Labour’s persistent failure to address its electorate’s salient concerns is behind the protest vote, asserts DIANE ABBOTT
Latest editorial
Covert surveillance, blatant coercion
ROX MIDDLETON, LIAM HELLEWELL and MIRIAM GAUNTLETT take a look at what it means to live in an algorithmic society
[Alexandre Debiève / Creative Commons]
Washington’s lawless behaviour towards countries in the region it considers its ‘back yard’ should be condemned by all law-abiding people, says LUKE DANIELS
In part I of a serialisation of his new book, JOHN McINALLY takes a look at the early days of organising government workers
Colombia’s success in controlling the drug trade should be recognised and its sovereignty respected, argues Dr GLORY SAAVEDRA
The shadow lord chancellor has recently made a name for himself as an rabid hater of immigration – but there are exceptions to every rule, says SOLOMON HUGHES
Plaid Cymru’s front-bench spokesman on health and social services MABON AP GWYNFOR, in a two-part series, analyses the Caerphilly by-election and the wider political scene in Wales ahead of the 2026 Senedd election
TEN months ago, in April 2023, Google discontinued a device that it had worked on and publicised for 10 years. Google Glass looked like a pair of clear wrap-around glasses with a chunky bit at the top of the frame. The “chunky bit” was a tiny projector which projected onto part of the glasses themselves so that the user could see a screen in their field of vision. In September Google stopped updating or maintaining the Google Glass products that it had already sold.
What happened? Although the product had been through significant development since the original headset design, it was clearly not a moneymaker. The project started off at “X Development” (not associated with Elon Musk, but at the Alphabet subsidiary that Google uses for development projects).
The company trialled the product on a range of test users in an attempt to make the Google Glass technology seem useful and not creepy; for example, publicising its use by doctors to get a “surgeon’s eye view,” and also by a group of breastfeeding mothers who could apparently use the device to talk to experts and read advice while breastfeeding their babies.
Similar stories
Digital ID means the government could track anyone and then limit their speech, movements, finances — and it could get this all wrong, identifying the wrong people for the wrong reasons, as the numerous digital cockups so far demonstrate, warns DYLAN MURPHY
While claiming to target fraud, Labour’s snooping Bill strips benefit recipients of privacy rights and presumption of innocence, writes CLAUDIA WEBBE, warning that algorithms with up to 25 per cent error rates could wrongfully investigate and harass millions of vulnerable people
ANSELM ELDERGILL asks whether artificial intelligence may decide legal cases in the future, in place of human judges, and how AI could reshape the legal landscape
Huge new buildings kitted out with powerful computers consumed 21 per cent of the nation’s electricity last year – leading to increased power demands and increased bills. MATT O’BRIEN reports