2025-11-06 01:52:27
A US Army website for its bases in Bavaria, Germany published a list of food banks in the area that could help soldiers and staff as part of its “Shutdown Guidance,” the subtext being that soldiers and base employees might need to obtain free food from German government services during the government shutdown.
2025-11-05 23:34:38
Over the last few months 404 Media has covered some concerning but predictable uses for the Ray-Ban Meta glasses, which are equipped with a built-in camera, and for some models, AI. Aftermarket hobbyists have modified the glasses to add a facial recognition feature that could quietly dox whatever face a user is looking at, and they have been worn by CBP agents during the immigration raids that have come to define a new low for human rights in the United States. Most recently, exploitative Instagram users filmed themselves asking workers at massage parlors for sex and shared those videos online, a practice that experts told us put those workers’ lives at risk.
404 Media reached out to Meta for comment for each of these stories, and in each case Meta’s rebuttal was a mind-bending argument: What is the difference between Meta’s Ray-Ban glasses and an iPhone, really, when you think about it?
“Curious, would this have been a story had they used the new iPhone?” a Meta spokesperson asked me in an email when I reached out for comment about the massage parlor story.
Meta’s argument is that our recent stories about its glasses are not newsworthy because we wouldn’t bother writing them if the videos in question were filmed with an iPhone as opposed to a pair of smart glasses. Let’s ignore the fact that I would definitely still write my story about the massage parlor videos if they were filmed with an iPhone and “steelman” Meta’s provocative argument that glasses and a phone are essentially not meaningfully different objects.
Meta’s Ray-Ban glasses and an iPhone are both equipped with a small camera that can record someone secretly. If anything, the iPhone can record more discreetly because unlike Meta’s Ray-Ban glasses it’s not equipped with an LED that lights up to indicate that it’s recording. This, Meta would argue, means that the glasses are by design more respectful of people’s privacy than an iPhone.
Both are small electronic devices. Both can include various implementations of AI tools. Both are often black, and are made by one of the FAANG companies. Both items can be bought at a Best Buy. You get the point: There are too many similarities between the iPhone and Meta’s glasses to name them all here, just as one could strain to name infinite similarities between a table and an elephant if we chose to ignore the context that actually matters to a human being.
Whenever we published one of these stories the response from commenters and on social media has been primarily anger and disgust with Meta’s glasses enabling the behavior we reported on and a rejection of the device as a concept entirely. This is not surprising to anyone who has covered technology long enough to remember the launch and quick collapse of Google Glass, so-called “glassholes,” and the device being banned from bars.
There are two things Meta’s glasses have in common with Google Glass which also make it meaningfully different from an iPhone. The first is that the iPhone might not have a recording light, but in order to record something or take a picture, a user has to take it out of their pocket and hold it out, an awkward gesture all of us have come to recognize in the almost two decades since the launch of the first iPhone. It is an unmistakable signal that someone is recording. That is not the case with Meta’s glasses, which are meant to be worn as a normal pair of glasses, and are always pointing at something or someone if you see someone wearing them in public.
In fact, the entire motivation for building these glasses is that they are discreet and seamlessly integrate into your life. The point of putting a camera in the glasses is that it eliminates the need to take an iPhone out of your pocket. People working in the augmented reality and virtual reality space have talked about this for decades. In Meta’s own promotional video for the Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses, titled “10 years in the making,” the company shows Mark Zuckerberg on stage in 2016 saying that “over the next 10 years, the form factor is just going to keep getting smaller and smaller until, and eventually we’re going to have what looks like normal looking glasses.” And in 2020, “you see something awesome and you want to be able to share it without taking out your phone.” Meta's Ray-Ban glasses have not achieved their final form, but one thing that makes them different from Google Glass is that they are designed to look exactly like an iconic pair of glasses that people immediately recognize. People will probably notice the camera in the glasses, but they have been specifically designed to look like "normal” glasses.
Again, Meta would argue that the LED light solves this problem, but that leads me to the next important difference: Unlike the iPhone and other smartphones, one of the most widely adopted electronics in human history, only a tiny portion of the population has any idea what the fuck these glasses are. I have watched dozens of videos in which someone wearing Meta glasses is recording themselves harassing random people to boost engagement on Instagram or TikTok. Rarely do the people in the videos say anything about being recorded, and it’s very clear the women working at these massage parlors have no idea they’re being recorded. The Meta glasses have an LED light, sure, but these glasses are new, rare, and it’s not safe to assume everyone knows what that light means.
As Joseph and Jason recently reported, there are also cheap ways to modify Meta glasses to prevent the recording light from turning on. Search results, Reddit discussions, and a number of products for sale on Amazon all show that many Meta glasses customers are searching for a way to circumvent the recording light, meaning that many people are buying them to do exactly what Meta claims is not a real issue.
It is possible that in the future Meta glasses and similar devices will become so common that most people will understand that if they see them, they would assume they are being recorded, though that is not a future I hope for. Until then, if it is all helpful to the public relations team at Meta, these are what the glasses look like:
And this is what an iPhone looks like:
Feel free to refer to this handy guide when needed.
2025-11-05 22:00:13
We have something of a Meta Ray-Bans smart glasses bumper episode this week. We start with Joseph and Jason’s piece on a $60 mod that disables the privacy-protecting recording light in the smart glasses. After the break, Emanuel tells us how some people are abusing the glasses to film massage workers, and he explains the difference between a phone and a pair of smartglasses, if you need that spelled out for you. In the subscribers-only section, Jason tells us about the future of advertising: AI-generated ads personalized directly to you.
Listen to the weekly podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube. Become a paid subscriber for access to this episode's bonus content and to power our journalism. If you become a paid subscriber, check your inbox for an email from our podcast host Transistor for a link to the subscribers-only version! You can also add that subscribers feed to your podcast app of choice and never miss an episode that way. The email should also contain the subscribers-only unlisted YouTube link for the extended video version too. It will also be in the show notes in your podcast player.
2025-11-05 01:43:04
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has publicly released an app that Sheriff Offices, police departments, and other local or regional law enforcement can use to scan someone’s face as part of immigration enforcement, 404 Media has learned.
The news follows Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) use of another internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) app called Mobile Fortify that uses facial recognition to nearly instantly bring up someone’s name, date of birth, alien number, and whether they’ve been given an order of deportation. The new local law enforcement-focused app, called Mobile Identify, crystallizes one of the exact criticisms of DHS’s facial recognition app from privacy and surveillance experts: that this sort of powerful technology would trickle down to local enforcement, some of which have a history of making anti-immigrant comments or supporting inhumane treatment of detainees.
Handing “this powerful tech to police is like asking a 16-year old who just failed their drivers exams to pick a dozen classmates to hand car keys to,” Jake Laperruque, deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology's Security and Surveillance Project, told 404 Media. “These careless and cavalier uses of facial recognition are going to lead to U.S. citizens and lawful residents being grabbed off the street and placed in ICE detention.”
2025-11-04 22:02:17
Most people probably have no idea that when you book a flight through major travel websites, a data broker owned by U.S. airlines then sells details about your flight, including your name, credit card used, and where you’re flying to the government. The data broker has compiled billions of ticketing records the government can search without a warrant or court order. The data broker is called the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), and, as 404 Media has shown, it sells flight data to multiple parts of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and a host of other government agencies, while contractually demanding those agencies not reveal where the data came from.
It turns out, it is possible to opt-out of this data selling, including to government agencies. At least, that’s what I found when I ran through the steps to tell ARC to stop selling my personal data. Here’s how I did that:
Honestly, I was quite surprised at how smooth and clear this process was. ARC only registered as a data broker with the state of California—a legal requirement—in June, despite selling data for years.
What I did was not a formal request under a specific piece of privacy legislation, such as the European Union’s General Data Privacy Regulation (GDPR) or the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Maybe a request to delete information under the CCPA would have more success; that law says California residents have the legal right to ask to have their personal data deleted “subject to certain exceptions (such as if the business is legally required to keep the information),” according to the California Department of Justice’s website.
ARC is owned and operated by at least eight major U.S. airlines, according to publicly released documents. Its board includes representatives from Delta, United, American Airlines, JetBlue, Alaska Airlines, Canada’s Air Canada, and European airlines Air France and Lufthansa.
Public procurement records show agencies such as ICE, CBP, ATF, TSA, the SEC, the Secret Service, the State Department, the U.S. Marshals, and the IRS have purchased ARC data. Agencies have given no indication they use a search warrant or other legal mechanism to search the data. In response to inquiries from 404 Media, ATF said it follows “DOJ policy and appropriate legal processes” and the Secret Service declined to answer.
An ARC spokesperson previously told 404 Media in an email that TIP “was established by ARC after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and has since been used by the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement community to support national security and prevent criminal activity with bipartisan support. Over the years, TIP has likely contributed to the prevention and apprehension of criminals involved in human trafficking, drug trafficking, money laundering, sex trafficking, national security threats, terrorism and other imminent threats of harm to the United States.” At the time, the spokesperson added “Pursuant to ARC’s privacy policy, consumers may ask ARC to refrain from selling their personal data.”
2025-11-04 05:04:05
Kodak quietly acknowledged Monday that it will begin selling two famous types of film stock—Kodak Gold 200 and Kodak Ultramax 400—directly to retailers and distributors in the U.S., another indication that the historic company is taking back control over how people buy its film.
The release comes on the heels of Kodak announcing that it would make and sell two new stocks of film called Kodacolor 100 and Kodacolor 200 in October. On Monday, both Kodak Gold and Kodak Ultramax showed back up on Kodak’s website as film stocks that it makes and sells. When asked by 404 Media, a company spokesperson said that it has “launched” these film stocks and will begin to “sell the films directly to distributors in the U.S. and Canada, giving Kodak greater control over our participation in the consumer film market.”
Unlike Kodacolor, both Kodak Gold and Kodak Ultramax have been widely available to consumers for years, but the way it was distributed made little sense and was an artifact of its 2012 bankruptcy. Coming out of that bankruptcy, Eastman Kodak (the 133-year-old company) would continue to make film, but the exclusive rights to distribute and sell it were owned by a completely separate, UK-based company called Kodak Alaris. For the last decade, Kodak Alaris has sold Kodak Gold and Ultramax (as well as Portra, and a few other film stocks made by Eastman Kodak). This setup has been confusing for consumers and perhaps served as an incentive for Eastman Kodak to not experiment as much with the types of films it makes, considering that it would have to license distribution out to another company.
That all seemed to have changed with the recent announcement of Kodacolor 100 and Kodacolor 200, Kodak’s first new still film stocks in many years. Monday’s acknowledgement that both Kodak Gold and Ultramax would be sold directly by Eastman Kodak, and which come with a rebranded and redesigned box, suggests that the company has figured out how to wrest some control of its distribution away from Kodak Alaris. Eastman Kodak told 404 Media in a statement that it has “launched” these films and that they are “Kodak-marketed versions of existing films.”
"Kodak will sell the films directly to distributors in the U.S. and Canada, giving Kodak greater control over our participation in the consumer film market,” a Kodak spokesperson said in an email. “This direct channel will provide distributors, retailers and consumers with a broader, more reliable supply and help create greater stability in a market where prices have often fluctuated.”
The company called it an “extension of Kodak’s film portfolio,” which it said “is made possible by our recent investments that increased our film manufacturing capacity and, along with the introduction of our KODAK Super 8 Camera and KODAK EKTACHROME 100D Color Reversal Film, reflects Kodak’s ongoing commitment to meeting growing demand and supporting the long-term health of the film industry.”
It is probably too soon to say how big of a deal this is, but it is at least exciting for people who are in the resurgent film photography hobby, who are desperate for any sign that companies are interested in launching new products, creating new types of film, or building more production capacity in an industry where film shortages and price increases have been the norm for a few years.