Tag: Meta

Tech News: App Spots Nearby Meta Smart Glasses

Posted on by Paul Stradling

A Polish developer has created an app that detects nearby camera-equipped smart glasses, giving people a chance to protect their privacy by checking whether they might be filmed without their knowledge.

Why Was The App Created?

Paweł Szydłowski developed the app named ‘Zuckoff’ after becoming concerned about videos showing people recording strangers with smart glasses, including encounters where those being filmed did not appear to realise a camera was involved.

Unlike someone holding up a phone, a person wearing camera glasses may give little indication that they are taking pictures or recording a conversation. That makes it harder for people nearby to recognise what is happening and decide whether to raise an objection.

Reporting in September put the app’s audience at around 5,000 users following its August launch. That suggests interest in tools that give bystanders more awareness, although it does not establish how reliably the app performs across different devices and settings.

How Does Zuckoff Work?

Zuckoff listens for Bluetooth signals that devices broadcast to make themselves discoverable. It compares details within those signals, such as manufacturer identifiers and advertised services, with patterns associated with known camera glasses.

Its supported devices include Ray-Ban Meta, Oakley Meta and Snap Spectacles. Rather than simply displaying an unexplained warning, the app shows which information triggered a match and rates its confidence as possible, likely or strong.

This gives users some basis for judging an alert before acting on it. The app’s description says it shows “the evidence behind every flag”, recognising that a signal match needs interpretation rather than automatically proving that a particular person is carrying a camera.

The app also uses signal strength to estimate proximity. Although this can suggest whether a device is relatively close, it doesn’t provide a reliable direction or pinpoint the wearer across a crowded room. In other words, it can just tell the user that Meta smart glasses are being used nearby, but not who is using them or where they are.

Doesn’t Reveal What The Glasses Are Doing

The most important limitation to note here is that detecting glasses doesn’t reveal what they are doing. For example, someone could be listening to music, using an accessibility feature or simply wearing them without taking any pictures.

Equally, Bluetooth detection depends on a device broadcasting information the app recognises. Some glasses may become harder to detect once connected to their owner’s phone, and unfamiliar hardware may not match the app’s existing detection rules.

As the developer’s website puts it, “Silence is therefore not proof that nobody is recording, and a detection is not proof that anyone is.” An alert can therefore give someone a reason to check their surroundings or ask whether nearby glasses are recording, but it can’t actually identify the wearer or confirm that filming is taking place, just as receiving no alert can’t guarantee that a room is free of cameras.

What Does The App Cost?

The UK App Store listing makes basic scanning available free, with paid Pro features including background monitoring, notifications and longer sighting history. It requires iOS 18 or later.

The developer says the app works without an account, server or analytics, and that its logs remain on the phone unless exported. However, it records other Bluetooth devices it encounters as well as potential glasses, so users should understand what their local history contains.

Apple notes that it has not verified the developer’s privacy information, so claims about how the app handles data shouldn’t be taken as confirmation that Apple has independently checked its security.

How Is Meta Addressing Privacy?

Meta says its glasses have a white light that flashes when the wearer takes a photo or records a video for their gallery, giving people nearby a visible indication that the camera is being used. To prevent wearers from hiding that warning, its published guidance states that “covering or disabling this capture LED automatically disables the camera”.

The light can indicate recording in a way that a Bluetooth alert can’t, although it only actually helps if people notice it and understand what it means. Even then, knowing that a camera is recording doesn’t necessarily mean those being filmed are comfortable with it, particularly during a private conversation or in a sensitive workplace setting.

However, the glasses also support activities such as listening to music, making hands-free calls and using AI assistance, so someone wearing them may have no intention of filming. For organisations concerned about privacy, that makes it useful to explain when and where recording is restricted, while recognising that the devices have other legitimate uses.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, Zuckoff highlights why recording policies may need to cover more than mobile phones, particularly in confidential meetings, customer consultations and areas where sensitive information is visible. As cameras become harder to distinguish from ordinary eyewear, staff and visitors need to understand which restrictions apply without having to recognise every device themselves.

A detection app could help draw attention to nearby camera glasses, but it can’t establish whether someone is recording, so staff need a clear process for responding to an alert or a colleague’s concern. That might involve explaining the recording policy and asking the wearer to put the glasses away in a restricted area, without treating the alert itself as evidence of misconduct.

Those conversations should also allow for legitimate uses, including accessibility support, so any policy needs to explain why restrictions are necessary and how exceptions can be considered. Clear rules give staff a fair and consistent basis for handling concerns, while helping wearers understand what is expected before a misunderstanding develops.

The app’s practical value is therefore in giving people an opportunity to raise a privacy concern that might otherwise go unnoticed. Businesses can make that awareness useful by deciding in advance how to handle it, rather than leaving employees to negotiate sensitive situations for themselves.

Tech Insight : Meta Settles Child Harm Claims For $18bn

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Meta has agreed to pay approximately US$18 billion and introduce major new restrictions for teenage Facebook and Instagram users, ending a high-profile federal trial brought by US states over allegations that the platforms were designed in ways that harmed children and encouraged excessive use.

Why Has Meta Settled?

The case began with a 2023 lawsuit from 29 US states, which accused Meta of designing Facebook and Instagram to keep young users engaged, misleading consumers about safety and collecting personal information from children under 13 without proper parental consent.

The actual trial had already begun in Oakland, California, and Instagram head Adam Mosseri had given evidence, while Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg was expected to appear later. Meta denied wrongdoing, but settling now removes the uncertainty of a lengthy trial and the possibility of far larger penalties if the states had succeeded with all their claims.

Court papers initially put the maximum settlement connected with the 29-state case at US$16.68 billion. Meta subsequently described the wider agreement, involving 52 attorneys general across US states, territories and the District of Columbia, as worth approximately US$18 billion over ten years.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers approved the agreement, saying it “reflects a fair, reasonable, comprehensive, and good faith approach” that provides monetary relief while also changing conduct intended to address the negative effects alleged in the case.

What Will Meta Have To Change?

The settlement goes well beyond money because Meta has agreed to alter how under-18s use Facebook and Instagram in participating US states and territories, with many of the requirements remaining in place for ten years.

Teenagers will have a default two-hour daily limit shared across both apps, while access will be blocked by default between midnight and 6am. Notifications will also be muted during school hours between 8am and 3pm, and teens will receive reminders after periods of continuous use.

Parents or guardians will be expected to control whether some of those restrictions can be relaxed, while further changes include hiding like counts, allowing a feed that is not driven by personalisation, restricting some cosmetic filters and strengthening age-assurance measures intended to identify younger users.

Meta says: “Ensuring teens have a safe and productive experience on our platforms is an absolute imperative for Meta. We want to get this right for parents and teens, and that’s why we partnered with state attorneys general to set a new industry standard.”

Why Is Part Of The Payment Conditional?

One of the most unusual aspects of the agreement is that not all of the money will necessarily be paid. In fact, Meta says around 70 per cent, approximately US$12.7 billion, will go to participating states over ten years, while the remaining 30 per cent, around US$5.3 billion, depends on YouTube and TikTok adopting comparable measures and making matching payments.

That structure gives Meta a strong commercial reason to push for similar restrictions across the wider social-media industry rather than accepting stricter rules that apply only to Facebook and Instagram.

Meta argues that teenagers move between many different apps and says: “These protections will only be truly effective if we work with our peers — TikTok and YouTube — to put the same measures in place.”

If those rivals agree, the proposed industry standard would include tougher one-hour daily limits, night-time restrictions and stronger age-assurance measures.

What’s The Significance Of This Case?

Essentially, the settlement represents a significant change in how responsibility for young users is being framed, because many of the new safeguards will operate by default rather than depending on teenagers or parents finding and activating optional controls themselves.

That moves responsibility increasingly towards the platform, with restrictions built into the service from the outset and parental permission required to loosen some of them.

The financial scale is also pretty significant, although the agreement doesn’t end Meta’s wider legal exposure. For example, the company is still facing other lawsuits involving alleged social-media harms, while some states, including New Mexico, have pursued separate cases.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The wider lesson for businesses is that regulators and courts are increasingly examining not only whether a digital product technically complies with the law, but also how its design influences behaviour and whether safeguards are effective in practice.

Features such as notifications, recommendation systems, autoplay, engagement prompts, default settings and age checks may therefore carry legal and reputational consequences, particularly when products are used by children or other vulnerable groups.

For organisations developing digital services, the safer approach is increasingly to build protection into the default experience rather than relying on users to find optional settings after something has gone wrong. Meta’s settlement also shows how quickly product design decisions can become expensive legal issues when regulators believe commercial incentives and user welfare have come into conflict.

The broader message is that “safety by default” is moving from a desirable design principle towards something regulators may increasingly expect companies to demonstrate.

Tech News : Meta Pulls Facial Recognition Code From Smart Glasses App

Posted on by Paul Stradling

It’s been reported that Meta has quietly removed facial recognition code from the companion app used by its AI-powered smart glasses, reigniting concerns about how far wearable technology companies may be willing to go in their pursuit of always-on artificial intelligence.

What Was Removed?

The controversy centres on an internal system called NameTag, which was discovered inside the Meta AI smartphone app that works alongside the company’s Ray-Ban smart glasses. According to reporting first published by WIRED, the code appeared to support facial recognition capabilities that had never been publicly released.

The system was reportedly designed to convert faces captured by the glasses into unique biometric identifiers, often referred to as faceprints, and compare them against a database stored on the user’s device. Evidence within the software also suggested that faces the system could not identify would be cropped, indexed, and stored locally for future processing.

Most notably, the code was present inside an application installed on tens of millions of devices despite Meta repeatedly stating that no final decision had been made about introducing facial recognition to its smart glasses platform.

Just one day after the findings became public, Meta released an updated version of the app that removed almost all traces of the NameTag system.

Meta’s Response

Meta says the facial recognition system was an internal exploratory project rather than a planned product feature. However, the speed with which the code was removed has inevitably attracted attention.

Reports indicate that the original software contained multiple AI models dedicated to detecting faces, cropping facial images, and converting them into biometric signatures. The app also reportedly contained a “Person recognised” alert that would have been displayed if someone was successfully identified.

Meta has not publicly explained why the code was removed immediately after the discovery or whether the changes had already been planned before the reporting appeared.

Why Facial Recognition In Glasses Is Different

The debate is not really about facial recognition itself. The technology has existed for many years and is already widely used in smartphones, airports, security systems, and consumer applications.

What makes smart glasses different is that they allow facial recognition to move from fixed locations and deliberate actions into everyday social interactions.

Unlike a phone, which requires someone to consciously point a camera at another person, smart glasses can continuously capture information while being worn. Combined with AI, cameras, microphones, and internet connectivity, they create the possibility of real-time identification in public spaces without the knowledge of the people being observed.

Supporters argue that such technology could have legitimate uses. For example, facial recognition could help visually impaired users identify friends, family members, or colleagues. It could also assist people with memory difficulties or cognitive impairments.

Critics, however, have raised concerns that the same technology could be misused for stalking, harassment, surveillance, or the identification of strangers without consent.

Those concerns become even more significant when combined with generative AI systems capable of searching, analysing, and contextualising information automatically.

Part Of A Bigger Strategy

The discovery also provides an insight into Meta’s longer-term ambitions for wearable AI. For example, chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly described smart glasses as a future computing platform where AI assistants become constantly available throughout the day. The company’s recent investments in Ray-Ban and Oakley smart glasses reflect a belief that future digital interactions will increasingly move away from smartphones and towards wearable devices.

Facial recognition could potentially play an important role in that vision. An AI assistant capable of recognising people, understanding context, remembering previous interactions, and providing relevant information could become far more useful than one that simply responds to voice commands.

However, it is precisely that capability which raises difficult questions about privacy, consent, and personal data.

The Wider Privacy Challenge

The incident arrives at a time when regulators in Europe, the UK, and the United States are paying closer attention to biometric technologies.

Unlike passwords or usernames, biometric identifiers are linked directly to an individual’s physical characteristics. If compromised or misused, they cannot simply be changed or reset.

Privacy campaigners have long argued that facial recognition requires stronger safeguards than many other forms of personal data because of its potential to identify individuals at scale and without their active participation.

The rapid removal of the NameTag code suggests that Meta recognises the sensitivity of the issue, even if the company insists the feature was only exploratory.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, the story highlights how quickly AI is beginning to move beyond software and into the physical world.

Many organisations are already evaluating AI tools for productivity, automation, and customer service. The next wave of AI innovation is likely to involve wearable devices that can see, hear, interpret, and respond to the environment around them in real time.

That creates new opportunities, particularly in areas such as accessibility, training, field services, logistics, and hands-free information access. At the same time, it introduces new questions around privacy, data governance, consent, and the collection of biometric information.

The wider lesson is that as AI becomes more deeply embedded into everyday devices, businesses will need to think not only about what these systems can do, but also about what employees, customers, and the public are comfortable allowing them to do. The reaction to Meta’s facial recognition experiment suggests those conversations are only just beginning.

Featured Article : Meta Smart Glasses Security Controversy

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Meta has terminated its contract with outsourcing firm Sama, leading to more than 1,000 Kenyan workers losing their jobs after they revealed they had been reviewing highly sensitive footage captured by users of its AI-powered smart glasses, raising fresh concerns about privacy, labour practices, and the hidden human layer behind AI.

What The Workers Reported Seeing

The controversy began in February when workers employed by Sama in Nairobi told Swedish newspapers that their role involved reviewing and labelling video footage captured by Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses. According to those accounts, the material included deeply private scenes, with one worker stating, “We see everything – from living rooms to naked bodies.”

The footage was reportedly not limited to staged or deliberately shared content. Instead, it reflected everyday life captured by wearable cameras, including people undressing, using the toilet, and handling sensitive personal information. The workers’ role was to annotate this material so that Meta’s AI systems could learn to interpret visual and contextual data more effectively.

Meta acknowledged that human review forms part of its AI training process, stating that “photos and videos are private to users” and that human reviewers are used to “improve product performance” with user consent. However, the scale and nature of the material described by workers has intensified scrutiny over how that consent is obtained and understood in practice.

Why Did Meta End The Contract?

Less than two months after the investigation was published, Meta moved to end its relationship with Sama, a US-based outsourcing company that provides data annotation services, employing workers to review and label images and video to train AI systems, a decision that resulted in redundancy notices being issued to 1,108 workers with just days’ notice. The company’s official explanation was that Sama “did not meet our standards,” although it did not specify which standards had been breached or when concerns were first identified.

Disputed By Sama

Sama has strongly disputed that characterisation, stating that it had “consistently met the operational, security and quality standards required” and had not been informed of any shortcomings before the contract was terminated.

The timing of the decision has led to further questions, with labour groups and campaigners arguing that the termination may have been linked to the workers speaking out rather than performance issues, while Naftali Wambalo of the Africa Tech Workers Movement suggested that the standards in question may relate less to quality and more to confidentiality, describing them as “standards of secrecy,” a claim that Meta has not publicly addressed.

The Human Layer Behind AI

The episode highlights a reality that is often overlooked in discussions about artificial intelligence. Before AI systems can recognise images, understand context, or respond to real-world inputs, large volumes of data must be manually labelled by human workers.

In this case, that process meant individuals in Kenya reviewing unfiltered footage captured by wearable devices used by people in entirely different parts of the world. The work sits at the intersection of privacy, labour rights, and technology development, with those carrying out the task often having limited visibility, protection, or influence over how the data is used.

Not The First Time For Meta

It seems this is not the first time Meta’s relationship with outsourced labour has come under scrutiny. For example, previous contracts involving content moderation have been linked to claims of psychological harm, low pay, and inadequate support, with some former workers reporting symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress. Sama itself exited parts of that work in recent years, acknowledging the challenges involved.

Regulatory Pressure

The revelations have prompted regulatory attention in multiple jurisdictions. For example, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office described the reports as “concerning” and requested further information from Meta, while Kenya’s data protection authority has launched its own investigation into the handling of the footage.

Legal challenges are also emerging. A class action lawsuit in the United States alleges that Meta misrepresented the privacy protections of its smart glasses, while privacy groups in Europe continue to question how user data is processed and whether consent mechanisms meet regulatory standards.

The concern centres on a key distinction, because while Meta’s policies may disclose that data can be used to train AI systems, the extent to which users understand that their footage could be viewed by human reviewers remains unclear, particularly when that footage includes sensitive or intimate situations.

What This Means For AI Development

The decision to end the Sama contract does not remove the need for human input in AI systems. Instead, it exposes the tension between rapid technological development and the practical realities of how that development is supported.

Training AI models at scale requires vast amounts of labelled data, and that requirement does not disappear as systems become more advanced. What changes is the level of scrutiny applied to how that data is collected, processed, and reviewed, particularly when it involves real-world human behaviour rather than curated datasets.

Smart glasses themselves represent a significant step forward in AI-enabled consumer devices, combining real-time image capture with on-device and cloud-based processing. However, their effectiveness depends on continuous learning, which in turn depends on the availability of human-labelled data.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This story illustrates how organisations adopting AI tools may need to look beyond the technology itself and consider the full data lifecycle, including how training data is sourced, handled, and reviewed, particularly where external providers or offshore teams are involved.

For UK businesses, this has clear implications around compliance and accountability, because under UK GDPR and data protection law, responsibility does not disappear when data is passed to a third party, meaning organisations must be confident not only in how systems perform but also in how the underlying data is being processed and by whom.

Reducing risk therefore means ensuring that suppliers and partners meet clear standards not only for technical performance but also for data governance, worker welfare, and transparency, with strong contractual controls, regular audits, and clear oversight of third-party processes becoming essential, especially when sensitive or personal data is involved.

The broader lesson, and what may be surprising to many, is that AI systems are not purely automated but are built on human input at multiple stages, and any weakness in that chain can create reputational, legal, and ethical risk, leaving businesses that properly understand and manage that reality far better placed to use AI responsibly while maintaining trust with customers, regulators, and stakeholders.

Company Check : Embarrassment As Meta Unveils New AI-Powered Smart Glasses

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Meta has launched a new generation of smart glasses and wearable AI tools, including the first mainstream Ray-Ban smart glasses with an in-lens display and a Neural Band that lets users control digital content with tiny hand gestures.

Zuckerberg Reveals the New Line-Up at Meta Connect

The announcement was made by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg during the company’s recent (annual Meta) Connect conference, at Meta’s Menlo Park headquarters in California. In front of a live audience, he introduced three new smart glasses models alongside the debut of the Meta Neural Band, a wrist-worn controller designed to detect electrical signals from the forearm and translate them into digital inputs.

According to Zuckerberg, the technology represents a “huge scientific breakthrough” and forms a key part of Meta’s strategy to embed AI into wearable devices. The new glasses are powered by Meta AI, the company’s voice-activated assistant, and are designed to bring augmented reality (AR) features to everyday eyewear.

Three New Models With Different Uses in Mind

The headline product is the Meta Ray-Ban Display, priced at $799 (£585), which features a colour display embedded into the right lens. This allows users to see WhatsApp messages, view live video calls, and access real-time information such as captions, translations, or walking directions directly in their line of sight. A 12-megapixel front-facing camera enables photos and video recording, and a microphone and speaker system support voice calls and Meta AI commands.

Also announced were the Oakley Meta Vanguard glasses, retailing at $499 (£390), aimed at sports and outdoor users. These include an ultrawide camera, a rugged waterproof design (IP67-rated), and integration with fitness tracking services like Strava and Garmin. Finally, Meta also launched the Ray-Ban Meta (Gen 2) glasses for $379 (£295), which have a more classic design while adding better cameras, extended battery life, and upgraded video features such as slow-motion and hyperlapse recording.

All three models are essentially being positioned as steps towards a more immersive and hands-free computing experience, thereby removing the need for users to constantly check phones or carry separate devices.

The Neural Band (Replacing the Keyboard With Your Hand)

What makes this release particularly notable is the integration of the Meta Neural Band, a wearable bracelet that detects subtle hand gestures using electromyography (EMG). EMG reads the small electrical impulses generated by muscle movement. In Meta’s case, this translates to pinches, taps, swipes, and even drawing letters on the user’s leg or desk to send text messages, no screen or keyboard needed.

The Neural Band allows users to control the glasses without even touching them, thanks to AI models trained to recognise specific gestures and context. For example, swiping a thumb across the index finger can scroll menus, while tapping fingers together can wake or sleep the display. There is also a double-thumb tap gesture to activate Meta AI without saying its wake word.

Meta says the Neural Band will initially only be sold in the US due to the need for in-store wrist fitting. It will roll out to other markets, including the UK, in early 2026.

Meta’s Long-Term AI Hardware Ambitions

This latest release highlights Meta’s growing focus on AI hardware, with Zuckerberg stating earlier this year that the company intends to spend “hundreds of billions” on AI infrastructure and data centres in pursuit of what he calls “personal superintelligence”.

The new glasses are part of a broader strategy to create everyday devices that blend AI with human senses. In a July earnings call, Zuckerberg said he believes smart glasses will become so important that “people who don’t wear them will be at a significant cognitive disadvantage.”

Meta has sold around two million smart glasses since its partnership with Ray-Ban began in 2023, though it does not disclose exact figures. With the addition of display features, Meta is hoping to create a more compelling reason for wider adoption.

What Can They Do?

In terms of functionality, the Ray-Ban Display allows users to view content such as messages, calls, maps, or translations overlaid on the real world. For example, during a walk, the glasses can provide turn-by-turn directions without needing to check a phone. Similarly, when in conversation with someone speaking another language, the glasses can show translated captions live on the lens.

Voice remains a key interface, but Meta now believes combining visual and gesture controls will significantly enhance the user experience. The glasses are powered by Meta’s own large language models, and the company claims performance is improving rapidly with each update.

The Oakley Meta Vanguard model is clearly targeted at fitness and sports users. As such, it can automatically capture moments during activities like cycling or skiing, using sensor data to determine milestones such as speed or altitude reached. Also, after an activity, users can overlay stats from Garmin or Strava onto videos or photos.

Awkward Launch

Despite the ambition, the launch has not been without glitches. For example, during the live demo, Zuckerberg struggled to place a WhatsApp call using the glasses, telling the audience: “I don’t know what to tell you guys. I keep on messing this up.”

There also appears to be some limitations in functionality. For example, at launch, Spotify integration will only support playback controls and track display. Instagram use is limited to Reels and direct messages. Meta says more features will roll out in software updates.

Comfort and accessibility are other factors where there may be some issues. There have been reports that the display works well when viewed through one eye but reading it with both eyes can feel disorientating. Meta says the experience takes some getting used to.

Privacy, Safety and Scrutiny

Not surprisingly, there have been some questions raised about safety, privacy, and the impact on younger users. The glasses include a small LED to alert others when the camera is recording, but critics say more robust protections may be needed.

Also, on the same day as the launch, protests took place outside Meta’s New York headquarters. Campaigners, including parents of children who died by suicide, demanded greater protections for minors across Meta’s platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and its VR products. Meta denies accusations of negligence, calling them “nonsense.”

Earlier testimony from two former safety researchers accused the company of suppressing internal studies on potential harm to children. While unrelated to the glasses directly, this scrutiny continues to shadow Meta’s broader product ecosystem.

Competition

Meta’s bet on smart glasses puts it in direct competition with other tech giants exploring wearable AI, including Apple and Google. For example, Google previously attempted a heads-up display with Google Glass, which failed to gain traction. It seems Meta is now trying to succeed where others fell short by integrating AI and voice in a more consumer-friendly format.

According to Forrester analyst Mike Proulx, “Unlike VR headsets, glasses are an everyday, non-cumbersome form factor,” but he added that Meta must still “convince the vast majority of people who don’t own AI glasses that the benefits outweigh the cost.”

Meta has already invested around $3.5 billion in eyewear brand EssilorLuxottica, which owns Ray-Ban and Oakley. This suggests a long-term commitment to making smart glasses a central platform for AI integration.

Business adoption also seems to remain a bit of an open question. For example, the hands-free and real-time capabilities of the glasses could appeal to sectors such as logistics, field service, or retail, where instant access to information can improve productivity. However, questions around price, practicality, and security may limit short-term uptake.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Practical use cases will likely determine how quickly these devices gain ground, particularly in business settings. In sectors where on-the-go access to visual data and communication tools is critical, such as warehousing, technical services, healthcare, or even frontline retail, Meta’s smart glasses could actually offer a viable alternative to phones or tablets. Being able to receive instructions, translate conversations, or log information using only hand gestures or voice commands could reduce friction, speed up workflows, and create safer, more efficient environments. UK businesses in particular may find opportunities here, especially where hands-free communication or multilingual interaction is valuable.

At the same time, concerns around user privacy, data collection, and digital wellbeing are not going away. The Neural Band introduces a level of biometric input that, while technically impressive, may prompt further debate around consent, surveillance, and data ethics. These are especially sensitive issues for organisations operating in regulated environments, or those managing public-facing staff.

Meta’s heavy investment in AI hardware signals a longer-term ambition to dominate wearable computing, but it also raises the stakes. If the technology fails to deliver clear value or gain mainstream traction, the company could face pressure over its direction and spending. Likewise, businesses considering adoption will need to assess not just functionality, but also durability, support, integration with existing systems, and long-term viability.

The glasses may well become more than a consumer gadget. If Meta can refine the experience, prove the use cases, and address lingering trust issues, the products unveiled this month could mark an early step towards a wider transformation in how people interact with digital tools, and how AI becomes embedded in daily professional life.

Tech News : Meta’s Tents For Data Centres Amid AI Surge

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Meta is reportedly using temporary tent structures to house its growing AI infrastructure, as demand for compute power outpaces the construction of traditional data centres.

A Race for AI Compute Is Reshaping Infrastructure Plans

As the AI arms race intensifies, tech giants are confronting a new logistical challenge, i.e. where to house the vast amounts of high-performance hardware needed to train and run next-generation AI models. For Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, the answer (at least in the short term) appears to be industrial-strength tents.

Reports first surfaced this month that Meta has begun deploying custom-built tented structures alongside its existing facilities to accelerate the rollout of AI computing clusters. These so-called “data tents” are not a cost-saving gimmick, but rather appear to be a calculated move to rapidly expand capacity amid what CEO Mark Zuckerberg has described as a major shift in the company’s AI strategy.

From Social Platform to AI Powerhouse

Meta’s pivot towards AI infrastructure has been fast and deliberate. For example, in early 2024, the company announced plans to create one of the world’s largest AI supercomputers, with a particular focus on supporting its open-source LLaMA family of language models. By the end of the year, it had already begun referring to it as “the most significant capital investment” in its history.

To support this, Meta is deploying tens of thousands of Nvidia’s H100 and Blackwell GPUs (high-powered computer chips designed to run and train advanced AI systems very quickly). However, it seems that building the physical infrastructure to support them has proven slower than the procurement of hardware. Traditional data centres, for example, can take 18–24 months to build and commission. Meta’s solution appears to be to use temporary hardened enclosures, which are effectively industrial tents, that can be erected and made operational in a fraction of the time.

Where It’s Happening and What It Looks Like

The first confirmed location for Meta’s tented deployments is in New Albany, Ohio, where it’s developing a major cluster codenamed Prometheus. According to recent reports from several news sources, these structures are being used to house racks of GPU servers and associated networking equipment. Each unit is reportedly modular, with advanced cooling, fire suppression, and security systems.

While Meta has not actually released any detailed specifications, the company has described the effort as a “temporary acceleration” to bridge the gap until more permanent facilities come online. Another major AI campus (codenamed Hyperion) is in development in Louisiana, with expectations that similar rapid-deployment methods may be used there too.

Why Tents and Why Now?

The use of tents may seem surprising, but Meta’s motivation is clear, i.e. it wants (needs) to train and serve large AI models at scale, and it needs the infrastructure right now, not in two years. In Zuckerberg’s own words, the company is aiming to “build enough capacity to support the next generation of AI products,” while staying competitive with the likes of OpenAI, Google, Amazon and Microsoft.

It’s also about flexibility. For example, unlike traditional data centres, which require permanent planning permissions and heavy civil works, tented enclosures can be constructed and reconfigured quickly. They offer a way to get high-density computing online in months rather than years, albeit with some compromises.

Not Just Meta

While Meta’s move is grabbing headlines, it’s not the first major tech firm to explore unconventional data centre formats. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, several cloud providers used temporary modular data centres, including containers and tented enclosures, to scale operations when demand surged. Microsoft famously experimented with underwater data centres as a way to reduce cooling costs and improve reliability.

Even more recently, Elon Musk’s xAI venture reportedly deployed rapid-build server farms using prefabricated containers to speed up GPU deployment in its Texas-based facilities. Also, Amazon has continued to invest in “Edge” data centres that prioritise speed and agility over permanence.

However, what sets Meta’s approach apart is the scale. For example, the company has already committed over $40 billion to AI infrastructure, and the tented deployments are part of a broader strategy to “bootstrap” its capabilities while new-generation AI-specific campuses are built from scratch.

Concerns About Resilience, Efficiency and Impact

It should be noted, however, that the move hasn’t exactly been universally welcomed. Experts have raised concerns about the reliability, cooling efficiency and ecological footprint of tent-based data operations. While Meta claims that its enclosures meet enterprise standards for uptime and safety, temporary structures are inherently more vulnerable to environmental disruption, temperature fluctuations and wear.

There are also questions about energy use. Large AI models require huge volumes of electricity to run, especially when deployed at scale. Tented structures may lack the sophisticated thermal management and energy reuse systems found in traditional hyperscale centres, raising the risk of inefficiencies and higher carbon emissions.

According to the Uptime Institute, data centres already account for up to 3 per cent of global electricity demand. If stopgap facilities become the norm during periods of infrastructure pressure, that figure could rise sharply without additional oversight or environmental controls.

Impact and Implications

For Meta, at the moment, the gamble appears to be worth it. The company is currently rolling out LLaMA 3 and investing heavily in tools like Meta AI, which it plans to integrate across its social and business platforms. The faster it can get its high-performance AI hardware up and running, the sooner it can offer AI-driven services, including advertising tools, analytics, and content generation, to enterprise clients.

For business users, the main benefit is likely to be early access to more powerful AI tools. Meta has already integrated its assistant into WhatsApp, Messenger and Instagram, with broader rollouts planned for Workplace and business messaging products. However, reliability and latency may remain issues if some of the compute is housed in temporary facilities.

The move also raises the issue of competitive pressure. For example, if Meta can deliver AI capabilities ahead of rivals by deploying fast, it may force other firms to adopt similar build strategies, even if those come with higher operational risks. For hyperscalers, the challenge will be balancing speed with sustainability and service quality.

What Comes Next?

Not surprisingly, Meta has indicated that tents are a transitional measure, not a long-term strategy. The company’s permanent data centre designs are being reworked to accommodate liquid cooling, direct GPU interconnects, and AI-native workloads. These upgraded facilities will take years to complete, but by using tents in the meantime, Meta is buying itself crucial time.

The coming months are likely to show whether the experiment works, and whether others follow suit. For now, Meta’s tents are essentially a symbol of just how fast AI is reshaping not just software, but the physical infrastructure of the internet itself.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The use of tents as a fast-track solution reflects the scale and urgency of Meta’s AI ambitions, but it also highlights the growing tension between speed of deployment and long-term sustainability. For all its innovation, Meta’s approach poses uncomfortable questions about resilience, energy consumption and operational risk, especially when infrastructure is housed in non-standard environments. While this kind of flexibility may offer a short-term edge, it could expose businesses and users to service disruption if systems housed in temporary structures fail under pressure or face unforeseen vulnerabilities.

That said, the sheer demand for AI infrastructure means other tech giants may not be far behind. If Meta’s experiment proves successful, we could see other players adopt similarly unconventional strategies, especially where time-to-market is critical. For UK businesses relying on AI platforms like Meta’s for content generation, analytics, or marketing tools, this could bring benefits in terms of earlier access to new capabilities. However, it also reinforces the importance of understanding where and how data services are delivered, particularly for sectors concerned with uptime, data security, and regulatory compliance.

Regulators, investors, and environmental groups will likely be watching closely. If stopgap deployments become widespread, new standards may be needed to ensure these facilities meet minimum efficiency, safety and emissions criteria. The shift to temporary infrastructure may also have knock-on effects for supply chains, local planning authorities and the data centre construction industry, as expectations around permanence and scale continue to shift.

Ultimately, Meta’s move signals a wider industry pivot, not just to AI, but to a more agile and fragmented approach to infrastructure. Whether this becomes a blueprint or a cautionary tale will depend on how well these fast-build solutions hold up under real-world conditions, and whether they can deliver the stability and sustainability that large-scale AI services increasingly demand.

Tech News : WhatsApp Backs Apple

Posted on by Paul Stradling

It’s been reported that Meta-owned WhatsApp has formally backed Apple in its legal challenge against the UK government over secret demands to weaken end-to-end encryption, in a case that could have global repercussions for user privacy and national security policy.

Secret UK Orders to Access Encrypted Data

The dispute stems from a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) reportedly issued to Apple by the UK Home Office under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, i.e., legislation that allows UK authorities to compel technology firms to provide access to communications and stored data where necessary for law enforcement and national security.

This particular TCN is believed to have required Apple to create a way for UK authorities to access encrypted content held in users’ iCloud accounts, including personal files, messages, and notes. Apple’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP) system, introduced globally in late 2022, uses end-to-end encryption (E2EE) to protect this data, meaning only the user, not even Apple, has access to it.

When Apple received the notice, it pulled the ADP feature from the UK in February 2025 and launched a legal appeal through the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the specialist court that handles intelligence and surveillance disputes. The case was initially held behind closed doors, but following pressure from media organisations, a judge ruled in April that certain details should be made public due to the significance of the case.

WhatsApp Warns of Global Implications if Encryption Is Weakened

Now, WhatsApp has reportedly stepped in to support Apple, applying to submit evidence in the case and voicing serious concerns about the precedent such government powers could set. According to a recent report from the BBC, WhatsApp head Will Cathcart said the platform “would challenge any law or government request that seeks to weaken the encryption of our services and will continue to stand up for people’s right to a private conversation online.”

Cathcart added that if the UK’s approach were allowed to stand, it could “embolden other nations” to demand similar access, undermining encryption standards and threatening users’ privacy worldwide.

WhatsApp, which provides E2EE by default for all messages and calls, has long warned that creating any “backdoor” access mechanism, even for a single government, would jeopardise the security of all users. For example, back in 2023, the platform said it would rather be banned in the UK than comply with demands to compromise its encryption under the Online Safety Act.

A Broader Tech Industry Pushback

Apple itself has said little publicly beyond its legal filings but has previously stated that building such backdoors would expose users to risks from “bad actors” and hostile states. “There is no way to provide access to encrypted data for some without making it vulnerable to others,” Apple argued in a 2024 statement responding to proposed changes in UK surveillance law.

The wider tech industry has reacted with unease. Civil liberties campaigners, including Open Rights Group and Liberty, have welcomed WhatsApp’s intervention. “It’s important that the court hears from as many companies and organisations as possible,” said Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group. “The Home Office is trying to establish powers that would affect the safety and privacy of billions of people.”

What the UK Government Says

The Home Office has declined to comment on the ongoing legal case. However, in a broader statement reported recently by the BBC, it said the UK has “a longstanding position of protecting our citizens from the very worst crimes, such as child sex abuse and terrorism, at the same time as protecting people’s privacy.”

The government maintains that such powers are only used “on an exceptional basis” and subject to independent oversight, but critics argue that the secrecy surrounding TCNs makes scrutiny difficult. Under UK law, recipients of TCNs are not allowed to confirm they’ve received one, adding to the opacity of the process.

What Happens if Apple Loses?

If Apple’s legal challenge fails, it could be forced to re-engineer iCloud systems to allow for selective access to encrypted user data. Privacy advocates warn that even if intended for legitimate UK investigations, the mere existence of such a capability could be exploited by other governments, including authoritarian regimes.

That would represent a major change in the international norms around encryption, long considered a vital defence against cybercrime, identity theft, and state surveillance. Tech companies may also face rising pressure to comply with similar orders from other jurisdictions, effectively weakening global data security.

Apple, whose products are used by millions of businesses worldwide, including SMEs and regulated sectors such as law and healthcare, could face reputational and operational risks if seen to compromise its security guarantees. Likewise, any weakening of encryption on WhatsApp would create immediate concerns for its 2 billion users, many of whom rely on it for confidential client communications.

Concerns for Business and International Relations

The political and diplomatic fallout has already begun. For example, in the US, two members of Congress wrote to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard demanding the UK order be retracted, citing it as a “dangerous attack on US cybersecurity.” Gabbard later confirmed the order had not been disclosed in advance and is now being investigated by US intelligence agencies.

Some US officials have also reportedly warned that if the UK proceeds with such unilateral data access powers, it could damage intelligence-sharing arrangements within the Five Eyes alliance, a cornerstone of post-war Western security cooperation between the UK, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

For UK businesses, especially those handling sensitive data or operating internationally, any weakening of encryption by major providers could raise compliance questions, particularly under GDPR and other global privacy regimes.

A Fight Over Principles, Technology, and Power

At the heart of the legal fight is a clash between national security objectives and digital privacy rights, one that is shaping the future of how encrypted technologies are governed. While the UK government argues it needs the tools to investigate the most serious crimes, tech firms warn that any mechanism to bypass encryption inherently undermines its effectiveness.

The case also illustrates how laws written in 2016 are now being applied in a more technologically advanced and politically volatile world, where global tech platforms often sit at odds with national authorities. As WhatsApp’s Cathcart noted (as reported by the BBC), what happens in this case “will set the tone for the future of privacy and encryption around the world.”

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

If the tribunal ultimately sides with the UK government, the immediate consequence would be the normalisation of secret orders compelling companies to undermine their own security architecture. This would not only damage the trust users place in services like iCloud and WhatsApp, but could expose everyday business communications, customer records, and proprietary information to new vulnerabilities. For UK businesses, especially those in sectors such as finance, law, and healthcare where confidentiality is critical, the legal uncertainty and technical risk of weakened encryption could prove costly. Questions around compliance with global data protection rules would also increase, with firms forced to consider whether UK-hosted services still meet international privacy standards.

For tech companies, the case highlights an escalating pattern of legislative tension between national governments and global platforms. A ruling in favour of the Home Office could embolden other countries to issue similar demands, gradually eroding the integrity of end-to-end encryption across borders. Smaller or newer service providers without the legal resources of Apple or Meta may find it harder to resist such pressures, creating an uneven playing field and amplifying risks for users across the board.

On the other hand, for law enforcement and intelligence services, the case reflects long-standing frustrations with encrypted platforms that make it harder to investigate serious crimes. The Home Office maintains that the powers in question are only used where strictly necessary, and subject to independent oversight. However, the lack of transparency, particularly around the existence and use of Technical Capability Notices, remains a sticking point for civil liberties groups and privacy advocates.

Ultimately, the outcome of Apple’s legal challenge will shape more than just the UK’s approach to digital surveillance. It will set a precedent for how democratic societies balance the competing demands of public safety, privacy, and technological progress. With major platforms now formally aligning against the government’s position, the case has become a defining test of both legal authority and digital ethics. Whatever the ruling, its impact is likely to resonate well beyond the UK courtroom.

Tech News : Meta and Hollywood Giants Sue AI Firms

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Meta is taking legal action against a company accused of flooding its platforms with ads for non-consensual AI-generated nudity, while Disney and Universal have launched a separate lawsuit claiming one of the world’s most popular image-generating tools is built on stolen intellectual property.

Meta Targets CrushAI in Major Legal Push

Meta has filed a lawsuit in Hong Kong against Joy Timeline HK Limited, the company behind CrushAI, an app that uses generative AI to undress photos of clothed individuals without their consent. According to Meta, the service ran more than 87,000 ads across Facebook and Instagram, often using misleading images and evasion tactics to bypass platform rules.

Repeated Violations

Meta’s lawsuit alleges that CrushAI’s operators repeatedly violated Meta’s advertising policies and continued to create new accounts and domains to distribute ads even after multiple take-downs. Meta said the company operated under names like “Eraser Annyone’s Clothes” and used generic visuals in ads to sidestep detection systems. In one example cited in court filings, an ad featured a split image of a woman clothed on one side and digitally undressed on the other, with phrases like “BRA OFF” and “PANTS OFF” alongside captions such as “Upload a photo to strip for a minute.”

Meta’s lawsuit seeks to stop the defendants from using its platforms entirely. A company spokesperson stated, “This legal action underscores both the seriousness with which we take this abuse and our commitment to doing all we can to protect our community from it.”

Scale of Abuse Raises Platform Accountability Questions

Based on what Meta says, it appears that the volume of ads involved in the case is significant. For example, reports indicate over 135 Facebook pages and more than 170 business accounts were used to promote AI undressing services. Many of these targeted users in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and Germany. According to investigative journalist Alexios Mantzarlis (who first reported on CrushAI’s ad activity), around 90 percent of its website traffic came directly from Meta-owned platforms.

Not only is Meta suing, but it has also now responded by expanding its detection and enforcement methods. Reports indicate that new tools can now identify suspicious ads even when they contain no explicit content, using copy-detection and adversarial network analysis. Since the start of 2025, Meta says it has dismantled four separate networks of such advertisers and provided over 3,800 URLs linked to nudify services to other tech firms via the Tech Coalition’s Lantern programme.

Monetising Harmful Content Through Mainstream Platforms

This case essentially highlights how AI tools are being used not just to produce harmful content, but to monetise it through mainstream ad platforms. Meta’s decision to pursue litigation suggests a growing willingness to tackle abuse at the source rather than relying solely on content moderation. The company has also backed new US legislation like the TAKE IT DOWN Act, aimed at removing non-consensual intimate images from the internet more broadly.

Tech Industry Struggles With Deepfake Threat

It should be noted here that the CrushAI case is certainly not an isolated incident. Meta, TikTok and others have all faced rising pressure over how easily such tools can reach users, especially teenagers. Despite banning search terms like “undress” and “nudify,” demand for these apps has grown sharply in recent months. In 2024 alone, researchers found millions of ad impressions for similar services across YouTube, X, and Reddit.

The business model is simple but troubling, i.e., create synthetic nude images from innocent photos using AI, serve ads via loopholes in platform rules, and profit from traffic and paid services. Meta argues that only cross-industry cooperation and stronger regulation will stop the spread of such services. “Removing them from one platform alone isn’t enough,” the company wrote in a June 2025 update.

Should Have Acted Faster?

However, critics say Meta should have acted faster. Despite knowing about the problem since at least 2023, many CrushAI-linked domains remained live and active into this year. Privacy campaigners argue that platforms must improve human oversight of AI-driven ad systems, particularly when dealing with abusive content aimed at minors or vulnerable groups.

Disney and Universal Take Aim at Midjourney Over IP Use

While Meta fights AI abuse through its own platforms, another battle is unfolding in the entertainment world. Disney and Universal have recently filed a joint lawsuit in California against San Francisco-based Midjourney, accusing it of using copyrighted characters and imagery without permission.

The studios argue that Midjourney’s generative AI models have enabled users to create countless unauthorised depictions of characters like Yoda, Elsa, Darth Vader and the Minions. According to the complaint, the tool functions as an “AI-powered vending machine” that outputs copyrighted content on demand, without adequate transformation or permission.

Horacio Gutierrez, Disney’s chief legal officer, said: “Piracy is piracy, and the fact that it’s done by an AI company does not make it any less infringing.”

Midjourney is reported to have generated around $300 million in revenue in 2024. It is also developing a video generation service, which the plaintiffs warn could extend the infringement into moving images. While Midjourney has not responded publicly to the lawsuit, its website describes the team as a “small self-funded research lab” with fewer than a dozen full-time staff.

Fair Use, Transformation and Legal Uncertainty

The Midjourney case cuts to the heart of one of the thorniest questions in current copyright law, i.e., how much transformation is enough to qualify as fair use? Syracuse University professor Shubha Ghosh noted, “A lot of the images that Midjourney produces just seem to be copies of copyright characters that might be in new locations or with a new background.”

The studios argue this isn’t transformative in a meaningful sense. However, Midjourney’s defenders claim its models are trained on vast quantities of publicly available images and that user-generated content can vary widely in form and purpose. The outcome may hinge on whether courts see Midjourney’s tools as akin to remixing or as unauthorised reproduction.

It’s been reported that IP lawyer Randy McCarthy has warned that this case is far from clear-cut, saying: “No litigation is ever a slam dunk, and that is true for Disney and Universal in this case.” He points to Midjourney’s terms of service and the complexity of fair use law in the context of AI-generated content.

A Growing Legal Reckoning for AI

Both lawsuits essentially reflect a broader shift in how tech companies, regulators and rights holders are responding to the explosive growth of generative AI. While the technology is transforming fields from entertainment to education, it is also forcing courts to confront unprecedented questions about privacy, consent, and intellectual property at scale.

For example, while Meta is investing in machine learning to better detect nudify ads, legal pressure may ultimately do more to stop app makers from operating in the first place. Similarly, Hollywood’s case against Midjourney may define future boundaries for AI training, commercialisation and user outputs.

These cases also raise operational questions for AI developers and platforms alike. For example, businesses using AI models in customer-facing products will need to monitor legal risks more closely, especially where training data or outputs involve real people or proprietary content. The financial, reputational and regulatory costs of getting this wrong are starting to come into sharper focus.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The outcomes of these lawsuits could set influential precedents in how AI content is policed, monetised and legally challenged across both the tech and entertainment industries. In Meta’s case, the scale of abuse has forced the company to shift from reactive moderation to proactive disruption and litigation. The company’s legal and technical responses also highlight the degree to which AI-generated content has outpaced existing enforcement systems, raising critical questions about how other platforms will handle similar threats. While Meta’s use of machine learning and industry-wide collaboration may help close the gap, regulators and watchdogs will be watching closely to see whether these measures are sufficient, or merely reactive damage control.

For UK businesses, these developments highlight the need to approach AI integration with greater care, especially when it involves third-party content, image generation or user data. Any business using or developing generative tools must understand not just the technical capabilities, but also the legal and ethical frameworks now forming around them. Whether it’s a platform hosting user-generated images or a marketing agency using AI to create branded visuals, the risks associated with misuse, infringement or reputational harm are now more tangible than ever. Ensuring that AI systems are responsibly sourced, monitored and legally compliant is really now essential.

The legal action from Disney and Universal shows that large rights holders are prepared to challenge even the most technically complex cases of copyright use. Although Midjourney is not accused of creating content directly, it stands accused of enabling users to infringe at scale by offering tools trained on protected IP. This line of legal argument may soon be tested further if other AI firms follow similar models. For other stakeholders in the creative sector, from publishers to games studios, the message is that commercialising AI without clear safeguards can bring substantial legal exposure.

It seems the more AI tools intersect with real people’s identities and other people’s intellectual property, the more likely it is that platforms, developers and even users will be drawn into litigation. The next few months are likely to shape not just individual company policies, but broader norms around how AI is trained, deployed and held accountable across multiple sectors.

Security Stop-Press: Meta AI’s ‘Share’ Button Sparks Privacy Concerns

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Meta’s new AI app is under fire after users unknowingly shared private chats, including legal queries, personal data and audio clips, on the public web.

The issue lies with a “share” button that appears after each chatbot response. Users can post content without realising it’s publicly visible, especially if logged in via a public Instagram account. Security expert Rachel Tobac called it a “privacy nightmare” after spotting names, addresses and court-related questions shared online.

Some posts appear jokey or attention-seeking, but many involve sensitive or reputationally risky content. One user asked about a rash, another discussed tax evasion, and several uploaded CVs and legal references, seemingly unaware they were going public.

Launched on 29 April, the app has already hit 6.5 million downloads. However, experts say Meta should have anticipated the risks of blending private AI queries with social sharing.

Businesses should avoid using AI tools through personal logins and steer clear of sharing anything sensitive unless privacy settings are crystal clear.

Company Check – Meta & Yandex Covert Tracking Concerns

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Meta and Russian search firm Yandex used hidden background scripts to monitor Android users’ web activity without consent, bypassing incognito mode and browser protections, researchers say.

Hidden Tracking System Uncovered

A new joint investigation has revealed that Meta and Yandex have been covertly collecting the private web browsing data of Android users by exploiting local communication loopholes between mobile apps and browsers. The technique reportedly allowed both companies to bypass standard privacy protections, without the knowledge or consent of users.

The findings were published by an international research team led by Radboud University in the Netherlands and IMDEA Networks Institute in Spain. The group included privacy experts Gunes Acar, Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez, Tim Vlummens (KU Leuven), and others. Their research revealed that Android apps owned by Meta (including Facebook and Instagram) and Yandex (including Yandex Maps, Browser, Navi, and Search) were silently listening on fixed local ports to receive web tracking data via local network connections, thereby effectively joining app-based user identities with users’ browsing habits.

According to the researchers, this practice undermines the technical safeguards built into both Android and modern web browsers, including incognito browsing, cookie restrictions, and third-party tracking protections.

How the Tracking Worked in Practice

Under Android’s permission model, any app granted the “INTERNET” permission (which includes nearly all social media and mapping apps) can start a local server inside the app. Meta and Yandex are reported to have used this ability to set up background listeners on local ports (e.g. via TCP sockets or WebRTC channels).

When users visited websites embedded with Meta Pixel or Yandex Metrica tracking scripts, those scripts could secretly send data to these background ports on the same device. This meant the apps could intercept identifiers and browsing metadata from the websites, despite no direct interaction from the user, and tie them to a logged-in app profile. The researchers say this technique effectively broke down the wall between mobile app usage and private web browsing, two areas users generally expect to remain separate.

Evasion Tactics From Yandex?

While Meta’s version used WebRTC signalling to send identifiers to their native apps, it seems that Yandex implemented a more dynamic system. For example, their apps reportedly downloaded remote configurations and delayed activation for several days after installation, which is behaviour likened by the researchers to malware-like evasion tactics.

Widespread Reach and Long-Term Use

The researchers have reported that the tracking appears to have been extensive. Meta Pixel is currently embedded on approximately 5.8 million websites, while Yandex Metrica is used on more than 3 million. Although the practice was only observed on Android devices, the scale of exposure is, therefore, significant. The researchers report that Yandex has been doing this since at least 2017, while Meta began similar behaviour in late 2024.

Apparent Lack of Disclosure

What makes the findings more concerning is the apparent lack of disclosure to app users, website operators, or browser vendors. For example, developer forums have shown widespread confusion among website owners who were unaware their use of tracking pixels enabled data extraction via app-localhost bridges. Some people reported unexplained localhost calls from Meta’s scripts, with little guidance on what the data was or how it was being used.

Google and Browser Makers Respond

Google, which maintains the Android operating system, has confirmed the tracking method was being used in “unintended ways that blatantly violate our security and privacy principles.” Chrome developers, along with DuckDuckGo and other browser vendors, have now issued patches to block some forms of localhost communication initiated by websites.

Also, Narseo Vallina-Rodríguez, associate professor at IMDEA, noted: “Until our disclosure, Android users were entirely defeated against this tracking method. Most platform operators likely didn’t even consider this in their threat models.”

Countermeasures Rolled Out

As a result of the academic team’s findings, several browser-based countermeasures, such as port-blocking and new sandboxing approaches, are now being rolled out, and Chrome’s patch is reportedly going live imminently.

Meta and Yandex Defend Their Position

In response to the findings, Meta has said it paused the feature and was working with Google to clarify the “application of their policies.”

Yandex, meanwhile, has reportedly denied that any sensitive data was collected, saying that “The feature in question does not collect any sensitive information and is solely intended to improve personalisation within our apps.” However, the researchers argue that the data gathered, including persistent identifiers, browsing activity, and time-stamped behaviour, carries substantial profiling risk.

Privacy Experts Raise the Alarm

Not surprisingly, the episode has drawn some strong criticism from privacy advocates, who argue the tactics used represent a significant overreach and a breach of user trust. For example, the European Digital Rights (EDRi) group issued a statement calling it a “blatant abuse of technical permissions,” while Mozilla Fellow Alice Munyua said the practice “shows exactly why we need more transparency, not less, in how apps interact with user data.”

IMDEA’s Aniketh Girish, one of the study’s co-authors, said the real issue lies in how easily these companies linked users’ web identities to their mobile profiles without any consent or notification.

Implications

For businesses relying on Meta and Yandex advertising tools, the revelations raise fresh questions about the ethical and legal responsibilities of digital marketing. Many companies use Meta Pixel or Yandex Metrica to improve targeting and ad performance, but may now find themselves indirectly involved in opaque data practices.

Businesses Using These Tools Could Be Held Responsible

It seems that businesses using third-party tools like Meta Pixel or Yandex Metrica (e.g. operators and advertisers) aren’t absolved of responsibility if those tools are later found to breach privacy rules. This is because legal and regulatory frameworks such as the UK GDPR place obligations on data controllers to understand and account for how user data is collected and processed, even when using external vendors.

Also, business users and app developers who trust major platforms for analytics and performance tracking may now need to be more cautious.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The apparent scale and persistence of this tracking activity reveals more than just a privacy lapse. It shows how trusted platforms may have quietly prioritised data collection over user transparency, thereby exploiting overlooked technical loopholes. The fact that browser-level defences are only now being introduced suggests the issue went unnoticed even by major platform operators.

For UK businesses, the implications are serious. For example, many rely on tools like Meta Pixel or Yandex Metrica for advertising and analytics, but under GDPR, they remain responsible for understanding how data is collected, regardless of who built the tools. This means that if personal data was captured without consent via websites or apps operated in the UK, businesses could be held accountable.

The lack of disclosure to developers and site owners also raises questions about consent and control. If tracking was occurring via localhost connections without their knowledge, they had no way to inform users or adjust settings accordingly. As regulators increase their focus on accountability, ignorance of how embedded tools function is unlikely to offer much protection.

More broadly, this case highlights the need for reform across both mobile platforms and browsers. Researchers say that Android’s local port access requires stronger safeguards, and permission models need updating to prevent similar abuse. Whether that happens will depend on pressure from developers, watchdogs, and public institutions.

At its core, the episode shows how fragile digital trust can be when data is moved behind the scenes without consent. For users and UK businesses alike, the expectation now is not just performance, but clear accountability for how every click and interaction is tracked, stored, and shared.