Month: November 2023
Bipartisan Senate bill would kill the TSA’s ‘Big Brother’ airport facial recognition
US Senators John Kennedy (R-LA) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced a bipartisan bill Wednesday to end involuntary facial recognition screening at airports. The Traveler Privacy Protection Act would block the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) from continuing or expanding its facial recognition tech program. It would also require the government agency to explicitly receive congressional permission to renew it, and it would have to dispose of all biometric data within three months.
Senator Merkley described the TSA’s biometric collection practices as the first steps toward an Orwellian nightmare. “The TSA program is a precursor to a full-blown national surveillance state,” Merkley wrote in a news release. “Nothing could be more damaging to our national values of privacy and freedom. No government should be trusted with this power.” Other Senators supporting the bill include Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
The TSA began testing facial recognition at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in 2018. The agency’s pitch to travelers framed it as an exciting new high-tech feature, promising a “biometrically-enabled curb-to-gate passenger experience.” The TSA said this summer it planned to expand the program to over 430 US airports within the next few years.
I was back at Washington National Airport this month, and @TSA was up to their old tricks—making it unclear that you ARE able to opt out of using facial recognition technology. I’ll keep holding them accountable. pic.twitter.com/absGn5v1Q3— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) September 25, 2023
The program at least technically allows travelers to opt-out, but that process isn’t always transparent in practice. Merkley posted the video above to X in September, demonstrating how agents guided travelers to the facial scanner without mentioning that it’s optional. No signs near the booths said it was optional or explicitly mentioned the gathering of facial data, either. The booths were arranged so that flyers would have difficulty entering their driver’s license or ID (required) without stepping in front of the facial scanner.
Advocacy groups supporting the bill include the ACLU, Electronic Privacy Information Center and Public Citizen. “The privacy risks and discriminatory impact of facial recognition are real, and the government’s use of our faces as IDs poses a serious threat to our democracy,” wrote Jeramie Scott, Senior Counsel and Director of EPIC’s Project on Surveillance Oversight, in Markley’s press release. “The TSA should not be allowed to unilaterally subject millions of travelers to this dangerous technology.”
“Every day, TSA scans thousands of Americans’ faces without their permission and without making it clear that travelers can opt out of the invasive screening,” Sen. Kennedy wrote in a separate news release. “The Traveler Privacy Protection Act would protect every American from Big Brother’s intrusion by ending the facial recognition program.”This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/bipartisan-senate-bill-would-kill-the-tsas-big-brother-airport-facial-recognition-191010937.html?src=rss
US Senators John Kennedy (R-LA) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced a bipartisan bill Wednesday to end involuntary facial recognition screening at airports. The Traveler Privacy Protection Act would block the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) from continuing or expanding its facial recognition tech program. It would also require the government agency to explicitly receive congressional permission to renew it, and it would have to dispose of all biometric data within three months.
Senator Merkley described the TSA’s biometric collection practices as the first steps toward an Orwellian nightmare. “The TSA program is a precursor to a full-blown national surveillance state,” Merkley wrote in a news release. “Nothing could be more damaging to our national values of privacy and freedom. No government should be trusted with this power.” Other Senators supporting the bill include Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
The TSA began testing facial recognition at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in 2018. The agency’s pitch to travelers framed it as an exciting new high-tech feature, promising a “biometrically-enabled curb-to-gate passenger experience.” The TSA said this summer it planned to expand the program to over 430 US airports within the next few years.
I was back at Washington National Airport this month, and @TSA was up to their old tricks—making it unclear that you ARE able to opt out of using facial recognition technology. I’ll keep holding them accountable. pic.twitter.com/absGn5v1Q3
— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) September 25, 2023
The program at least technically allows travelers to opt-out, but that process isn’t always transparent in practice. Merkley posted the video above to X in September, demonstrating how agents guided travelers to the facial scanner without mentioning that it’s optional. No signs near the booths said it was optional or explicitly mentioned the gathering of facial data, either. The booths were arranged so that flyers would have difficulty entering their driver’s license or ID (required) without stepping in front of the facial scanner.
Advocacy groups supporting the bill include the ACLU, Electronic Privacy Information Center and Public Citizen. “The privacy risks and discriminatory impact of facial recognition are real, and the government’s use of our faces as IDs poses a serious threat to our democracy,” wrote Jeramie Scott, Senior Counsel and Director of EPIC’s Project on Surveillance Oversight, in Markley’s press release. “The TSA should not be allowed to unilaterally subject millions of travelers to this dangerous technology.”
“Every day, TSA scans thousands of Americans’ faces without their permission and without making it clear that travelers can opt out of the invasive screening,” Sen. Kennedy wrote in a separate news release. “The Traveler Privacy Protection Act would protect every American from Big Brother’s intrusion by ending the facial recognition program.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/bipartisan-senate-bill-would-kill-the-tsas-big-brother-airport-facial-recognition-191010937.html?src=rss
HealthTech startup Clayful raises $7M to connect students to mental health experts within 60 seconds
The mental health crisis sweeping across America isn’t sparing anyone, impacting both adults and students alike. In recent years, we have also seen a worrying rise in mental health issues among young individuals, marking what many are calling a pediatric
The post HealthTech startup Clayful raises $7M to connect students to mental health experts within 60 seconds first appeared on TechStartups.
The mental health crisis sweeping across America isn’t sparing anyone, impacting both adults and students alike. In recent years, we have also seen a worrying rise in mental health issues among young individuals, marking what many are calling a pediatric […]
The post HealthTech startup Clayful raises $7M to connect students to mental health experts within 60 seconds first appeared on TechStartups.
JBL Authentics 300 review: Alexa and Google Assistant coexisting
Several companies have taken shots at Sonos over the years when it comes to multi-room audio and self-tuning speakers with built-in voice assistants. These devices are a lot more common in 2023 than they used to be, so there’s a whole host of options if you’re looking for alternatives to the Move or Era. JBL is the latest to give it a go with new additions to its Authentics line of speakers. While audio may be its primary use, these devices are the first to run two voice assistants simultaneously without having to switch from one to the other. And on the Authentics 300 ($450), you get a portable unit that doesn’t have to stay parked on a shelf.
Design
Most wireless JBL speakers fit into three categories. They’re either rugged and compact, modern-looking boomboxes or internally-lit party units. For this new Authentics series, the company opted for a more refined design: all black with a gold frame around the front speaker grille. It’s certainly an aesthetic that fits in nicely on a shelf, without the raucous palette of some of the company’s smaller options. All three of the Authentics speakers look almost exactly the same with the main difference being size, although the 300 does have a boombox-like rotating handle the other two don’t. That’s because it’s the only portable option in the range with a built-in battery.
JBL describes the Authentics look as “retro,” but I’m not sure I agree. Sure, there’s a classic vibe thanks to the ‘70s-inspired Quadrex grille the company has employed in the past, but the finer details and onboard controls are decidedly modern. Speaking of controls, up top you’ll find volume, treble and bass knobs that illuminate the level as you turn them. Pressing in the center of the volume dial gives you the playback controls. There are also Bluetooth, power and Moment buttons along with a thin light bar that indicates charging status when the speaker is plugged in. Around back is a microphone mute switch, along with Ethernet, 3.5mm aux, USB-C and power ports.
Software and features
Photo by Billy Steele/Engadget
The features and settings for the Authentics speakers are managed inside the JBL One app. Here, you’re greeted with a list of the company’s products you own as well as their connected status, battery level and whatever media is playing on the device. After selecting the Authentics 300, JBL dumps you into the specifics, with battery level once again visible up top. A media player is just below, complete with the ability to sync Amazon Music, Tidal, Napster, Qobuz, TuneIn, iHeartRadio and Calm Radio so you can play them directly inside this app.
JBL offers some limited EQ customization. There’s a manual slider with options for bass, mid and treble, but that’s it. You won’t find any carefully-tuned presets or the ability to make more detailed adjustments along the curve. To get to your tunes quickly, JBL offers a feature called Moment. Accessible via the heart button on the speaker, this allows you to save a favorite album or playlist from the app’s list of supported streaming services. You can also specify volume and auto-off timing during setup.
Lastly, a word on streaming music over Wi-Fi. The Authentics line supports a range of options here, including AirPlay, Chromecast, Alexa, Spotify Connect and Tidal Connect, all of which are more convenient than swiping over to the Bluetooth menu and pairing the speaker every time you use it. With Wi-Fi, playing music on the Authentics devices are just a couple of taps away inside of the app where you’re browsing and selecting music or podcasts from. The speakers also support multi-room audio via AirPlay, Alexa and the Google Home app
Double assistants, double the fun
Photo by Billy Steele/Engadget
JBL says the Authentics series is the first set of speakers to run two voice assistants simultaneously. Each of the three units can employ both Alexa and Google Assistant without you having to pick one or the other beforehand. This opens up availability across compatible smart home devices and it means your speaker choice isn’t as limited by your go-to assistant.
The speaker never had trouble hearing my commands and it didn’t mistake a query for one assistant with a question for the other. When you ask Google Assistant for help, a white light shows at the top center of the speaker grille. Summon Alexa and that LED burns blue until your convo is over. When you mute the microphones with the switch on the back of the 300, that light glows red and remains until you turn them back on. As is the case with any smart speaker, the voice command limitations are the general hindrances of the assistants themselves rather than any shortfalls of the speaker.
Sound quality
The Authentics 300 really shines with more mellow, chill music like jazz, bluegrass and acoustic-driven country. There’s a warm inviting sound with great clarity across those styles. When you jump to the full band chaos of metal and hardcore, or even the guitar-heavy but mellifluous tones of Chris Stapleton, the speaker’s tuning overemphasizes vocals and the lack of bassy thump creates a muddy overall sound.
Sure, you can dial up the bass with the physical controls or the EQ in the app, but that doesn’t add the kind of deep low-end that would open up the soundstage. It does improve the overall tuning of albums like Stapleton’s Higher, but there’s still an overemphasis on vocals. You can really hear the impact on The Killer’s Rebel Diamonds as Brandon Flowers almost entirely drowns out the backing synth on “Jenny Was A Friend Of Mine” from Hot Fuss.
At times though, the Authentics 300 is a joy to listen to. Put on some Miles Davis and the speaker is at its best. Ditto for the bluegrass of Nickel Creek, the mellow country tunes of Charles Wesley Godwin and classic Christmas mixes. However, the inconsistency across styles is frustrating. Interestingly, JBL says the Authentics speakers offer automatic self-tuning every time you power them on, but I didn’t notice much difference as I moved the 300 around.
Battery life
Photo by Billy Steele/Engadget
JBL says the Authentics 300 will last up to eight hours on a charge. Within two minutes of unplugging, the JBL One app already had the battery level down two percent while playing music via AirPlay 2, at about 30 percent volume. That may seem like a low level, but it’s good for “working music” on this speaker. After 30 minutes, the app was showing 88 percent, but things slowed down and I managed to still have 24 percent remaining when the eight-hours were up. During a test over Bluetooth, the percentages fell in a similar fashion, but I had no problem making it to eight hours at 50 percent volume (Bluetooth was quieter than AirPlay at 30 percent).
JBL does offer a Battery Saving Mode to help you maximize playtime when you’re away from home. This setting “optimizes” both volume and bass to extend battery life, according to the company. There’s also an optional automatic power off feature that kicks in at either 15 minutes, 30 minutes or an hour when you’re not connected to power and audio is no longer playing.
The competition
JBL offers two alternatives to the Authentics 300 within the same speaker range. The smaller Authentics 200 ($350) is more compact, but not portable, while the larger 500 ($700) is a high-fidelity unit with support for Dolby Atmos. Both still run two voice assistants at the same time and have both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, along with everything else the Authentics line offers. In order to support that immersive audio, the Authentics 500 has more drivers than the other two, with three 25mm tweeters, three 2.75-inch mid-range and a 6.5-inch subwoofer. I look forward to seeing if the extra components and added 170 watts of output power improve sound quality, but it only has slightly lower frequency response than the 300 (40Hz vs. 45Hz).
If you’re looking for something portable that can also pull double duty at home, the Sonos Move 2 is a solid option. It’s too big to haul around with ease, but it does support both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi along with improved sound and better battery life compared to version 1.0. There’s also startling loudness and a durable design. What’s more, it’s the same price as the Authentics 300 at $449. For something more stationary and immersive, you could get the Sonos Era 300 without paying more. My colleague Nathan Ingraham noted the excellent sound quality on this unit during his review, but he did encounter inconsistent performance when it came to spatial audio. There’s also no Google Assistant support on this model.
Wrap-up
When I try to come up with a final verdict on the Authentics 300, I find myself running in circles. For every thing I like about the speaker, there’s immediately something that I don’t. The company certainly deserves some kudos for being the first to run two assistants at the same time and for figuring out how to do that with no confusion or headaches. However, the inconsistent sound quality is a major problem, especially on a $450 speaker. And while the device offers better-than-advertised battery life, it’s larger size makes portability an issue. So unless you absolutely need to seamlessly switch between Alexa and Google Assistant, there are better-sounding options.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/jbl-authentics-300-review-alexa-and-google-assistant-coexisting-190036434.html?src=rss
Several companies have taken shots at Sonos over the years when it comes to multi-room audio and self-tuning speakers with built-in voice assistants. These devices are a lot more common in 2023 than they used to be, so there’s a whole host of options if you’re looking for alternatives to the Move or Era. JBL is the latest to give it a go with new additions to its Authentics line of speakers. While audio may be its primary use, these devices are the first to run two voice assistants simultaneously without having to switch from one to the other. And on the Authentics 300 ($450), you get a portable unit that doesn’t have to stay parked on a shelf.
Design
Most wireless JBL speakers fit into three categories. They’re either rugged and compact, modern-looking boomboxes or internally-lit party units. For this new Authentics series, the company opted for a more refined design: all black with a gold frame around the front speaker grille. It’s certainly an aesthetic that fits in nicely on a shelf, without the raucous palette of some of the company’s smaller options. All three of the Authentics speakers look almost exactly the same with the main difference being size, although the 300 does have a boombox-like rotating handle the other two don’t. That’s because it’s the only portable option in the range with a built-in battery.
JBL describes the Authentics look as “retro,” but I’m not sure I agree. Sure, there’s a classic vibe thanks to the ‘70s-inspired Quadrex grille the company has employed in the past, but the finer details and onboard controls are decidedly modern. Speaking of controls, up top you’ll find volume, treble and bass knobs that illuminate the level as you turn them. Pressing in the center of the volume dial gives you the playback controls. There are also Bluetooth, power and Moment buttons along with a thin light bar that indicates charging status when the speaker is plugged in. Around back is a microphone mute switch, along with Ethernet, 3.5mm aux, USB-C and power ports.
Software and features
The features and settings for the Authentics speakers are managed inside the JBL One app. Here, you’re greeted with a list of the company’s products you own as well as their connected status, battery level and whatever media is playing on the device. After selecting the Authentics 300, JBL dumps you into the specifics, with battery level once again visible up top. A media player is just below, complete with the ability to sync Amazon Music, Tidal, Napster, Qobuz, TuneIn, iHeartRadio and Calm Radio so you can play them directly inside this app.
JBL offers some limited EQ customization. There’s a manual slider with options for bass, mid and treble, but that’s it. You won’t find any carefully-tuned presets or the ability to make more detailed adjustments along the curve. To get to your tunes quickly, JBL offers a feature called Moment. Accessible via the heart button on the speaker, this allows you to save a favorite album or playlist from the app’s list of supported streaming services. You can also specify volume and auto-off timing during setup.
Lastly, a word on streaming music over Wi-Fi. The Authentics line supports a range of options here, including AirPlay, Chromecast, Alexa, Spotify Connect and Tidal Connect, all of which are more convenient than swiping over to the Bluetooth menu and pairing the speaker every time you use it. With Wi-Fi, playing music on the Authentics devices are just a couple of taps away inside of the app where you’re browsing and selecting music or podcasts from. The speakers also support multi-room audio via AirPlay, Alexa and the Google Home app
Double assistants, double the fun
JBL says the Authentics series is the first set of speakers to run two voice assistants simultaneously. Each of the three units can employ both Alexa and Google Assistant without you having to pick one or the other beforehand. This opens up availability across compatible smart home devices and it means your speaker choice isn’t as limited by your go-to assistant.
The speaker never had trouble hearing my commands and it didn’t mistake a query for one assistant with a question for the other. When you ask Google Assistant for help, a white light shows at the top center of the speaker grille. Summon Alexa and that LED burns blue until your convo is over. When you mute the microphones with the switch on the back of the 300, that light glows red and remains until you turn them back on. As is the case with any smart speaker, the voice command limitations are the general hindrances of the assistants themselves rather than any shortfalls of the speaker.
Sound quality
The Authentics 300 really shines with more mellow, chill music like jazz, bluegrass and acoustic-driven country. There’s a warm inviting sound with great clarity across those styles. When you jump to the full band chaos of metal and hardcore, or even the guitar-heavy but mellifluous tones of Chris Stapleton, the speaker’s tuning overemphasizes vocals and the lack of bassy thump creates a muddy overall sound.
Sure, you can dial up the bass with the physical controls or the EQ in the app, but that doesn’t add the kind of deep low-end that would open up the soundstage. It does improve the overall tuning of albums like Stapleton’s Higher, but there’s still an overemphasis on vocals. You can really hear the impact on The Killer’s Rebel Diamonds as Brandon Flowers almost entirely drowns out the backing synth on “Jenny Was A Friend Of Mine” from Hot Fuss.
At times though, the Authentics 300 is a joy to listen to. Put on some Miles Davis and the speaker is at its best. Ditto for the bluegrass of Nickel Creek, the mellow country tunes of Charles Wesley Godwin and classic Christmas mixes. However, the inconsistency across styles is frustrating. Interestingly, JBL says the Authentics speakers offer automatic self-tuning every time you power them on, but I didn’t notice much difference as I moved the 300 around.
Battery life
JBL says the Authentics 300 will last up to eight hours on a charge. Within two minutes of unplugging, the JBL One app already had the battery level down two percent while playing music via AirPlay 2, at about 30 percent volume. That may seem like a low level, but it’s good for “working music” on this speaker. After 30 minutes, the app was showing 88 percent, but things slowed down and I managed to still have 24 percent remaining when the eight-hours were up. During a test over Bluetooth, the percentages fell in a similar fashion, but I had no problem making it to eight hours at 50 percent volume (Bluetooth was quieter than AirPlay at 30 percent).
JBL does offer a Battery Saving Mode to help you maximize playtime when you’re away from home. This setting “optimizes” both volume and bass to extend battery life, according to the company. There’s also an optional automatic power off feature that kicks in at either 15 minutes, 30 minutes or an hour when you’re not connected to power and audio is no longer playing.
The competition
JBL offers two alternatives to the Authentics 300 within the same speaker range. The smaller Authentics 200 ($350) is more compact, but not portable, while the larger 500 ($700) is a high-fidelity unit with support for Dolby Atmos. Both still run two voice assistants at the same time and have both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, along with everything else the Authentics line offers. In order to support that immersive audio, the Authentics 500 has more drivers than the other two, with three 25mm tweeters, three 2.75-inch mid-range and a 6.5-inch subwoofer. I look forward to seeing if the extra components and added 170 watts of output power improve sound quality, but it only has slightly lower frequency response than the 300 (40Hz vs. 45Hz).
If you’re looking for something portable that can also pull double duty at home, the Sonos Move 2 is a solid option. It’s too big to haul around with ease, but it does support both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi along with improved sound and better battery life compared to version 1.0. There’s also startling loudness and a durable design. What’s more, it’s the same price as the Authentics 300 at $449. For something more stationary and immersive, you could get the Sonos Era 300 without paying more. My colleague Nathan Ingraham noted the excellent sound quality on this unit during his review, but he did encounter inconsistent performance when it came to spatial audio. There’s also no Google Assistant support on this model.
Wrap-up
When I try to come up with a final verdict on the Authentics 300, I find myself running in circles. For every thing I like about the speaker, there’s immediately something that I don’t. The company certainly deserves some kudos for being the first to run two assistants at the same time and for figuring out how to do that with no confusion or headaches. However, the inconsistent sound quality is a major problem, especially on a $450 speaker. And while the device offers better-than-advertised battery life, it’s larger size makes portability an issue. So unless you absolutely need to seamlessly switch between Alexa and Google Assistant, there are better-sounding options.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/jbl-authentics-300-review-alexa-and-google-assistant-coexisting-190036434.html?src=rss
The Great Google Account Purge starts tomorrow for inactive users
Any accounts lined up for deletion should have gotten warning emails by now.
Enlarge (credit: Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Hello fellow procrastinators. This is your last-minute warning that you have until the end of the day to log in to any inactive Google accounts before they start getting deleted on December 1. Google is going to wipe any accounts that have been “inactive” for two years, allowing the company to free up storage space, delete unused personal data, and continue the ongoing journey of intense cost cutting it has been on for the past year.
The plan to do this was announced in May, and Google says inactive accounts should get “multiple notifications over the months leading up to deletion, to both the account email address and the recovery email (if one has been provided),” so hopefully this isn’t a surprise to anyone. The company says it will “take a phased approach” to deleting accounts, starting with “accounts that were created and never used again,” so even if you’re reading this on December 1, there’s probably still time to log in to an old account and save it.
As for the caveats around “inactivity,” Google says this will only apply to personal accounts that don’t have any subscriptions running, so Google Workspace and Google One users have nothing to fear. The company says you’ll count as “active” if you “sign-in at least once every 2 years,” which is pretty easy to do. Confusingly it also lists certain activities you can perform that will count as “activity,” but those seem rather moot, since you would already need to be logged in to do them. The “Sign in with Google” OAuth platform on other websites also counts as account activity, and so does being signed in on an Android phone.
The future of fossil fuels could be decided in Dubai
DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES – NOVEMBER 30: COP28 President Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber during the opening day of the United Nations Climate Conference. | Sean Gallup/Getty Images
Tens of thousands of negotiators, activists, and corporate execs have descended upon Dubai to wrangle over the future of fossil fuels. Namely, should they even have a future? Can governments broker a deal to phase out the oil, coal, and gas causing climate change? Countries have already suffered deep losses as a result of the fires, floods, and other disasters intensifying with climate change. They want the biggest, heaviest-polluting nations to do something about it. And they’ll be making their case at a conference presided over by an oil baron.
Those are some of the hot topics on the table at the United Nations climate conference that kicks off in Dubai on November 30th. It’s called COP28, because it’s the 28th annual “Conference of the Parties” — made up of 197 nations and territories that ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Not every climate conference gets as contentious as this year’s is shaping up to be
Not every climate conference gets as contentious as this year’s is shaping up to be. So The Verge has a quick guide to some of the biggest issues during the negotiations scheduled to run until December 12th.
The future of fossil fuels
Let’s start with some backstory on COP28. The biggest international deal yet to tackle climate change came out of COP21 in 2015, when countries brokered the landmark Paris Agreement. That set a goal of limiting global average temperatures to close to 1.5 degrees Celsius higher than they were before the industrial revolution. A major United Nations report from 2018 charted out what it would take to reach that goal: reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Greenhouse gas emissions come from extracting and burning fossil fuels, of course. And yet the Paris Agreement manages to omit the words coal, oil, natural gas, and fossil fuels. So while it commits countries to stopping climate change, it skirts around the root cause of the problem. Now, that 1.5-degree goal is close to slipping out of reach (some scientists even think it might already be too late). With around 1.2 degrees of warming today, 2023 marks the hottest year on the books and greenhouse gas emissions are still rising.
2023 marks the hottest year on the books and greenhouse gas emissions are still rising
The Paris Agreement, at least, had the foresight to require a “global stocktake” every five years to assess countries’ progress toward meeting the goals of the accord. The time has finally arrived for countries to face how much — or how little — headway they’ve made.
This’ll go down at COP28. It turns out global temperatures are still on track to reach between 2.5 and 2.9 degrees Celsius. That’s obviously way above the Paris goal, and temperatures are expected to trigger catastrophes like wiping out virtually all of the world’s coral reefs. To prevent that and hit the Paris target, countries need to cut emissions by more than 40 percent by the end of the decade compared to 2019 levels, according to the UN’s global stocktake. Now that governments are supposed to adjust their plans according to the stocktake, there’s a push for them to finally explicitly commit to ax fossil fuels.
A group of 10 nations led by Costa Rica and Denmark (plus Washington state, Quebec, and Wales) formed the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance and led a charge to phase out fossil fuel production. Last month, a High Ambition Coalition of 117 countries put out a statement that called to “phase-out fossil fuel production and use.” The European Union is also expected to come to the table pushing for a deal to “phase out” fossil fuels. And more than 130 companies, including Volvo Cars, Ikea, Unilever, Nestlé, and AstraZeneca, signed a letter last month asking governments to adopt a global plan to do it.
Sticking points
While momentum is growing, there are some significant sticking points. Those 130 companies and the EU are using terms that could carve out a loophole for fossil fuels to linger. They say they only want to phase out fossil fuels that are “unabated,” a word that changes everything. Stipulating the phaseout of “unabated fossil fuels” in a deal means that polluters can continue using coal, oil, and gas as long as they install controversial new technologies for capturing CO2 emissions that have yet to prove effective at scale.
And what about that oil executive? A regional group within the UN chose the United Arab Emirates to host the conference and appointed Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, as president of COP28. He wrote a letter to governments in attendance that says, “phasing down demand for, and supply of, all fossil fuels is inevitable and essential” (emphasis mine). Phasing down rather than out is decidedly weaker language. And even that kind of watered down deal was struck down last year, when delegates at COP27 in Egypt nixed final agreement language calling for the “phase-down” of fossil fuels at the last minute.
Not to mention an investigation by the BBC and the Centre for Climate Reporting found that Sultan Al Jaber used his position as COP28 president to lobby for oil and gas deals with other governments. He has denied the allegations, of course.
At the end of the day — or more accurately, the end of the next thirteen days — what really matters is what actions countries actually take. That’s especially true for the world’s biggest polluters, which are the US and China by far. Those two are locked in a funny dance around climate action, which has historically been one of the areas the US and China are able to cooperate on even when tensions rise between the two powers. In a move that environmental advocates cautiously celebrated, the pair agreed earlier this month to work together to try to triple renewable energy capacity globally by 2030. And during COP28, they’ll host a meeting to address methane pollution, an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
But (why is there always a but?!) neither presidents Joe Biden nor Xi Jinping are expected to attend the conference in Dubai — an absence seen as a big snub by other governments sending their heads of state. And back at home, the US is producing record amounts of oil and gas this year. In China, coal imports and output are also expected to reach record highs. Sigh.
Reparations
It’s no wonder, then, that less-polluting, less-wealthy countries already hit hard by climate disasters are calling for reparations. In climate negotiations, it’s billed as a fund for “loss and damage.” After decades of stalled negotiations on this front, there was finally a breakthrough at last year’s COP. Delegates reached an agreement to create the fund but left it up to future negotiations to figure out how the fund would work. That’s what’s at stake now.
“We have the fund but we need money to make it worthwhile. What we have is an empty bucket,” Mohamed Adow, director of think tank Power Shift Africa, said in a statement last year.
On the first day of the conference this year, nations launched the loss and damage fund. That empty bucket now has at least $400 million in it. Germany and the United Arab Emirates each pledged $100 million. The US gave $24.5 million, Japan $10 million, and the UK around $75 million.
Anything is possible — but it takes time
While the money is sorely needed, there are still big questions around how the fund will operate. It’ll be hosted by the World Bank over the next four years, an institution over which critics say the US has too much influence. They’re concerned funding will come through loans rather than grants, which could trap countries suffering losses from worsening climate catastrophes in more and more debt. Advocates also wanted to see commitments to replenish the fund regularly, and so far that hasn’t happened.
“The absence of a defined replenishment cycle raises serious questions about the Fund’s long-term sustainability,” Harjeet Singh, head of global political strategy at Climate Action Network International, said in a statement. “The responsibility now lies with affluent nations to meet their financial obligations in a manner proportionate to their role in the climate crisis, which has been primarily driven by decades of unrestrained fossil fuel consumption and a lack of adequate climate finance delivered to the Global South.”
What’s next?
If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the last decade or so following these climate negotiations, it’s that anything is possible — but it takes time. Getting nearly every nation on Earth to agree to work together to stop global warming with the Paris Agreement took more than two decades. A pact to phase out fossil fuels just might be within reach — even if that doesn’t shake out this year. Then again, every time a monstrous storm or devastating drought takes its toll, people pay the price for their governments dragging their feet.
DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES – NOVEMBER 30: COP28 President Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber during the opening day of the United Nations Climate Conference. | Sean Gallup/Getty Images
Tens of thousands of negotiators, activists, and corporate execs have descended upon Dubai to wrangle over the future of fossil fuels. Namely, should they even have a future? Can governments broker a deal to phase out the oil, coal, and gas causing climate change? Countries have already suffered deep losses as a result of the fires, floods, and other disasters intensifying with climate change. They want the biggest, heaviest-polluting nations to do something about it. And they’ll be making their case at a conference presided over by an oil baron.
Those are some of the hot topics on the table at the United Nations climate conference that kicks off in Dubai on November 30th. It’s called COP28, because it’s the 28th annual “Conference of the Parties” — made up of 197 nations and territories that ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Not every climate conference gets as contentious as this year’s is shaping up to be. So The Verge has a quick guide to some of the biggest issues during the negotiations scheduled to run until December 12th.
The future of fossil fuels
Let’s start with some backstory on COP28. The biggest international deal yet to tackle climate change came out of COP21 in 2015, when countries brokered the landmark Paris Agreement. That set a goal of limiting global average temperatures to close to 1.5 degrees Celsius higher than they were before the industrial revolution. A major United Nations report from 2018 charted out what it would take to reach that goal: reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Greenhouse gas emissions come from extracting and burning fossil fuels, of course. And yet the Paris Agreement manages to omit the words coal, oil, natural gas, and fossil fuels. So while it commits countries to stopping climate change, it skirts around the root cause of the problem. Now, that 1.5-degree goal is close to slipping out of reach (some scientists even think it might already be too late). With around 1.2 degrees of warming today, 2023 marks the hottest year on the books and greenhouse gas emissions are still rising.
The Paris Agreement, at least, had the foresight to require a “global stocktake” every five years to assess countries’ progress toward meeting the goals of the accord. The time has finally arrived for countries to face how much — or how little — headway they’ve made.
This’ll go down at COP28. It turns out global temperatures are still on track to reach between 2.5 and 2.9 degrees Celsius. That’s obviously way above the Paris goal, and temperatures are expected to trigger catastrophes like wiping out virtually all of the world’s coral reefs. To prevent that and hit the Paris target, countries need to cut emissions by more than 40 percent by the end of the decade compared to 2019 levels, according to the UN’s global stocktake. Now that governments are supposed to adjust their plans according to the stocktake, there’s a push for them to finally explicitly commit to ax fossil fuels.
A group of 10 nations led by Costa Rica and Denmark (plus Washington state, Quebec, and Wales) formed the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance and led a charge to phase out fossil fuel production. Last month, a High Ambition Coalition of 117 countries put out a statement that called to “phase-out fossil fuel production and use.” The European Union is also expected to come to the table pushing for a deal to “phase out” fossil fuels. And more than 130 companies, including Volvo Cars, Ikea, Unilever, Nestlé, and AstraZeneca, signed a letter last month asking governments to adopt a global plan to do it.
Sticking points
While momentum is growing, there are some significant sticking points. Those 130 companies and the EU are using terms that could carve out a loophole for fossil fuels to linger. They say they only want to phase out fossil fuels that are “unabated,” a word that changes everything. Stipulating the phaseout of “unabated fossil fuels” in a deal means that polluters can continue using coal, oil, and gas as long as they install controversial new technologies for capturing CO2 emissions that have yet to prove effective at scale.
And what about that oil executive? A regional group within the UN chose the United Arab Emirates to host the conference and appointed Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, as president of COP28. He wrote a letter to governments in attendance that says, “phasing down demand for, and supply of, all fossil fuels is inevitable and essential” (emphasis mine). Phasing down rather than out is decidedly weaker language. And even that kind of watered down deal was struck down last year, when delegates at COP27 in Egypt nixed final agreement language calling for the “phase-down” of fossil fuels at the last minute.
Not to mention an investigation by the BBC and the Centre for Climate Reporting found that Sultan Al Jaber used his position as COP28 president to lobby for oil and gas deals with other governments. He has denied the allegations, of course.
At the end of the day — or more accurately, the end of the next thirteen days — what really matters is what actions countries actually take. That’s especially true for the world’s biggest polluters, which are the US and China by far. Those two are locked in a funny dance around climate action, which has historically been one of the areas the US and China are able to cooperate on even when tensions rise between the two powers. In a move that environmental advocates cautiously celebrated, the pair agreed earlier this month to work together to try to triple renewable energy capacity globally by 2030. And during COP28, they’ll host a meeting to address methane pollution, an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
But (why is there always a but?!) neither presidents Joe Biden nor Xi Jinping are expected to attend the conference in Dubai — an absence seen as a big snub by other governments sending their heads of state. And back at home, the US is producing record amounts of oil and gas this year. In China, coal imports and output are also expected to reach record highs. Sigh.
Reparations
It’s no wonder, then, that less-polluting, less-wealthy countries already hit hard by climate disasters are calling for reparations. In climate negotiations, it’s billed as a fund for “loss and damage.” After decades of stalled negotiations on this front, there was finally a breakthrough at last year’s COP. Delegates reached an agreement to create the fund but left it up to future negotiations to figure out how the fund would work. That’s what’s at stake now.
“We have the fund but we need money to make it worthwhile. What we have is an empty bucket,” Mohamed Adow, director of think tank Power Shift Africa, said in a statement last year.
On the first day of the conference this year, nations launched the loss and damage fund. That empty bucket now has at least $400 million in it. Germany and the United Arab Emirates each pledged $100 million. The US gave $24.5 million, Japan $10 million, and the UK around $75 million.
While the money is sorely needed, there are still big questions around how the fund will operate. It’ll be hosted by the World Bank over the next four years, an institution over which critics say the US has too much influence. They’re concerned funding will come through loans rather than grants, which could trap countries suffering losses from worsening climate catastrophes in more and more debt. Advocates also wanted to see commitments to replenish the fund regularly, and so far that hasn’t happened.
“The absence of a defined replenishment cycle raises serious questions about the Fund’s long-term sustainability,” Harjeet Singh, head of global political strategy at Climate Action Network International, said in a statement. “The responsibility now lies with affluent nations to meet their financial obligations in a manner proportionate to their role in the climate crisis, which has been primarily driven by decades of unrestrained fossil fuel consumption and a lack of adequate climate finance delivered to the Global South.”
What’s next?
If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the last decade or so following these climate negotiations, it’s that anything is possible — but it takes time. Getting nearly every nation on Earth to agree to work together to stop global warming with the Paris Agreement took more than two decades. A pact to phase out fossil fuels just might be within reach — even if that doesn’t shake out this year. Then again, every time a monstrous storm or devastating drought takes its toll, people pay the price for their governments dragging their feet.
Steam Link can now wirelessly stream VR games to your Meta Quest headset
Photo: David Pierce / The Verge
Valve’s Steam Link app, which lets you stream games from your Steam library to another device, is out now for the Meta Quest 2, 3, and Pro headsets, according to a news post from Valve. Having Steam Link available on Quest devices means that you can more easily play your VR games wirelessly, so it might finally be time to play Half-Life: Alyx on your Quest if you’ve been putting it off. (It’s possible to do that now, but it takes a little work.)
To stream your games to your headset from Steam Link, Valve says you’ll need “a router with a wired connection to your PC” and “a 5GHz WiFi network for your headset.” Steam and SteamVR will need to be installed and running on your PC (which needs to be a PC on Windows 10 or newer). The company recommends a computer with at least 16GB of RAM and an Nvidia GPU (“RTX2070 or better”). And, of course, you’ll need to install Steam Link on your Meta Quest device.
This new Steam Link for Quest is nice for VR enthusiasts who may have already built up a library of VR games on Steam but also have a Quest device. And if you’ve been eyeing a few VR games on Steam as of late, Valve will be hosting a “VR Fest” on Steam from December 4th through December 11th where you can grab some games on sale. Valve’s trailer for the event features big VR games like Among Us VR, Gorilla Tag, and Tetris Effect: Connected, so it seems like those will be among the games you can buy at a discount.
Photo: David Pierce / The Verge
Valve’s Steam Link app, which lets you stream games from your Steam library to another device, is out now for the Meta Quest 2, 3, and Pro headsets, according to a news post from Valve. Having Steam Link available on Quest devices means that you can more easily play your VR games wirelessly, so it might finally be time to play Half-Life: Alyx on your Quest if you’ve been putting it off. (It’s possible to do that now, but it takes a little work.)
To stream your games to your headset from Steam Link, Valve says you’ll need “a router with a wired connection to your PC” and “a 5GHz WiFi network for your headset.” Steam and SteamVR will need to be installed and running on your PC (which needs to be a PC on Windows 10 or newer). The company recommends a computer with at least 16GB of RAM and an Nvidia GPU (“RTX2070 or better”). And, of course, you’ll need to install Steam Link on your Meta Quest device.
This new Steam Link for Quest is nice for VR enthusiasts who may have already built up a library of VR games on Steam but also have a Quest device. And if you’ve been eyeing a few VR games on Steam as of late, Valve will be hosting a “VR Fest” on Steam from December 4th through December 11th where you can grab some games on sale. Valve’s trailer for the event features big VR games like Among Us VR, Gorilla Tag, and Tetris Effect: Connected, so it seems like those will be among the games you can buy at a discount.
Meta sues FTC to block new restrictions on monetizing kids’ data
Meta has sued the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in an attempt to stop regulators from reopening a landmark $5 billion privacy settlement from 2020 and to allow it to monetize kids’ data across apps like Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp. This comes after a federal judge ruled on Monday that the FTC would be allowed to expand on 2020’s privacy settlement, paving the way for the agency to propose tough new rules on how the social media giant could operate in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Today’s lawsuit demands an immediate stop to the FTC’s proceedings, calling it an “obvious power grab” and an “unconstitutional adjudication by fiat.” A Meta spokesperson even referred to the FTC as “prosecutor, judge, and jury in the same case”, as reported by Bloomberg. This is the second attempt by Facebook’s parent company to stop the sanctions in court.
The FTC, for its part, says that Meta has repeatedly violated the terms of 2020’s settlement regarding user privacy. The agency also says that the company has violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by monetizing the data of younger users. The FTC has already been given the go ahead by a judge to restrict this type of monetization, a decision Meta hopes to overturn.
The FTC also seeks to implement new restrictions that limit Meta’s use of facial recognition, as well as a complete moratorium on new products and services until a third-party completes an audit to determine if the company’s complying with its privacy obligations.
“Facebook has repeatedly violated its privacy promises,” Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. “The company’s recklessness has put young users at risk, and Facebook needs to answer for its failures.” To that end, multiple states have sued Meta to stop the monetization of children’s data, along with the EU.
The FTC has been a consistent thorn in Meta’s side, as the agency tried to stop the company’s acquisition of VR software developer Within on the grounds that the deal would deter “future innovation and competitive rivalry.” The agency dropped this bid after a series of legal setbacks. It also opened up an investigation into the company’s VR arm, accusing Meta of anti-competitive behavior.
Corporations have been all over the FTC lately in attempts to paint the agency as a prime example of government overreach. Beyond Meta, biotech giant Illumina is suing the FTC to halt a decision that stops it from a $7 billion acquisition of the cancer detection startup Grail.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/meta-sues-ftc-to-block-new-restrictions-on-monetizing-kids-data-185051764.html?src=rss
Meta has sued the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in an attempt to stop regulators from reopening a landmark $5 billion privacy settlement from 2020 and to allow it to monetize kids’ data across apps like Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp. This comes after a federal judge ruled on Monday that the FTC would be allowed to expand on 2020’s privacy settlement, paving the way for the agency to propose tough new rules on how the social media giant could operate in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Today’s lawsuit demands an immediate stop to the FTC’s proceedings, calling it an “obvious power grab” and an “unconstitutional adjudication by fiat.” A Meta spokesperson even referred to the FTC as “prosecutor, judge, and jury in the same case”, as reported by Bloomberg. This is the second attempt by Facebook’s parent company to stop the sanctions in court.
The FTC, for its part, says that Meta has repeatedly violated the terms of 2020’s settlement regarding user privacy. The agency also says that the company has violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by monetizing the data of younger users. The FTC has already been given the go ahead by a judge to restrict this type of monetization, a decision Meta hopes to overturn.
The FTC also seeks to implement new restrictions that limit Meta’s use of facial recognition, as well as a complete moratorium on new products and services until a third-party completes an audit to determine if the company’s complying with its privacy obligations.
“Facebook has repeatedly violated its privacy promises,” Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. “The company’s recklessness has put young users at risk, and Facebook needs to answer for its failures.” To that end, multiple states have sued Meta to stop the monetization of children’s data, along with the EU.
The FTC has been a consistent thorn in Meta’s side, as the agency tried to stop the company’s acquisition of VR software developer Within on the grounds that the deal would deter “future innovation and competitive rivalry.” The agency dropped this bid after a series of legal setbacks. It also opened up an investigation into the company’s VR arm, accusing Meta of anti-competitive behavior.
Corporations have been all over the FTC lately in attempts to paint the agency as a prime example of government overreach. Beyond Meta, biotech giant Illumina is suing the FTC to halt a decision that stops it from a $7 billion acquisition of the cancer detection startup Grail.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/meta-sues-ftc-to-block-new-restrictions-on-monetizing-kids-data-185051764.html?src=rss