Tech & IT

Meta Accused of “Blindfolding” Itself to Child Sex Abuse with Expanded Encryption

Law enforcement agencies worldwide, including the FBI and Interpol, are expressing concern over parent company Meta’s plans to roll out expanded end-to-end encryption, warning it could effectively “blindfold” the firm from detecting incidents of child sex abuse.
The Virtual Global Taskforce, a coalition of 15 law enforcement organizations tasked with protecting children from such crimes, pointed out Meta in a joint statement urging tech companies to consider secure protocols when instituting end-to-end encryption.

“The announced implementation of [end-to-end encryption] on Meta platforms Instagram and Facebook is an example of a purposeful design choice that degrades safety systems and weakens the ability to safeguard child users,” the Virtual Global Taskforce said in a policy statement. The officials argue end-to-end encryption, while a sought-after privacy feature for secure communications, could make it more difficult for companies like Meta to identify criminal behavior occurring on their platforms.

“The VGT calls for all industry partners to fully understand the impact of implementing system design decisions that result in blinding themselves to [child sex abuse] occurring on their platforms, or reduce their capacity to detect CSA and keep kids secure,” the agencies added.

“The abuse will not stop just because companies decide to cease looking,” the agencies added.
Meta has indicated plans to roll out end-to-end encryption for messages on all of its platforms – with one company executive once stating the feature would be enabled by default “sometime in 2023.” Meta-controlled WhatsApp already offers the feature by default.
Earlier this year, Meta published a blog post detailing expanded end-to-end encryption on its Messenger platform.

The Financial Times was first to report on the Virtual Global Taskforce’s statement.
The outlet noted that UK lawmakers are currently working on an online safety bill that has drawn criticism from tech giants who allege it will hurt user privacy.
The proposed legislation would empower the UK’s telecom regulator, the Office of Communications, to require companies to monitor some messages for instances of child abuse.

An open letter signed by various tech bosses, including WhatsApp chief Will Cathcart, argued the bill would “give an unelected official the power to weaken the privacy of billions of people around the world” by scrutinizing encrypted messages.
Meta defended its safety practices in a statement obtained by the FT.

“The vast majority of Brits already rely on apps that use encryption. We don’t think people want us reading their private messages, so we have developed safety measures that prevent, detect and allow us to take action against this appalling abuse, while preserving online privacy and security,” a Meta spokesperson said in the statement.

“As we continue to roll out our end-to-end encryption plans, we remain dedicated to working with law enforcement and child safety experts to ensure that our platforms are safe for young people.” The Post has reached out to Meta for further comment.
Meta has faced intense criticism from US legislators over its safety practices, with detractors arguing the tech giant hasn’t gone far enough to protect its underage users from harmful content and abuse.

As The Post reported earlier this month, online safety experts penned an open letter urging Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to abandon the company’s plans to let children and teen users access its new metaverse service “Horizon Worlds” due to concern about potential abuse.
The Virtual Global Taskforce is an alliance of 15 law enforcement agencies from around the world, including the FBI, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Interpol, Europol, and the United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency, with the latter serving as the group’s chair.
The task force’s website describes the group as “an international coalition of 15 committed law enforcement agencies collaborating to address the global threat from child sexual abuse.”

Source: The Post, FT.com

Tech & IT

PICO 4 Ultra Review: Sharp Standalone VR with Solid Passthrough

The PICO 4 Ultra is a fully standalone VR headset designed for immersive entertainment, high-resolution video playback, and mixed reality experiences. It improves on the original PICO 4 with stronger performance, sharper visuals and better overall balance.

The headset uses the Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 chipset, putting it in the same performance class as the Meta Quest 3 and Quest 3S. It features 2160 x 2160 resolution per eye, a refresh rate of up to 90Hz, and support for 8192 x 4096 video decoding at 60 FPS, making it capable of handling high-resolution immersive video content.

Compared with the original PICO 4, the Ultra offers faster rendering, brighter visuals, and improved front-to-back weight distribution, which helps during longer sessions. It also ships with controllers, making it ready to use out of the box.

However, comfort is still an area where the PICO 4 Ultra falls slightly behind some competitors. Its rigid headband and stiff face pad can create more pressure during extended use, especially compared with the softer and more refined fit of the Quest 3 and Quest 3S.

Passthrough is one of the PICO 4 Ultra’s strengths. The headset provides a clean color view of nearby surroundings and offers a noticeable improvement over older VR devices. While it does not match the passthrough quality of Apple Vision Pro, it performs well for a standalone headset in its category.

The PICO 4 Ultra can be used with compatible VR apps from the PICO International Store, including media players, immersive video platforms, and mixed reality experiences. Browser-based access is also available for supported web content, giving users multiple ways to enjoy VR without needing a PC.

Overall, the PICO 4 Ultra is a strong standalone headset for users who want sharp visuals, good passthrough and solid performance. Its firmware and ergonomics may not feel as polished as Meta’s Quest lineup, but it remains a capable option for immersive entertainment right out of the box.

Cam Sites

Meta Quest 3 vs Quest 3S: Which VR Headset Is Better for Immersive Content?

Meta’s standalone Quest 3 and Quest 3S are two of the most popular VR headsets for users who want high-quality immersive entertainment without needing a PC or external tracking setup.

Both headsets share the same core chip and many of the same features, including 120Hz display support, Touch Plus controllers and hand tracking. The biggest difference is visual quality. The Quest 3 is the higher-end option, using sharper pancake lenses and offering a resolution of 2064 x 2208 pixels per eye. The Quest 3S is the more budget-friendly model, with 1832 x 1920 pixels per eye, making some compromises in display clarity to reach a lower price point.

For high-resolution video playback, both headsets are capable devices. They can handle 8192 x 4096 at 60 FPS, making them suitable for 8K immersive video when paired with compatible apps and properly encoded content. This makes either headset a strong option for users focused on detailed, wide-field VR experiences.

Both models also include Touch Plus controllers and support hand tracking, giving users different ways to navigate apps, menus, and media players. This flexibility makes the experience feel more natural, especially when switching between interactive content and video playback.

Passthrough is another important feature. The Quest 3 and Quest 3S use dual 4MP RGB cameras to provide color passthrough, allowing users to see their real-world surroundings while wearing the headset. The experience is useful and practical, though it does not match the sharpness and realism of Apple Vision Pro, which offers richer colors and more detailed environmental visuals.

Battery life remains a practical consideration. In continuous 8K streaming tests, the Quest 3 lasted about 120 minutes, while the Apple Vision Pro lasted about 150 minutes. Apple’s external battery has a larger capacity, but the runtime difference is smaller than the size gap might suggest.

For most users, the choice comes down to budget and image quality. The Quest 3 is the better pick for sharper visuals, clearer lenses, and a more premium viewing experience. The Quest 3S offers much of the same core performance at a lower price, making it a strong option for users who want modern VR features without paying for the highest display quality.

Overall, both headsets are reliable choices for immersive entertainment. Choose the Meta Quest 3 if visual clarity matters most, or the Quest 3S if you want a more affordable entry into standard

Tech & IT

“Bombs and Porn” Debate Highlights Growing AI Concerns

AI data center projects across the United States are facing delays, cancellations, and growing public opposition as concerns rise over energy use, pollution, taxes, and the overall impact of artificial intelligence.

Nearly half of the data center capacity planned for 2026 has reportedly already been delayed or canceled. Local communities and lawmakers are increasingly pushing back against large AI infrastructure projects, with some states introducing restrictions on new developments.

Critics continue to question whether AI is truly improving daily life. Instead, AI tools are frequently associated with fake content, misinformation, cheating in schools, and harmful online material. Concerns also grew after reports connected a suspect in the 2025 shooting at Florida State University to extensive conversations with an AI chatbot before the attack.

The debate also includes concerns about AI being used in military and surveillance operations. AI-powered systems are increasingly being adopted by defense and government agencies, raising ethical and privacy concerns.

Environmental impact remains another major issue. Massive AI data center projects are expected to increase electricity demand significantly, with some companies planning new gas-powered infrastructure to support future expansion. Critics warn this could lead to higher emissions and additional pressure on energy grids.

Public skepticism toward AI also remains high. Recent polls show that many Americans believe AI could negatively affect jobs, education, and everyday life, while large numbers oppose building AI data centers near their communities.

Critics argue that instead of focusing on futuristic promises about “superintelligence,” tech companies and politicians should better explain the practical benefits AI is currently providing to ordinary people.