An iPhone app designed to alert users when smart glasses may be nearby has climbed to No. 3 on the US paid App Store chart. Its name, AntiZuck Smart Glasses Scanner, leaves little doubt about how the developer feels about Meta’s camera-equipped glasses.

The app costs $2.99 and scans for Bluetooth signals linked to smart glasses. It can spot Meta Ray-Bans, Snap Spectacles, Amazon Echo Frames, and RayNeo glasses, then sends an alert when it believes one is nearby.

Its rise comes as anxiety around being filmed in public continues to grow, particularly among younger people who have spent most of their lives knowing that an awkward moment could be uploaded within minutes.

How does the smart glasses scanner work?

AntiZuck presents detected devices on a radar-like screen, alongside a rough proximity estimate and confidence rating. It can remember repeat sightings, send local notifications, and let users mark familiar devices so they stop triggering alerts.

Unfortunately, the app cannot tell whether someone has started recording or taking a photo. It only detects Bluetooth signals broadcast by supported hardware, often during actions such as powering on, pairing, or opening a charging case.

Other Meta hardware, including Quest headsets, may also trigger a detection. Smart glasses can disappear from the scanner once they stop actively advertising over Bluetooth, so an alert is not proof that someone nearby is secretly filming.

Camera anxiety is already changing how people behave

A recent BBC report found that some young adults are becoming increasingly wary of cameras on nights out. Students said they watch for people holding up phones and club promoters recording content. Smart glasses make the situation harder because they can pass for an ordinary pair, so someone may not realize they are being filmed.

The discomfort is not limited to clubs or parties. A YouGov survey found that 54% of Americans consider filming and sharing strangers in public without consent usually or always unacceptable. Research also suggests people change how they behave when they know they are being watched. It helps explain why people are willing to pay for AntiZuck, since even the possibility of a discreet camera nearby can make it harder to relax in public.

• Ukraine’s MUL.E combines battlefield transport with portable electrical power for frontline units
• The electric motorcycle crosses anti-vehicle minefields without triggering many buried explosives
• A detachable generator keeps drones and communications equipment powered during extended frontline operations

Ukraine’s Defense Ministry has codified the MUL.E, its first all-wheel-drive electric military motorcycle built for frontline conditions.

The MUL.E cleared for Armed Forces service after completing testing confirming its stated operational capabilities.

from the presumption-of-regularity-is-dead dept

This story was originally published by ProPublica. Republished under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.

Across the country, federal judges are calling out Department of Justice lawyers, questioning in unprecedented ways whether they can be trusted to tell the truth or uphold centuries-old legal norms.

From Washington, D.C., to Rhode Island to Oregon, federal judges nominated by presidents from both parties, including Donald Trump, have zeroed in on what’s called “the presumption of regularity.” It essentially means that judges must presume that the government — whether it be federal prosecutors, an IRS auditor or an FBI agent — did their jobs according to the rules and in good faith.

Until Trump’s second term, which has seen an exodus of veteran DOJ lawyers and a transformative shift in priorities from issues like enforcing civil rights to instead defending a mass deportation agenda, this foundational tenet had rarely been discussed in federal courtrooms, former judges, lawyers and scholars say. But as Trump’s DOJ exhibits behavior that judges have called “unlawful,” “unethical,” “unseemly” or otherwise dishonest, adherence to that bedrock standard is now being questioned.

ProPublica reviewed hundreds of cases since Trump retook the White House in which judges criticized the actions of DOJ lawyers and found more than 40 in which they explicitly referenced the presumption of regularity. In many cases, judges have expressed frustration that they can no longer take the government at its word.

“Judges simply don’t believe the representations that are being made by United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys and the like,” said John E. Jones, a former federal judge for the District of Pennsylvania, appointed by President George W. Bush.

“I don’t think in the annals of the Department of Justice, in the history of jurisprudence in the United States, we’ve ever seen anything close to this.”

In Rhode Island in May, Trump-appointed federal Judge Mary McElroy rebuked federal prosecutors’ conduct — saying they withheld information and misrepresented facts — as she quashed their requests for a subpoena in their investigation into a hospital’s care of transgender children. The judge alleged the DOJ had inappropriately claimed its investigation was operating out of Texas to secure subpoenas targeting sensitive medical records of patients in another state and that it falsely claimed the Rhode Island hospital hadn’t communicated with the department.

“The discrepancy between the honorable conduct expected of federal prosecutors and DOJ’s tactics in this case is unsettling,” McElroy wrote. “The Court cannot help but share the sentiment that ‘[t]he presumption of regularity that has previously been extended to [DOJ] that it could be taken at its word — with little doubt about its intentions and stated purposes — no longer holds.’”

Judges have emitted a chorus of condemnations against the legal basis for some of Trump’s political agenda, including the mass firings of federal workers, an immigration dragnet that has imprisoned hundreds of U.S. citizens and retribution campaigns against the president’s political enemies.

In doing so, federal judges are imbuing forceful language into their orders in a way that scholars say signals to the Trump administration that the third branch of government is losing trust in the Justice Department.

Federal judges rarely grant interviews, and none of the judges who criticized the Justice Department in their orders granted interviews to ProPublica.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the DOJ said its attorneys are “dedicated public servants who represent the United States with integrity, in accordance with their ethical obligations and the law.”

“The Department stands firmly behind the professionalism and good faith of its attorneys,” said spokesperson Kiersten Pels. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Federal judges have found that the government filed statements generated by artificial intelligence that referenced nonexistent case law, wrote briefs that ignored facts and filed declarations with inaccurate dates, the ProPublica review shows.

In one case, the government included documentation claiming a detainee had been convicted of marijuana possession in 2009. That detainee, the judge noted, citing what she called the government’s persistent “sloppiness,” would have been 4 years old.

“This Court will no longer blindly accept statements of fact from [the U.S. government] unless they are made under oath by an individual with personal knowledge,” Judge Christine O’Hearn, a President Joe Biden appointee, wrote in New Jersey while reviewing a writ of habeas corpus petition filed by a man who claimed he was unlawfully imprisoned by immigration officers. O’Hearn accused the government of defying her orders when, instead of releasing the man, Immigration and Customs Enforcement transferred him to a different facility in New York.

In Minnesota, the state’s top political leaders had publicly clashed with the administration following the violent ICE raids that led to the deaths of two U.S. citizens. Then the administration filed a flurry of subpoenas against them.

Last month, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, who was appointed by George W. Bush and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, slammed the government’s actions and “spurious claims,” saying the presumption of regularity was being abused.

“Initiating a criminal investigation in order to harass political opponents or to coerce them into taking official action — particularly official action that the federal government cannot directly require those political opponents to take — is a blatantly unlawful and unethical use [of] the grand-jury process,” the judge wrote.

“Breakdown” of a Presumption

The presumption of regularity creates a high bar for those suing the government or defending themselves against it in criminal cases. They often must provide evidence that the government willfully violated a policy or otherwise deviated from its charge — that is, did something irregular — to overcome the standard.

It’s a shield the government wields often, with little notice, and one that is almost always successful. But overcoming that presumption has become increasingly common under Trump’s second term, according to court watchers.

About half of the cases ProPublica identified as questioning the presumption come from districts, including D.C., Maryland and Virginia, where by proximity and jurisdiction many of Trump’s actions are challenged and often heard by Democratic-nominated judges. The Southern District of New York, which has issued repeated rebukes of Trump administration actions, and the Northern District of California, another Democratic stronghold, are other hotbeds of judicial scrutiny.

Last September, D.C. District Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui accused the administration of working around the federal grand jury process, getting an indictment from a state court after prosecutors had failed to get one in his court, which he called “unseemly,” if not “unlawful.” He fired off one of the earliest signs that the presumption itself could come into question.

“This only deepens the growing mistrust of the actions of prosecutors,” the judge wrote. “That is a sentiment that was once unthinkable, but the irregular is now the regular.” While the case was largely managed by assistant U.S. attorney Caelainn Carney, according to court transcripts, Faruqui was aiming his frustration at her bosses, including senior prosecutor Jonathan R. Hornok, and the leadership at DOJ. Neither attorney responded to requests for comment.

Pels, the DOJ spokesperson, told ProPublica that Faruqui “was wrong on the law” and noted that after the government appealed to the district’s chief judge, his order was overruled. “Judge Faruqui has a long-standing documented pattern of editorializing from the bench beyond the scope of the cases before him,” Pels added.

But in recent months, skepticism about the presumption has also come from judges appointed by Republicans, such as McElroy, or in GOP strongholds.

In Indiana, Trump-appointed federal Judge James Patrick Hanlon ordered the release of Salah Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee and a lawful U.S. resident, from ICE custody in March. Sarsour’s lawyers argued the government had targeted him to suppress his First Amendment right to free speech. The DOJ invoked the presumption of regularity and argued his arrest was part of an anti-terrorism dragnet, which the judge threw out.

In the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Michael R. Barrett, appointed by George W. Bush, ordered ICE to release a detainee after concluding the presumption had been overcome because the government hadn’t presented a reasonable argument that the man was a flight risk.

News outlets, including CNN, have documented federal judges’ ire with Trump’s DOJ, and some of the cases under question have been well-publicized, such as the government’s illegal deportation of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. In that case, Judge Paula Xinis, a President Barack Obama appointee, criticized the government, saying, “You have taken the presumption of regularity, and you’ve destroyed it.”

Many of the rulings challenged one of Trump’s hallmark efforts: immigration enforcement and deportations.

“The presumption of regularity and integrity previously and routinely afforded to the Executive branch and the United States Attorney’s Office has been undeniably eroded in this jurisdiction and across the country,” O’Hearn wrote in February, noting that the federal government had repeatedly violated court orders in her district and others related to immigration operations.

In another immigration detention case, this one in Washington state, Biden-appointed Judge Lauren King said, “[t]he ‘presumption of regularity’ is dislodged here by the numerous factual errors in Respondents’ filings and by their conflicting representations.”

Jeremy Fogel, executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute and a former federal judge from California, said what’s happening in the courts feels more like a “political conflict” than the normal ebb and flow of the justice system.

“It’s really one branch that is really sort of questioning the legitimacy of the other one,” Fogel said. “I think the judges are trying to stand up for the legitimacy of their branch.”

Just Security, an online law and policy journal, has been tracking cases in which federal judges have admonished Trump’s prosecutors, including those involving the presumption.

“We’re witnessing a breakdown in the ways in which any administration ordinarily carries out its responsibilities, through the Justice Department in particular,” said Ryan Goodman, Just Security’s co-editor-in-chief.

Erosion of Trust, Ethics Inquiries

The erosion of trust from the federal bench comes as Trump has profoundly shifted priorities at the DOJ to align with his political platform: ending civil rights and diversity programs, deporting immigrants and stripping away environmental protections.

Those who deal with DOJ lawyers have noticed the difference in court.

Mitch Bernard, chief counsel at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, has faced off on environmental issues with the DOJ many times. Although they may disagree, he said, he always expected his opponents to be “fair and above board.”

That dynamic is gone, he said.

“I would call it a transformation of the role of the Justice Department,” he said. “There are many different judges in different jurisdictions not only ruling against the government but calling the government out for dishonesty and dissembling, and that’s an extraordinary thing.”

The result, Bernard said, is that “the government will lose more cases as a result of the way the Justice Department is behaving.”

Meanwhile, groups such as his are benefitting from the government brain drain. “We hired 10 litigating attorneys last year,” he said. Of those, eight came from the DOJ.

Judges aren’t just losing faith in the DOJ. Some are pushing to sanction Justice Department lawyers.

This month, Miami federal Judge Kathleen M. Williams ruled that Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS was an improper exercise in self-enrichment, citing the president’s lawyers for a series of misstatements in the case.

The Obama appointee referred the lawyer who brought the president’s case against the IRS, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida Bar for potential disciplinary proceedings. She also forwarded her ruling to disciplinary officials in New York, who had earlier received an ethics complaint about acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

A DOJ spokesperson called the Blanche case “nothing more than a politically motivated bar complaint, filed by partisan activists who disagree with this Administration’s policies.” Brito did not respond to a request for comment.

In Rhode Island, McElroy referred DOJ lawyers to a review board for possible discipline for their handling of the hospital investigation.

“As citizens, we trust that federal prosecutors, when wielding this awesome power against a state, a company, or certainly against vulnerable children, will play fair and be honest with its counterparts and the judiciary,” McElroy wrote. “DOJ has proven unworthy of this trust at every point in this case.”

Filed Under: abuse of power, doj, donald trump, fbi, federal judiciary, judges, presumption of regularity, prosecutions

Roblox has announced a major update to its app that aims to make discovering games and connecting with friends easier. The redesigned app brings game discovery, chat, and player profiles together in one place. The update adds Moments, Chat, and Me tabs. Players in New Zealand will also see the new Build tab during the initial rollout. Roblox says these changes make it easier to discover games and stay connected with friends. The rollout has started in Canada, New Zealand, and Singapore, with more countries expected to receive the update over the coming months.

Moments Tab Makes Finding Games Easier

The Moments tab brings gameplay videos directly into the Roblox app. Players can browse clips shared by friends and selected content creators to explore new games. Every video links to its featured game through the Join button, making it possible to start playing with one tap. This creates a faster and more seamless game discovery experience. Roblox says the feature helps players connect with games they may want to keep playing. Gameplay videos are currently available for age-verified players aged 16 and above, where supported.

Beyond that, there’s the Chat tab that allows easy communication among players while they are playing. The players can initiate conversations before starting a game and continue while they are playing. Roblox will also be able to enable chats across various games without stopping the chat. This makes it easier to recommend games and invite others to play with them. It also uses age checks and chat safety features to protect users.

Me Tab Brings Profiles and Avatars Together

The game has now changed the title of the Avatar page to Me. Players can manage their profile and avatars from this page. There are also new background options for avatars that players can select for their personal accounts. The update makes it easier to customize their Roblox identity without switching between different sections.

Roblox has introduced the Build tab for eligible users in New Zealand as part of a public alpha rollout. This allows you to develop games using the mobile-first Build Tab that goes hand in hand with Roblox Studio. You also have access to the same back-end, models, and even chat history.

Creators can start building a game on their phones using the Build tab and continue editing it later in Roblox Studio with more advanced tools. Once the feature is fully available, they will also be able to start a project in Studio and track its progress from the Roblox app. Roblox says the Build tab is designed to make game creation more accessible and encourage more users to create games on mobile devices.

Apple has spent 12 years strengthening Beats without folding it into AirPods, preserving a separate brand that can reach Android users, compete at lower prices, and sell products that wouldn’t fit under Apple’s own name. Here’s what it looks like inside the Beats lab.

The strategy emerged from a rare look inside Beats’ Culver City operations. Executives described how the company combines its original design and marketing culture with Apple’s engineering resources.

Apple completed its $3 billion acquisition in 2014. Many employees who worked at Beats before the deal remain with the company.

Matthew Costello, Apple’s vice president of hardware engineering, told TechRadar that Beats was developed to complement AirPods rather than duplicate them. The company sells colorful headphones, fitness-focused earbuds and lower-cost products with support for both Apple and Google platforms.

“We took this bet that we would be sort of the dual ecosystem play,” Costello said. “And we said, Google and Apple together.”

The approach expanded Beats’ potential customer base and gives Apple access to buyers who might never consider AirPods. Beats Studio Buds and other products support native features on Android, while AirPods remain designed primarily around Apple devices and services.

Beats also operates at prices Apple has largely avoided with its own audio products. Solo Buds cost $79.99 and use a case without a battery, charging electronics or a pairing button, allowing Beats to make the smallest earbud case either company has shipped.

The buds instead provide up to 18 hours of listening from a single charge. A mechanical switch inside the case wakes the earbuds when the lid opens, preserving the familiar pairing experience without adding electronics to the enclosure.

Beats Studio Buds and other products support native features on Android. Image credit: Beats

The design illustrates why maintaining Beats as a separate operation matters. Apple can apply its manufacturing standards and engineering expertise while allowing Beats to make unconventional trade-offs that would be harder to introduce under the AirPods name.

Apple supplies the engineering underneath Beats

Beats products now go through the same reliability, environmental, wireless and quality testing used for Apple hardware. Its engineering facility includes five anechoic chambers, laboratories dedicated to studying human ears, a listening room and equipment used to examine returned products for recurring failures.

“We’ve learned so much from the teams up in Cupertino, and leveraged the core technologies, the processes, the discipline,” Costello said.

Apple’s influence has also changed the Beats sound. Costello acknowledged that early products were “super boomy,” while newer models have moved toward a more balanced profile shaped by customer feedback and improved testing.

Beats has retained control over its product shapes, colors and cultural partnerships. The company maintains a small customization team that produces one-off headphones for athletes, musicians and celebrities while experimenting with materials and finishes that can later reach retail products.

The transparent Beats Studio Buds Plus followed that path. Engineers originally made a clear prototype to inspect the product’s internal construction, but the marketing team pushed to turn the engineering sample into something customers could buy.

Beats’ value to Apple extends beyond headphones. Image credit: Beats

The positive response influenced the later Solo Buds line, which launched with another transparent option. Beats executives described the custom operation as an incubator where concepts developed for individual partners can eventually become commercial products.

Beats can go where the Apple brand cannot

Beats’ value to Apple extends beyond headphones. The company has moved into iPhone cases and charging cables, and executives said it could explore additional categories as long as the products reflect Beats’ emphasis on design, color and culture.

The difference in style protects Apple from stretching its own brand too far. Beats can support Android, use louder styling, pursue athlete-focused designs and compete at lower prices without changing what customers expect from AirPods.

Apple also benefits from Beats’ approach to marketing. The company has repeatedly placed unannounced products with prominent athletes before formally introducing them, including a forthcoming pair of over-ear headphones spotted at sporting events.

Beats hasn’t announced the product’s name, price or release date. An FCC filing has confirmed that the headphones are real, but predictions about their features or competitive position remain speculative.

Apple’s ownership strategy is clear from what Beats has become. The company didn’t keep the Beats brand just for its logo or celebrity ties, but turned it into a capable hardware business that reaches customers, price points and platforms beyond AirPods.

Beats still looks and behaves like a separate brand from the outside. Underneath, Apple provides much of the technology and discipline that allow it to remain one.