oh god turn me into a flower

1. Do not do age verification.

TL;DR: On June 4, 2026, the Electronic Frontier Foundation published “Move Fast, Surveil Things,” confirming through static code analysis that Meta has already deployed facial recognition code to millions of Ray-Ban smart glasses. The internal “Name Tag” feature converts every face in view into a 2,048-number faceprint array and matches it against a stored database. An EFF researcher activated the feature in debug mode and watched the glasses detect a known face in real time. Meta’s spokesperson says this is just “evidence of exploration.” Exploration doesn’t ship to millions of devices. This is staging for launch, and internal documents show Meta planned to flip the switch while privacy groups were too busy to fight back. ...You don’t need a central database when every user builds their own local faceprint collection. The faces still get scanned. The biometric data still gets created. Meta just outsources the storage to your phone, and the legal liability to you.

-via State of Surveillance, June 7, 2026. Emphasis mine.

But good news! There are things you can do to protect yourself and your community. As quoted from the article:

What You Can Do

Assume You’re Being Scanned

If someone near you is wearing Ray-Ban Meta glasses, treat it like a running camera, because it is. The small LED indicator that’s supposed to signal recording can be covered with tape, and Meta’s “always enabled” mode processes video without activating it [6]. The Nearby Glasses app can detect Meta Ray-Bans via Bluetooth.

Lock Down Your Meta Profiles

Name Tag matches faces against Meta platform data. If you have Facebook or Instagram accounts, set your profile photo to something that isn’t your face. Make your accounts private. Better yet, consider whether you need them at all. Every photo of your face on Meta’s platforms is training data for identifying you later.

Support the Legal Pushback

The EFF, ACLU, and EPIC are fighting this on legal, legislative, and technical fronts. Texas’s investigation proves state-level enforcement works: Meta paid $1.4 billion last time Texas came knocking over biometrics. Push for biometric privacy laws in your state. Illinois and Texas showed the way.

Don’t Buy the Glasses

Every pair sold expands the surveillance network. Meta has shipped millions already. Each one is a camera pointed at everyone else. If you own a pair, understand that the facial recognition code is on your device right now, and Meta can activate it with a software update whenever they decide the political moment is right.

-via State of Surveillance, June 7, 2026. Emphasis mine. And remember that for an undocumented person in the US right now, facial recognition spyware identifying them could be the difference between life and death.

Also check out the link on that page about use of facial recognition software in retail stores, it’s already happening this year.

https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/retail-facial-recognition-grocery-stores-wegmans-walmart-kroger-2026/

1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.

2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.

3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."

4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.

For all the reasons above AND ALSO because this particular lawsuit is a defamation case

Privacy lawsuits are hard because most privacy laws are super super weak, and there's very rarely a lot of money or enforcement backing privacy laws for...twenty million reasons, really...

But defamation suits? Those have teeth.

(In large part because, at least in some countries and including in the US, defamation laws protect public figures the least - and "public figures" legally includes most if not all politicians, and a hell of a lot of other rich ppl too)

A German court has ruled that Google can be held directly liable for false claims made by its AI Overviews, a decision that could put a serious legal dent in the whole “the AI made me do it” defense. According to The Next Web, the Regional Court of Munich issued a temporary injunction after Google’s AI Overviews wrongly tied two Munich publishers to scams, subscription traps, and dubious business practices. The court treated those AI-generated summaries as Google’s own statements, not just ordinary search results pointing to third-party pages. That distinction matters. Search engines have traditionally had more protection because they index and link to other people’s content. AI Overviews changes the machinery. Google is not just showing the web anymore. It is summarizing it, rewriting it, and sometimes apparently hallucinating a tiny legal grenade into the results page.