At I/O 2025, Google revealed new details about Android XR glasses, which will integrate with your phone to deliver context-aware support via Gemini AI. 9to5Google reports: Following the December announcement, Google today shared how all Android XR glasses will have a camera, microphones, and speakers, while an "in-lens display" that "privately provides helpful information right when you need it" is described as being "optional." The glasses will "work in tandem with your phone, giving you access to your apps without ever having to reach in your pocket." Gemini can "see and hear what you do" to "understand your context, remember what's important to you and provide information right when you need it." We see it accessing Google Calendar, Maps, Messages, Photos, Tasks, and Translate.

Google is "working with brands and partners to bring this technology to life," specifically Warby Parker and Gentle Monster. "Stylish glasses" are the goal for Android XR since they "can only truly be helpful if you want to wear them all day." Meanwhile, Google is officially "advancing" the Samsung partnership from headsets to Android XR glasses. They are making a software and reference hardware platform "that will enable the ecosystem to make great glasses." Notably, "developers will be able to start building for this platform later this year." On the privacy front, Google is now "gathering feedback on our prototypes with trusted testers." Further reading: Google's Brin: 'I Made a Lot of Mistakes With Google Glass'

Google co-founder Sergey Brin candidly addressed the failure of Google Glass during an unscheduled appearance at Tuesday's Google I/O conference, where the company announced a new smart glasses partnership with Warby Parker. "I definitely feel like I made a lot of mistakes with Google Glass, I'll be honest," Brin said.

He noted several key issues that doomed the $1,500 device launched in 2013, including a conspicuous front-facing camera that sparked privacy concerns. "Now it looks like normal glasses without that thing in front," Brin said of the new design. He also blamed the "technology gap" that existed a decade ago and his own inexperience with supply chains that prevented pricing the original Glass competitively.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Decrypt: The founder of online news publication TechCrunch has claimed that Coinbase's recent data breach "will lead to people dying," amid a wave of kidnap attempts targeting high-net-worth crypto holders. TechCrunch founder and venture capitalist Michael Arrington added that this should be a point of reflection for regulators to re-think the importance of know-your-customer (KYC), a process that requires users to confirm their identity to a platform. He also called for prison time for executives that fail to "adequately protect" customer information.

"This hack -- which includes home addresses and account balances -- will lead to people dying. It probably has already," he tweeted. "The human cost, denominated in misery, is much larger than the $400 million or so they think it will actually cost the company to reimburse people." [...] He believes that people are in immediate physical danger following the breach, which exposed data including names, addresses, phone numbers, emails, government-ID images, and more.

Arrington believes that in the wake of these attacks, crypto companies that handle user data need to be much more careful than they currently are. "Combining these KYC laws with corporate profit maximization and lax laws on penalties for hacks like these means these issues will continue to happen," he tweeted. "Both governments and corporations need to step up to stop this. As I said, the cost can only be measured in human suffering." Former Coinbase chief technology officer Balaji Srinivasan pushed back on Arrington's position that executives should be punished, arguing that regulators are forcing KYC onto unwilling companies. "When enough people die, the laws may change," Arrington hit back.

French authorities have denied Telegram founder Pavel Durov's request to travel to the U.S. for "negotiations with investment funds." From a report: The Paris prosecutor's office told POLITICO that it rendered its decision on May 12 "on the grounds that such a trip abroad did not appear imperative or justified."

Durov was arrested in August 2024 at a French airport and has been under strict legal control since last September, when he was indicted on six charges related to illicit activity on the messaging app he operates. He is forbidden to leave France without authorization -- which he obtained to travel to Dubai from March 15 to April 7, the prosecutor's office said. Russian-born Durov is a citizen, among other countries, of France and the United Arab Emirates.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals is acquiring most of 23andMe's assets for $256 million. The sale includes 23andMe's Personal Genome Service, Total Health and Research Services business lines. What's not included is 23andMe's telehealth unit, Lemonaid Health, which the company acquired for around $400 million in 2021. It'll be shut down, but all staffers will remain employed. CNBC reports: The deal is still subject to approval by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Pending approval, it's expected to close in the third quarter of this year, according to the release. In its bankruptcy proceedings, 23andMe required all bidders to comply with its privacy policies, and a court-appointed, independent "Consumer Privacy Ombudsman" will assess the deal, the companies said.

Several lawmakers and officials, including the Federal Trade Commission, had expressed concerns about the safety of consumers' genetic data through 23andMe's sale process. The privacy ombudsman will present a report on the acquisition to the court by June 10. "We are pleased to have reached a transaction that maximizes the value of the business and enables the mission of 23andMe to live on, while maintaining critical protections around customer privacy, choice and consent with respect to their genetic data," Mark Jensen, 23andMe's board chair, said in a statement. "At its peak, 23andMe was valued at around $6 billion," notes the report.

Miami-Dade County Public Schools, the nation's third-largest school district, is now deploying Google's Gemini chatbots to more than 105,000 high school students -- marking the largest U.S. school district AI deployment to date. This represents a dramatic reversal from just two years ago when the district blocked such tools over cheating and misinformation concerns.

The initiative follows President Trump's recent executive order promoting AI integration "in all subject areas" from kindergarten through 12th grade. District officials spent months testing various chatbots for accuracy, privacy, and safety before selecting Google's platform.

New submitter optical_phiber writes: In March 2025, the New South Wales (NSW) Department of Education discovered that Microsoft Teams had begun collecting students' voice and facial biometric data without their prior knowledge. This occurred after Microsoft enabled a Teams feature called 'voice and face enrollment' by default, which creates biometric profiles to enhance meeting experiences and transcriptions via its CoPilot AI tool.

The NSW department learned of the data collection a month after it began and promptly disabled the feature and deleted the data within 24 hours. However, the department did not disclose how many individuals were affected or whether they were notified. Despite Microsoft's policy of retaining data only while the user is enrolled and deleting it within 90 days of account deletion, privacy experts have raised serious concerns. Rys Farthing of Reset Tech Australia criticized the unnecessary collection of children's data, warning of the long-term risks and calling for stronger protections.

MIT has formally requested the withdrawal of a preprint paper on AI and scientific discovery due to serious concerns about the integrity and validity of its data and findings. It didn't provide specific details on what it believes is wrong with the paper. From a post: "Earlier this year, the COD conducted a confidential internal review based upon allegations it received regarding certain aspects of this paper. While student privacy laws and MIT policy prohibit the disclosure of the outcome of this review, we are writing to inform you that MIT has no confidence in the provenance, reliability or validity of the data and has no confidence in the veracity of the research contained in the paper. Based upon this finding, we also believe that the inclusion of this paper in arXiv may violate arXiv's Code of Conduct.

"Our understanding is that only authors of papers appearing on arXiv can submit withdrawal requests. We have directed the author to submit such a request, but to date, the author has not done so. Therefore, in an effort to clarify the research record, MIT respectfully request that the paper be marked as withdrawn from arXiv as soon as possible." Preprints, by definition, have not yet undergone peer review. MIT took this step in light of the publication's prominence in the research conversation and because it was a formal step it could take to mitigate the effects of misconduct. The author is no longer at MIT. [...]

"We are making this information public because we are concerned that, even in its non-published form, the paper is having an impact on discussions and projections about the effects of AI on science. Ensuring an accurate research record is important to MIT. We therefore would like to set the record straight and share our view that at this point the findings reported in this paper should not be relied on in academic or public discussions of these topics." The paper in question, titled "Artificial Intelligence, Scientific Discovery, and Product Innovation" and authored by Aidan Toner-Rodgers, investigated the effects of introducing an AI-driven materials discovery tool to 1,018 scientists in a U.S. R&D lab. The study reported that AI-assisted researchers discovered 44% more materials, filed 39% more patents, and achieved a 17% increase in product innovation. These gains were primarily attributed to AI automating 57% of idea-generation tasks, allowing top-performing scientists to focus on evaluating AI-generated suggestions effectively. However, the benefits were unevenly distributed; lower-performing scientists saw minimal improvements, and 82% of participants reported decreased job satisfaction due to reduced creativity and skill utilization.

The Wall Street Journal reported on MIT's statement.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Meta thinks there's no reason to carry on with its defense after the Federal Trade Commission closed its monopoly case, and the company has moved to end the trial early by claiming that the FTC utterly failed to prove its case. "The FTC has no proof that Meta has monopoly power," Meta's motion for judgment (PDF) filed Thursday said, "and therefore the court should rule in favor of Meta." According to Meta, the FTC failed to show evidence that "the overall quality of Meta's apps has declined" or that the company shows too many ads to users. Meta says that's "fatal" to the FTC's case that the company wielded monopoly power to pursue more ad revenue while degrading user experience over time (an Internet trend known as "enshittification"). And on top of allegedly showing no evidence of "ad load, privacy, integrity, and features" degradation on Meta apps, Meta argued there's no precedent for an antitrust claim rooted in this alleged harm.

"Meta knows of no case finding monopoly power based solely on a claimed degradation in product quality, and the FTC has cited none," Meta argued. Meta has maintained throughout the trial that its users actually like seeing ads. In the company's recent motion, Meta argued that the FTC provided no insights into what "the right number of ads" should be, "let alone" provide proof that "Meta showed more ads" than it would in a competitive market where users could easily switch services if ad load became overwhelming. Further, Meta argued that the FTC did not show evidence that users sharing friends-and-family content were shown more ads. Meta noted that it "does not profit by showing more ads to users who do not click on them," so it only shows more ads to users who click ads.

Meta also insisted that there's "nothing but speculation" showing that Instagram or WhatsApp would have been better off or grown into rivals had Meta not acquired them. The company claimed that without Meta's resources, Instagram may have died off. Meta noted that Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom testified that his app was "pretty broken and duct-taped" together, making it "vulnerable to spam" before Meta bought it. Rather than enshittification, what Meta did to Instagram could be considered "a consumer-welfare bonanza," Meta argued, while dismissing "smoking gun" emails from Mark Zuckerberg discussing buying Instagram to bury it as "legally irrelevant." Dismissing these as "a few dated emails," Meta argued that "efforts to litigate Mr. Zuckerberg's state of mind before the acquisition in 2012 are pointless."

"What matters is what Meta did," Meta argued, which was pump Instagram with resources that allowed it "to 'thrive' -- adding many new features, attracting hundreds of millions and then billions of users, and monetizing with great success." In the case of WhatsApp, Meta argued that nobody thinks WhatsApp had any intention to pivot to social media when the founders testified that their goal was to never add social features, preferring to offer a simple, clean messaging app. And Meta disputed any claim that it feared Google might buy WhatsApp as the basis for creating a Facebook rival, arguing that "the sole Meta witness to (supposedly) learn of Google's acquisition efforts testified that he did not have that worry." In sum: A ruling in Meta's favor could prevent a breakup of its apps, while a denial would push the trial toward a possible order to divest Instagram and WhatsApp.

Montana has enacted SB 282, becoming the first state to prohibit law enforcement from purchasing personal data they would otherwise need a warrant to obtain. The landmark legislation closes what privacy advocates call the "data broker loophole," which previously allowed police to buy geolocation data, electronic communications, and other sensitive information from third-party vendors without judicial oversight.

The new law specifically restricts government access to precise geolocation data, communications content, electronic funds transfers, and "sensitive data" including health status, religious affiliation, and biometric information. Police can still access this information through traditional means: warrants, investigative subpoenas, or device owner consent.

Apple has implemented conspicuous warning labels featuring red exclamation marks on EU App Store listings that use external payment systems. The company's new tactic targets apps like Instacar, a popular Hungarian vehicle valuation tool with thousands of positive reviews, displaying ominous warnings that the app "does not support the App Store's private and secure payment system."

The associated support page cautions users that external payments require providing personal information directly to developers and third parties "based on their privacy and security controls." The move also follows the Epic vs Apple ruling that prohibits Apple from interfering with developers linking to alternative payment systems.

According to Rest of the World, a major confrontation between Meta and the local authorities in Nigeria is currently taking place: "Local authorities have fined Meta $290 million for regulatory breaches, prompting the social media giant to threaten pulling Facebook and Instagram from the country." Techdirt reports: As with earlier EU fines imposed on the company, the sticking point is Meta's refusal to comply with local privacy laws [...]. The fine itself is small change for Meta, which had a net income of $62 billion on a turnover of $165 billion in 2024, and a market capitalization of $1.5 trillion. Meta's current revenues in Nigeria are relatively small, but its market shares are high: "According to social media performance tracker Napoleoncat, Meta has a massive presence in the country, with Facebook alone reaching about 51.2 million users as of May 2024, more than a fifth of the population. Instagram had 12.6 million Nigerian users as of November 2023, while WhatsApp had about 51 million users, making Nigeria the 10th largest market globally for the messaging app."

Since many Nigerians depend on Meta's platforms, the company might be hoping that there will be public pressure on the government not to impose the fine in order to avoid a shutdown of its services there. But it is hard to see Meta carrying out its threat to walk away from a country expected to be the third most populous nation in the world by 2050. In 2100, the population of Nigeria could reach 541 million according to current projections.

UPDATE: In an update to their blog post, "Nextcloud wrote that as of May 15, Google has offered to restore full file access permissions," reports Ars Technica.

Slashdot originally wrote that Nextcloud had accused Google of sabotaging its Android Files app by revoking the "All files access" permission, which the company said crippled functionality for its 824,000 users and forces reliance on limited alternatives like SAF and MediaStore. The Register reported: Nextcloud's Android Files app is a file synchronization tool that, according to the company, has long had permission to read and write all file types. "Nextcloud has had this feature since its inception in 2016," it said, "and we never heard about any security concerns from Google about it." That changed in 2024, when someone or something at Google's Play Store decided to revoke the permission, effectively crippling the application. Nextcloud was instructed to use "a more privacy-aware replacement." According to Nextcloud, "SAF cannot be used, as it is for sharing/exposing our files to other apps ... MediaStore API cannot be used as it does not allow access to other files, but only media files."

Attempts to raise the issue with Google resulted in little more than copy-and-pasted sections of the developer guide. "Despite multiple appeals from our side and sharing additional background, Google is not considering reinstating upload for all files," Nextcloud said. The issue seems to stem from the Play Store. While a fully functional version is available on F-Droid, the Play Store edition is subject to Google's imposed limitations. Regarding the All files access permission, Google's developer documentation states: "If you target Android 11 and declare All files access, it can affect your ability to publish and update your app on Google Play."

Nextcloud is clearly aggrieved by the change, as are its users. "This might look like a small technical detail but it is clearly part of a pattern of actions to fight the competition," it said. "What we are experiencing is a piece of the script from the big tech playbook." [...] Are there nefarious actors at play here, an automated process that auto-rejects apps with elevated access requirements, or is it just simple incompetence? "Either way," Nextcloud said, "it results in companies like ours just giving up, reducing functionality just to avoid getting kicked out of their app store."

"The issue is that small companies -- like ours -- have pretty much no recourse," it added. Nextcloud went on to criticize oversight processes as slow-moving, with fines that sound hefty but amount to little more than a slap on the wrist. "Big Tech is scared that small players like Nextcloud will disrupt them, like they once disrupted other companies. So they try to shut the door."

Back in 2000, Slashdot founder CmdrTaco marked the 4th anniversary of Jennifer Ringley's pioneering "JenniCam" livestream (saying "It sure beats the Netscape FishCam. It's nuts how Jenni's little cam became such a fixture on The Internet...")

But a new article in the Washington Post remembers how "Once, Ringley looked directly into the camera and held a note in front of her eye. It read: 'I FEEL SO LONELY.'" By 2003, Ringley had shut down the site and disappeared. She began declining interview requests, saying she was enjoying her privacy; her absence on social media continues to this day.
"But by then, the human zoo was everywhere," they write including "social media, where everyone could become a character in their own show." In 2007 Justin Kan launched Justin.TV, which eventually became Twitch, "a thrumming online city for anyone wanting to, as its slogan said, 'waste time watching other people waste time.'"

But the article also notes 2023 stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics survey that found Americans"were spending far less time socializing than they had 20 years ago — especially 18-to-29-year-olds, who were spending two more hours a day alone." So how did this play out for the next generation of livestreaming influencers? Here's the origin story of "a lonely young woman in Texas" who's "streamed every second of her life for three years and counting." One afternoon, her boyfriend told her to try Twitch, saying, as she recalled: "Your life sucks, you work at CVS, you have no friends. ... This could be helpful." In her first stream, on a Friday night, she played 3½ hours of "World of Warcraft" for her zero followers.
Eight years later... Six hundred and forty-two people are watching when Emily tugs off her sleep mask to begin day No. 1,137 of broadcasting every hour of her life... On the live-streaming service Twitch, one of the world's most popular platforms, Emily is a legendary figure. For three years, she has ceaselessly broadcast her life — every birthday and holiday, every sickness and sleepless night, almost all of it alone. Her commitment has made her a model for success in the new internet economy, where authenticity and endurance are highly prized. It's also made her a good amount of money: $5.99 a month from thousands of subscribers each, plus donations and tips — minus Twitch's 30-to-40 percent cut.

But to get there, Emily, who agreed to be interviewed on the condition that her last name be withheld due to concerns of harassment, has devoted herself to a solitary life of almost constant stimulation. For three years, she has taken no sick days, gone on no vacations, declined every wedding invitation, had no sex. She has broadcast and self-narrated a thousand days of sleeping, driving and crying, lugging her camera backpack through the grocery store, talking through a screen to strangers she'll never meet. Her goal is to buy a house and get married by the age of 30, but she's 28 and says she's too busy to have a boyfriend. Her last date was seven years ago... But no one tells streamers when to record or when to stop. There are no labor codes, performance limits or regulations to keep the platforms from setting incentives impossibly high. Many streamers figure out the optimal strategy themselves: The more you share, the more successful you can be....

Though some Twitch stars are millionaires, most scramble to get by, buffeted by the vagaries of audience attention. Emily's paid-subscription count, which peaked last year at 22,000, has since slumped to around 6,000, dropping her base income to about $5,000 a month, according to estimates from the analytics firm Streams Charts... Sometimes Emily dreads waking up and clocking into the reality show that is her life. She knows staring at screens all night is unhealthy, and when she feels too depressed to stream, she'll stay in bed for hours while her viewers watch. But she worries that taking a break would be "career suicide," as she called it. Some viewers already complain that she showers too long, sleeps in too late, doesn't have enough fun...

She said she "used to show true sadness on stream" but doesn't anymore because it makes viewers uncomfortable. When she hits a breaking point now, she said, she closes herself in the bathroom.

An anonymous reader shared this repost from the Washington Post: It's becoming standard practice at a growing number of U.S. airports: When you reach the front of the security line, an agent asks you to step up to a machine that scans your face to check whether it matches the face on your identification card. Travelers have the right to opt out of the face scan and have the agent do a visual check instead — but many don't realize that's an option.

Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) and John Neely Kennedy (R-Louisiana) think it should be the other way around. They plan to introduce a bipartisan bill that would make human ID checks the default, among other restrictions on how the Transportation Security Administration can use facial recognition technology. The Traveler Privacy Protection Act, shared with the Tech Brief on Wednesday ahead of its introduction, is a narrower version of a 2023 bill by the same name that would have banned the TSA's use of facial recognition altogether. This one would allow the agency to continue scanning travelers' faces, but only if they opt in, and would bar the technology's use for any purpose other than verifying people's identities. It would also require the agency to immediately delete the scans of general boarding passengers once the check is complete.

"Facial recognition is incredibly powerful, and it is being used as an instrument of oppression around the world to track dissidents whose opinion governments don't like," Merkley said in a phone interview Wednesday, citing China's use of the technology on the country's Uyghur minority. "It really creates a surveillance state," he went on. "That is a massive threat to freedom and privacy here in America, and I don't think we should trust any government with that power...."

[The TSA] began testing face scans as an option for people enrolled in "trusted traveler" programs, such as TSA PreCheck, in 2021. By 2022, the program quietly began rolling out to general boarding passengers. It is now active in at least 84 airports, according to the TSA's website, with plans to bring it to more than 400 airports in the coming years. The agency says the technology has proved more efficient and accurate than human identity checks. It assures the public that travelers' face scans are not stored or saved once a match has been made, except in limited tests to evaluate the technology's effectiveness.
The bill would also bar the TSA from providing worse treatment to passengers who refuse not to participate, according to FedScoop, and would also forbid the agency from using face-scanning technology to target people or conduct mass surveillance: "Folks don't want a national surveillance state, but that's exactly what the TSA's unchecked expansion of facial recognition technology is leading us to," Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., a co-sponsor of the bill and a longtime critic of the government's facial recognition program, said in a statement...

Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security inspector general initiated an audit of TSA's facial recognition program. Merkley had previously led a letter from a bipartisan group of senators calling for the watchdog to open an investigation into TSA's facial recognition plans, noting that the technology is not foolproof and effective alternatives were already in use.

Google will pay $1.4 billion to the state of Texas, reports the Associated Press, "to settle claims the company collected users' data without permission, the state's attorney general announced Friday." Attorney General Ken Paxton described the settlement as sending a message to tech companies that he will not allow them to make money off of "selling away our rights and freedoms."

"In Texas, Big Tech is not above the law." Paxton said in a statement. "For years, Google secretly tracked people's movements, private searches, and even their voiceprints and facial geometry through their products and services. I fought back and won...."

The state argued Google was "unlawfully tracking and collecting users' private data." Paxton claimed, for example, that Google collected millions of biometric identifiers, including voiceprints and records of face geometry, through such products and services as Google Photos and Google Assistant. Google spokesperson José Castañeda said the agreement settles an array of "old claims," some of which relate to product policies the company has already changed. "We are pleased to put them behind us, and we will continue to build robust privacy controls into our services," he said in a statement. The company also clarified that the settlement does not require any new product changes.
Google's settlement with Texas "far surpasses any other state's claims for similar violations," according to a statement from their attorney general's office. "To date, no state has attained a settlement against Google for similar data-privacy violations greater than $93 million. Even a multistate coalition that included forty states secured just $391 million — almost a billion dollars less than Texas's recovery."

The statement calls the $1.375 billion settlement "a major win for Texans' privacy" that "tells companies that they will pay for abusing our trust."

According to The Information (paywalled), Meta is reportedly developing facial recognition capabilities for its Ray-Ban smart glasses -- technology it previously avoided due to privacy concerns. 404 Media's Joseph Cox writes: The move is an obvious about-face from Meta. It's also interesting to me because Meta's PR chewed my ass off when I dared to report in October that a pair of students took Meta's Ray-Ban glasses and combined them with off-the-shelf facial recognition technology. That tool, which the students called I-XRAY, captured a person's face, ran it through an easy to access facial recognition service called Pimeyes, then went a step further and pulled up information about the subject from across the web, including their home address and phone number.

When I contacted Meta for comment for that story, Dave Arnold, a spokesperson for the company, said in an email he had one question for me. "That Pimeyes facial recognition technology could be used with ANY camera, correct? In other words, this isn't something that only is possible because of Meta Ray-Bans? If so, I think that's an important point to note in the piece," he wrote. This is true. But entirely misses the point of why the students created the tool with Meta's Ray-Ban glasses. They said themselves in a demonstration video they identified dozens of people without their knowledge. You do that by wearing a pair of glasses that look like any other. Meta's Ray-Ban's do have a light that turns on when it's recording, but according to the new report, Meta is questioning whether new versions of its glasses need this.

Facing deep staffing cuts, the IRS plans to lean heavily on AI to maintain tax collection efforts, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stating that smarter IT and the "AI boom" will offset reductions in revenue enforcement staff. The Register reports: When asked by Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-MD) whether proposed reductions in the IRS's IT budget, along with plans to cut additional staff, would affect the agencies ability to collect tax revenue, Bessent said it wouldn't, thanks to the current "AI boom." "I believe through smarter IT, through this AI boom, that we can use that to enhance collections," Bessent told Hoyer and the Committee (24:29 into the video linked [here]). "I expect collections would continue to be very robust as they were this year."

Bessent's comments didn't explain how the IRS intends to deploy AI. Given how much it has slashed its enforcement staff since Trump took office, the agency definitely needs to do something. [...] Bessent's comments didn't explain how the IRS intends to deploy AI. Given how much it has slashed its enforcement staff since Trump took office, the agency definitely needs to do something. "There is nothing that shows historically that bringing in unseasoned collections agents will result in more collections," Bessent told the Committee. "IRS already uses AI for business functions including operational efficiency, compliance and fraud detection, and taxpayer services," the agency told The Register. "AI use cases must follow all relevant IRS privacy and security policies."

Wikipedia is taking legal action against the UK's new Online Safety Act regulations it says could threaten the safety of its volunteer editors and their ability to keep harmful content off the site. From a report: The Wikimedia Foundation -- the non-profit which supports the online encyclopaedia -- is seeking a judicial review of rules which could mean Wikipedia is subjected to the toughest duties required of websites under the act.

Lead counsel Phil Bradley-Schmieg said it was "unfortunate that we must now defend the privacy and safety of Wikipedia's volunteer editors from flawed legislation." The government told the BBC it was committed to implementing the act but could not comment on ongoing legal proceedings. It's thought this is the first judicial review to be brought against the new online safety laws - albeit a narrow part of them - but experts say it may not be the last.

"The Online Safety Act is vast in scope and incredibly complex," Ben Packer, a partner at law firm Linklaters, told the BBC. The law would inevitably have impacts on UK citizens' freedom of expression and other human rights, so as more of it comes into force "we can expect that more challenges may be forthcoming," he told the BBC.

Switzerland will hold a national referendum on the introduction of electronic identity cards after opponents of the legislation secured enough signatures to force a public vote. The Federal Chancellery confirmed Wednesday that 55,344 valid signatures were submitted against the Federal Act on Electronic Identity passed last December.

The proposed e-ID would enable citizens to apply online for criminal record extracts, driving licenses, and age verification when purchasing alcohol. This marks the second referendum on e-ID implementation, after voters rejected a previous version in 2021. The government has revised its approach, making the new system free, optional, and fully state-operated rather than privately managed. If approved, the e-ID would come into force no earlier than 2026, though the collection effort suggests privacy concerns remain paramount for many Swiss voters.