pushing all these people out would be like saying to the US Bankers Association, ‘By the way, you are responsible for all the bank robberies from now on,’ which is ludicrous.”

“The New Mexico Attorney General’s focus on a single platform is a misguided strategy that ignores the hundreds of other apps teens use daily,” Meta spokesperson Chris Sgro said in a statement. “The state’s proposed mandates infringe on parental rights and stifle free expression for all New Mexicans. Regardless, we remain committed to providing safe, age-appropriate experiences and have already launched many of the protections the state seeks, including 13 safety measures this past year.”

But Torrez has taken aim at the broader tech industry, too. He recently visited Washington, DC, to advocate for new protections for kids online and an overhaul of Section 230, the law that protects tech platforms from being held liable for their users’ posts. “While we were able to prevail in our district court in Santa Fe, I still think the law as it currently exists creates a lot of ambiguity,” he told The Verge on that visit. “If Section 230 were not something that these companies could hide behind, then it increases the chances that they’re going to have to actually make their case to a jury.”

But Chapman said regulation through lawsuits isn’t an “uncommon sort of story” in the US. “Whether that’s tobacco, opioids, e-cigarettes, there is precedent for legal action moving a broader policy conversation.”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.


Source link
#Metas #historic #loss #court #cost #lot #million

Smart glasses company Solos has long focused on audio-only smart glasses. On Tuesday, it announced two new pairs of glasses, one of which has a camera—but you can buy a separate accessory to hide the camera for privacy’s sake.

Solos’ new smart glasses are the audio-only AirGo A6 and the second iteration of its camera-enabled glasses, the Solos AirGo V2. The latter was first announced last year as an effort to directly “outshine Meta.” These $299 glasses do just about everything you’d expect from Meta’s new $299 Meta Smartglasses, including photo and video capture, playing music, and interacting with an AI-powered assistant that can see what you see. They can be fitted with prescription lenses and have a 10- to 12-hour battery life.

The AirGo V2 glasses can also be paired with a new Privacy Kit, a set of clip-on accessories that let wearers control what their camera glasses can access. The clip-on privacy shield blocks the cameras from view and from recording the world, allowing you to keep wearing the glasses in audio-only mode. There’s also a clip-on polarized lens, and the full kit of modular options costs $79.

Selling a privacy kit as a clip-on accessory is perhaps not the most effective way to stave off concerns about people running around with small, discreet cameras on their faces. Having to buy a separate item, then clip it on and off every time you want to use or disable the camera, is a lot of extra steps that will likely keep people from bothering with privacy at all. Also, there isn’t anything stopping bad actors from removing the clip-on blockers later in an interaction—say, after entering an event that prohibits camera recording.

Image may contain Cutlery Fork Blade Razor and Weapon

Courtesy of Solos Smartglasses

Solos’ first camera-enabled glasses, the Solos AirGo Vision, launched in 2024. WIRED put them in the “Don’t Bother” section of our Best Smart Glasses gallery, citing some decent design choices, albeit ones held back by middling media capture quality, frustrating touch controls, and a power-hungry app that demands too many permissions. All in all, the glasses haven’t quite reached the standard Meta has set with its popular smart glasses.

Meta has been the dominant force in the smart glasses market, but other big companies are trying to fill in the cracks. Google and Samsung have a partnership to build out Google’s Android XR platform, with new glasses arriving later this year from eyewear brands Warby Parker and Gentle Monster. Apple has reportedly been building its own smart glasses as well.

Some smaller companies are adjusting their target markets to counter Meta, like Even Realities and its camera-free glasses. Solos’ reemphasis on privacy comes after a period of widespread criticism of Meta’s glasses. The devices have been called creepy “pervert glasses” and were criticized after the company silently added face recognition code to its glasses, then quickly removed it after public outcry following a WIRED report. Meta hasn’t done itself any favors since then, announcing last week that it will start charging for features on its smart glasses that have previously been free.

Meta has acknowledged that a market for audio-only smart glasses exists, as CTO Andrew Bosworth said in a private Q&A session with media that he thinks there is “market demand for that product for sure.” But Meta hasn’t moved away from its camera-forward spectacles yet. It may very well make audio-only glasses in the future. Until then, companies like Solos are eager to chip away at that market.

#Smart #Glasses #Solos #Privacy #Shield #Camerascameras,design,smart glasses,wearables,artificial intelligence,meta">These New Smart Glasses From Solos Come With a Privacy Shield for the CamerasSmart glasses company Solos has long focused on audio-only smart glasses. On Tuesday, it announced two new pairs of glasses, one of which has a camera—but you can buy a separate accessory to hide the camera for privacy’s sake.Solos’ new smart glasses are the audio-only AirGo A6 and the second iteration of its camera-enabled glasses, the Solos AirGo V2. The latter was first announced last year as an effort to directly “outshine Meta.” These 9 glasses do just about everything you’d expect from Meta’s new 9 Meta Smartglasses, including photo and video capture, playing music, and interacting with an AI-powered assistant that can see what you see. They can be fitted with prescription lenses and have a 10- to 12-hour battery life.The AirGo V2 glasses can also be paired with a new Privacy Kit, a set of clip-on accessories that let wearers control what their camera glasses can access. The clip-on privacy shield blocks the cameras from view and from recording the world, allowing you to keep wearing the glasses in audio-only mode. There’s also a clip-on polarized lens, and the full kit of modular options costs .Selling a privacy kit as a clip-on accessory is perhaps not the most effective way to stave off concerns about people running around with small, discreet cameras on their faces. Having to buy a separate item, then clip it on and off every time you want to use or disable the camera, is a lot of extra steps that will likely keep people from bothering with privacy at all. Also, there isn’t anything stopping bad actors from removing the clip-on blockers later in an interaction—say, after entering an event that prohibits camera recording.Courtesy of Solos SmartglassesSolos’ first camera-enabled glasses, the Solos AirGo Vision, launched in 2024. WIRED put them in the “Don’t Bother” section of our Best Smart Glasses gallery, citing some decent design choices, albeit ones held back by middling media capture quality, frustrating touch controls, and a power-hungry app that demands too many permissions. All in all, the glasses haven’t quite reached the standard Meta has set with its popular smart glasses.Meta has been the dominant force in the smart glasses market, but other big companies are trying to fill in the cracks. Google and Samsung have a partnership to build out Google’s Android XR platform, with new glasses arriving later this year from eyewear brands Warby Parker and Gentle Monster. Apple has reportedly been building its own smart glasses as well.Some smaller companies are adjusting their target markets to counter Meta, like Even Realities and its camera-free glasses. Solos’ reemphasis on privacy comes after a period of widespread criticism of Meta’s glasses. The devices have been called creepy “pervert glasses” and were criticized after the company silently added face recognition code to its glasses, then quickly removed it after public outcry following a WIRED report. Meta hasn’t done itself any favors since then, announcing last week that it will start charging for features on its smart glasses that have previously been free.Meta has acknowledged that a market for audio-only smart glasses exists, as CTO Andrew Bosworth said in a private Q&A session with media that he thinks there is “market demand for that product for sure.” But Meta hasn’t moved away from its camera-forward spectacles yet. It may very well make audio-only glasses in the future. Until then, companies like Solos are eager to chip away at that market.#Smart #Glasses #Solos #Privacy #Shield #Camerascameras,design,smart glasses,wearables,artificial intelligence,meta

Solos’ new smart glasses are the audio-only AirGo A6 and the second iteration of its camera-enabled glasses, the Solos AirGo V2. The latter was first announced last year as an effort to directly “outshine Meta.” These $299 glasses do just about everything you’d expect from Meta’s new $299 Meta Smartglasses, including photo and video capture, playing music, and interacting with an AI-powered assistant that can see what you see. They can be fitted with prescription lenses and have a 10- to 12-hour battery life.

The AirGo V2 glasses can also be paired with a new Privacy Kit, a set of clip-on accessories that let wearers control what their camera glasses can access. The clip-on privacy shield blocks the cameras from view and from recording the world, allowing you to keep wearing the glasses in audio-only mode. There’s also a clip-on polarized lens, and the full kit of modular options costs $79.

Selling a privacy kit as a clip-on accessory is perhaps not the most effective way to stave off concerns about people running around with small, discreet cameras on their faces. Having to buy a separate item, then clip it on and off every time you want to use or disable the camera, is a lot of extra steps that will likely keep people from bothering with privacy at all. Also, there isn’t anything stopping bad actors from removing the clip-on blockers later in an interaction—say, after entering an event that prohibits camera recording.

Image may contain Cutlery Fork Blade Razor and Weapon

Courtesy of Solos Smartglasses

Solos’ first camera-enabled glasses, the Solos AirGo Vision, launched in 2024. WIRED put them in the “Don’t Bother” section of our Best Smart Glasses gallery, citing some decent design choices, albeit ones held back by middling media capture quality, frustrating touch controls, and a power-hungry app that demands too many permissions. All in all, the glasses haven’t quite reached the standard Meta has set with its popular smart glasses.

Meta has been the dominant force in the smart glasses market, but other big companies are trying to fill in the cracks. Google and Samsung have a partnership to build out Google’s Android XR platform, with new glasses arriving later this year from eyewear brands Warby Parker and Gentle Monster. Apple has reportedly been building its own smart glasses as well.

Some smaller companies are adjusting their target markets to counter Meta, like Even Realities and its camera-free glasses. Solos’ reemphasis on privacy comes after a period of widespread criticism of Meta’s glasses. The devices have been called creepy “pervert glasses” and were criticized after the company silently added face recognition code to its glasses, then quickly removed it after public outcry following a WIRED report. Meta hasn’t done itself any favors since then, announcing last week that it will start charging for features on its smart glasses that have previously been free.

Meta has acknowledged that a market for audio-only smart glasses exists, as CTO Andrew Bosworth said in a private Q&A session with media that he thinks there is “market demand for that product for sure.” But Meta hasn’t moved away from its camera-forward spectacles yet. It may very well make audio-only glasses in the future. Until then, companies like Solos are eager to chip away at that market.

#Smart #Glasses #Solos #Privacy #Shield #Camerascameras,design,smart glasses,wearables,artificial intelligence,meta">These New Smart Glasses From Solos Come With a Privacy Shield for the Cameras

Smart glasses company Solos has long focused on audio-only smart glasses. On Tuesday, it announced two new pairs of glasses, one of which has a camera—but you can buy a separate accessory to hide the camera for privacy’s sake.

Solos’ new smart glasses are the audio-only AirGo A6 and the second iteration of its camera-enabled glasses, the Solos AirGo V2. The latter was first announced last year as an effort to directly “outshine Meta.” These $299 glasses do just about everything you’d expect from Meta’s new $299 Meta Smartglasses, including photo and video capture, playing music, and interacting with an AI-powered assistant that can see what you see. They can be fitted with prescription lenses and have a 10- to 12-hour battery life.

The AirGo V2 glasses can also be paired with a new Privacy Kit, a set of clip-on accessories that let wearers control what their camera glasses can access. The clip-on privacy shield blocks the cameras from view and from recording the world, allowing you to keep wearing the glasses in audio-only mode. There’s also a clip-on polarized lens, and the full kit of modular options costs $79.

Selling a privacy kit as a clip-on accessory is perhaps not the most effective way to stave off concerns about people running around with small, discreet cameras on their faces. Having to buy a separate item, then clip it on and off every time you want to use or disable the camera, is a lot of extra steps that will likely keep people from bothering with privacy at all. Also, there isn’t anything stopping bad actors from removing the clip-on blockers later in an interaction—say, after entering an event that prohibits camera recording.

Image may contain Cutlery Fork Blade Razor and Weapon

Courtesy of Solos Smartglasses

Solos’ first camera-enabled glasses, the Solos AirGo Vision, launched in 2024. WIRED put them in the “Don’t Bother” section of our Best Smart Glasses gallery, citing some decent design choices, albeit ones held back by middling media capture quality, frustrating touch controls, and a power-hungry app that demands too many permissions. All in all, the glasses haven’t quite reached the standard Meta has set with its popular smart glasses.

Meta has been the dominant force in the smart glasses market, but other big companies are trying to fill in the cracks. Google and Samsung have a partnership to build out Google’s Android XR platform, with new glasses arriving later this year from eyewear brands Warby Parker and Gentle Monster. Apple has reportedly been building its own smart glasses as well.

Some smaller companies are adjusting their target markets to counter Meta, like Even Realities and its camera-free glasses. Solos’ reemphasis on privacy comes after a period of widespread criticism of Meta’s glasses. The devices have been called creepy “pervert glasses” and were criticized after the company silently added face recognition code to its glasses, then quickly removed it after public outcry following a WIRED report. Meta hasn’t done itself any favors since then, announcing last week that it will start charging for features on its smart glasses that have previously been free.

Meta has acknowledged that a market for audio-only smart glasses exists, as CTO Andrew Bosworth said in a private Q&A session with media that he thinks there is “market demand for that product for sure.” But Meta hasn’t moved away from its camera-forward spectacles yet. It may very well make audio-only glasses in the future. Until then, companies like Solos are eager to chip away at that market.

#Smart #Glasses #Solos #Privacy #Shield #Camerascameras,design,smart glasses,wearables,artificial intelligence,meta

TL;DR: Live stream Pegula vs. Gauff in Wimbledon 2026 for free on BBC iPlayer. Access this free streaming platform from anywhere in the world with ExpressVPN.


There are two Americans left in the Wimbledon women’s singles draw, and they’re playing each other in the quarter-final stage. Pegula vs. Gauff is a rrally exciting matchup on paper, and a really difficult game to predict. The winner will be whoever delivers their best performance on the day.

If you want to watch Pegula vs. Gauff in Wimbledon 2026 for free from anywhere in the world, we’ve got all the information you need.

How to watch Pegula vs. Gauff for free

Pegula vs. Gauff in Wimbledon 2026 is available to live stream for free on BBC iPlayer.

BBC iPlayer is geo-restricted to the UK, but anyone can access this free streaming platform with a VPN. These tools can hide your real IP address (digital location) and connect you to a secure server in the UK, meaning you can unblock free live streams on sites like BBC iPlayer from anywhere in the world.

Live stream Wimbledon 2026 for free by following these simple steps:

  1. Sign up for a streaming-friendly VPN (we recommend ExpressVPN)

  2. Download the app to your device of choice (the best VPNs have apps for Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, Linux, and more)

  3. Open up the app and connect to a server in the UK

  4. Visit BBC iPlayer

  5. Live stream Wimbledon 2026 for free from anywhere in the world

$12.99 only at ExpressVPN

The best VPNs for streaming are not free, but they do tend to offer money-back guarantees and free trials. By leveraging these offers, you can unblock BBC iPlayer without committing with your cash. This obviously isn’t a long-term solution, but it gives you plenty of time to live stream Wimbledon 2026 before recovering your investment. It’s a sneaky trick, but it works.

ExpressVPN’s regular 30-day money back guarantee is not available for any subscriptions purchased during the FIFA World Cup between June 10 and July 11. ExpressVPN remains our top pick for Wimbledon, but you will need to pay the monthly rate. Alternatively, Proton VPN still offers that all-important money-back guarantee.

What is the best VPN for Wimbledon?

ExpressVPN is the best choice for streaming live sport on free platforms like BBC iPlayer, for a number of reasons:

  • Servers in 105 countries including the UK

  • Easy-to-use app available on all major devices including iPhone, Android, Windows, Mac, and more

  • Strict no-logging policy so your data is always secure

  • Fast streaming speeds free from throttling

  • Up to eight simultaneous connections

A two-year subscription to ExpressVPN is on sale for $68.40 and includes an extra four months for free — 81% off for a limited time. Alternatively, you can get a one-month plan for just $12.99. That covers you for the duration of Wimbledon.

#Pegula #Gauff #livestream #watch #Wimbledon #free">Pegula vs. Gauff livestream: How to watch Wimbledon for free
                                                            TL;DR: Live stream Pegula vs. Gauff in Wimbledon 2026 for free on BBC iPlayer. Access this free streaming platform from anywhere in the world with ExpressVPN.There are two Americans left in the Wimbledon women’s singles draw, and they’re playing each other in the quarter-final stage. Pegula vs. Gauff is a rrally exciting matchup on paper, and a really difficult game to predict. The winner will be whoever delivers their best performance on the day.If you want to watch Pegula vs. Gauff in Wimbledon 2026 for free from anywhere in the world, we’ve got all the information you need.
How to watch Pegula vs. Gauff for freePegula vs. Gauff in Wimbledon 2026 is available to live stream for free on BBC iPlayer.BBC iPlayer is geo-restricted to the UK, but anyone can access this free streaming platform with a VPN. These tools can hide your real IP address (digital location) and connect you to a secure server in the UK, meaning you can unblock free live streams on sites like BBC iPlayer from anywhere in the world.
        
            Mashable Top Stories
        
        
    
Live stream Wimbledon 2026 for free by following these simple steps:Sign up for a streaming-friendly VPN (we recommend ExpressVPN)Download the app to your device of choice (the best VPNs have apps for Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, Linux, and more)Open up the app and connect to a server in the UKVisit BBC iPlayerLive stream Wimbledon 2026 for free from anywhere in the world
    
    
    
        
                                        
                                                    .99 only at ExpressVPN
                    
        
    

The best VPNs for streaming are not free, but they do tend to offer money-back guarantees and free trials. By leveraging these offers, you can unblock BBC iPlayer without committing with your cash. This obviously isn’t a long-term solution, but it gives you plenty of time to live stream Wimbledon 2026 before recovering your investment. It’s a sneaky trick, but it works.ExpressVPN’s regular 30-day money back guarantee is not available for any subscriptions purchased during the FIFA World Cup between June 10 and July 11. ExpressVPN remains our top pick for Wimbledon, but you will need to pay the monthly rate. Alternatively, Proton VPN still offers that all-important money-back guarantee.What is the best VPN for Wimbledon?ExpressVPN is the best choice for streaming live sport on free platforms like BBC iPlayer, for a number of reasons:Servers in 105 countries including the UKEasy-to-use app available on all major devices including iPhone, Android, Windows, Mac, and moreStrict no-logging policy so your data is always secureFast streaming speeds free from throttlingUp to eight simultaneous connectionsA two-year subscription to ExpressVPN is on sale for .40 and includes an extra four months for free — 81% off for a limited time. Alternatively, you can get a one-month plan for just .99. That covers you for the duration of Wimbledon.

                    
                                            
                            
                        
                                    #Pegula #Gauff #livestream #watch #Wimbledon #free

BBC iPlayer. Access this free streaming platform from anywhere in the world with ExpressVPN.


There are two Americans left in the Wimbledon women’s singles draw, and they’re playing each other in the quarter-final stage. Pegula vs. Gauff is a rrally exciting matchup on paper, and a really difficult game to predict. The winner will be whoever delivers their best performance on the day.

If you want to watch Pegula vs. Gauff in Wimbledon 2026 for free from anywhere in the world, we’ve got all the information you need.

How to watch Pegula vs. Gauff for free

Pegula vs. Gauff in Wimbledon 2026 is available to live stream for free on BBC iPlayer.

BBC iPlayer is geo-restricted to the UK, but anyone can access this free streaming platform with a VPN. These tools can hide your real IP address (digital location) and connect you to a secure server in the UK, meaning you can unblock free live streams on sites like BBC iPlayer from anywhere in the world.

Live stream Wimbledon 2026 for free by following these simple steps:

  1. Sign up for a streaming-friendly VPN (we recommend ExpressVPN)

  2. Download the app to your device of choice (the best VPNs have apps for Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, Linux, and more)

  3. Open up the app and connect to a server in the UK

  4. Visit BBC iPlayer

  5. Live stream Wimbledon 2026 for free from anywhere in the world

$12.99 only at ExpressVPN

The best VPNs for streaming are not free, but they do tend to offer money-back guarantees and free trials. By leveraging these offers, you can unblock BBC iPlayer without committing with your cash. This obviously isn’t a long-term solution, but it gives you plenty of time to live stream Wimbledon 2026 before recovering your investment. It’s a sneaky trick, but it works.

ExpressVPN’s regular 30-day money back guarantee is not available for any subscriptions purchased during the FIFA World Cup between June 10 and July 11. ExpressVPN remains our top pick for Wimbledon, but you will need to pay the monthly rate. Alternatively, Proton VPN still offers that all-important money-back guarantee.

What is the best VPN for Wimbledon?

ExpressVPN is the best choice for streaming live sport on free platforms like BBC iPlayer, for a number of reasons:

  • Servers in 105 countries including the UK

  • Easy-to-use app available on all major devices including iPhone, Android, Windows, Mac, and more

  • Strict no-logging policy so your data is always secure

  • Fast streaming speeds free from throttling

  • Up to eight simultaneous connections

A two-year subscription to ExpressVPN is on sale for $68.40 and includes an extra four months for free — 81% off for a limited time. Alternatively, you can get a one-month plan for just $12.99. That covers you for the duration of Wimbledon.

#Pegula #Gauff #livestream #watch #Wimbledon #free">Pegula vs. Gauff livestream: How to watch Wimbledon for free

TL;DR: Live stream Pegula vs. Gauff in Wimbledon 2026 for free on BBC iPlayer. Access this free streaming platform from anywhere in the world with ExpressVPN.


There are two Americans left in the Wimbledon women’s singles draw, and they’re playing each other in the quarter-final stage. Pegula vs. Gauff is a rrally exciting matchup on paper, and a really difficult game to predict. The winner will be whoever delivers their best performance on the day.

If you want to watch Pegula vs. Gauff in Wimbledon 2026 for free from anywhere in the world, we’ve got all the information you need.

How to watch Pegula vs. Gauff for free

Pegula vs. Gauff in Wimbledon 2026 is available to live stream for free on BBC iPlayer.

BBC iPlayer is geo-restricted to the UK, but anyone can access this free streaming platform with a VPN. These tools can hide your real IP address (digital location) and connect you to a secure server in the UK, meaning you can unblock free live streams on sites like BBC iPlayer from anywhere in the world.

Live stream Wimbledon 2026 for free by following these simple steps:

  1. Sign up for a streaming-friendly VPN (we recommend ExpressVPN)

  2. Download the app to your device of choice (the best VPNs have apps for Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, Linux, and more)

  3. Open up the app and connect to a server in the UK

  4. Visit BBC iPlayer

  5. Live stream Wimbledon 2026 for free from anywhere in the world

$12.99 only at ExpressVPN

The best VPNs for streaming are not free, but they do tend to offer money-back guarantees and free trials. By leveraging these offers, you can unblock BBC iPlayer without committing with your cash. This obviously isn’t a long-term solution, but it gives you plenty of time to live stream Wimbledon 2026 before recovering your investment. It’s a sneaky trick, but it works.

ExpressVPN’s regular 30-day money back guarantee is not available for any subscriptions purchased during the FIFA World Cup between June 10 and July 11. ExpressVPN remains our top pick for Wimbledon, but you will need to pay the monthly rate. Alternatively, Proton VPN still offers that all-important money-back guarantee.

What is the best VPN for Wimbledon?

ExpressVPN is the best choice for streaming live sport on free platforms like BBC iPlayer, for a number of reasons:

  • Servers in 105 countries including the UK

  • Easy-to-use app available on all major devices including iPhone, Android, Windows, Mac, and more

  • Strict no-logging policy so your data is always secure

  • Fast streaming speeds free from throttling

  • Up to eight simultaneous connections

A two-year subscription to ExpressVPN is on sale for $68.40 and includes an extra four months for free — 81% off for a limited time. Alternatively, you can get a one-month plan for just $12.99. That covers you for the duration of Wimbledon.

#Pegula #Gauff #livestream #watch #Wimbledon #free

Post Comment