A blog about Technology, new invention and ways of looking.
Person Wearing Mickey Mouse Costume at Disneyland Theme Park

Women receive no shortage of safety advice. Cover your drink. Share your location. Avoid walking at night alone. Text when you get home.

Here is one they may not hear every day: If you think someone wearing smart glasses is secretly recording you, start playing a Disney song.

The advice has begun circulating on LinkedIn, Threads, and other social channels as more people use Meta's smart glasses to covertly film women, prank service workers, and post unsuspecting strangers online. The theory, known as "copyright hacking," is that YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, or another platform will recognize the copyrighted music and prevent the resulting video from being uploaded.

"Because Disney music is more protected than women," one X user wrote. She's not completely wrong.

It sounds like the kind of internet hack that is equal parts clever and depressing. Women are already taught to modify their behavior in response to new risks. Now, as ordinary-looking glasses make it easier to turn a private interaction into public content, they are being handed another instruction.

While this specific piece of advice may be new, the tactic itself is not.

Would playing Disney music actually work?

The theory is based on YouTube’s real copyright system.

YouTube uses an automated tool called Content ID to compare uploaded videos against audio and video submitted by copyright holders. When the system detects a match, the owner can decide whether to monetize the video, track its performance, or block it.

The important part is that not every match results in a takedown. YouTube says monetization is the most common policy applied to music claims. In those cases, the video stays online, but some or all of its advertising revenue may go to the copyright holder.

The rules are stricter for certain Shorts. YouTube says vertical videos between 1 and 3 minutes are blocked when they receive an active Content ID claim. Even then, however, an uploader could shorten the video, remove its sound, replace the audio, or use editing software to separate the speakers’ voices from the background music.

TikTok can similarly mute a sound that violates copyright restrictions without removing the video's visual content. The uploader can then replace the missing audio with another sound.

So yes, playing a Disney song could make a video harder to post or less profitable, and might even get it blocked — but that's not guaranteed.

Social media users were quick to point out the practical problems with this methodology.

"If you are being secretly recorded, how do you know to play the songs?" one user asked on a viral Facebook post by author and content creator Tova Leigh. Others noted that the person wearing the glasses could simply post the footage without sound.

That first question gets at the larger flaw: Meta's Ray-Ban glasses are designed to look like conventional eyewear. The person being filmed may never realize a camera is pointed at them, and even if they notice the small recording light, they’d still need to recognize what it means, reach for their phone, and start playing music before the interaction ends. By that point, they may have already become the content.

Women may not know they are being filmed

The Disney advice is spreading as more women describe discovering that seemingly ordinary encounters were actually being recorded for an online audience.

In February, CNN reported on the rise of "manfluencers" who use smart glasses to film themselves approaching women in airports, grocery stores, gyms, and other public spaces. To the woman involved, the interaction may feel like a stranger starting a conversation. For the creator, it is an opportunity to produce a video for thousands, or even millions, of viewers.

One woman, a DJ and producer who goes by Manic Muse online, said she gave her number to a man who approached her in a Texas grocery store because she believed their conversation was genuine. Her sister later suggested that his glasses might have contained a camera.

"And in that moment, my heart fell to my stomach," she told reporters.

Manic Muse said she messaged the man, asked whether he had recorded her, and told him not to post the interaction. He stopped replying and uploaded it anyway. The video eventually received more than 23 million views.

"It’s just so violating," she added. "I didn’t consent to being secretly recorded, and I definitely didn’t consent to becoming content for millions of strangers.”

Once the footage is online, the recording itself is only the beginning. Viewers may scrutinize the woman's appearance, sexualize her, criticize how she handled the interaction, or search for personal information. What she believed was a private conversation with one stranger can be repackaged as evidence of whether his pickup technique "worked."

The technology has helped creators build entire accounts around people who never agreed to participate. As Mashable previously reported, smart-glasses users have covertly filmed attempts to get women's phone numbers in many public spaces. Other accounts have featured recordings of women’s bodies, sexually suggestive visits to massage parlors, and pranks targeting retail and restaurant employees.

Former prank creator Brad Podray, previously known online as Scumbag Dad, told us in January that women and service workers are often selected precisely because they can provide usable reactions while being less able or willing to challenge the person recording them.

"They want people who are good on camera, so they’re going to hit fast food employees, and they’re going to hit pretty girls," Podray said. "A lot of random women walking around aren’t going to want to participate in a skit if you ask them to, so they remove the agency entirely by just running the glasses."

Meta has attempted to make the recording less discreet. Its glasses include a white LED that signals the camera is operating. But users have also found ways to interfere with it. Stickers designed to conceal the indicator have been sold online, and people in at least 30 states have offered services that physically modify it, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Though Meta has put safeguards in place to make the glasses harder to manipulate, they do not solve the broader consent problem. A person can see the light without understanding what it means. In many cases, they may not even see it.

Police have tried the Disney defense, too

This is not the first time someone has tried to turn copyright enforcement into a shield against a camera.

In April 2022, a Santa Ana, California, police officer played Disney songs while a YouTuber recorded officers investigating a stolen vehicle in his neighborhood. "You've Got a Friend in Me" from Toy Story played through a police vehicle's speakers late at night. It was followed by "We Don’t Talk About Bruno" from Encanto, "Reflection" from Mulan, and "Un Poco Loco" from Coco.

When Santa Ana City Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez asked the officer why he was playing it, the officer pointed toward the person recording.

"Because it will be copyright infringement for him," the officer said in a statement. The department also said playing music while officers were being recorded was not part of its recommended policy.

Still, the Santa Ana incident was part of a pattern that had already appeared in several other departments.

In February 2021, Beverly Hills police officers were recorded playing songs including Sublime's "Santeria" and the Beatles' "Yesterday" during encounters with activist Sennett Devermont. Devermont had been livestreaming his attempts to obtain information and body-camera footage from the department.

The timing suggested the officers might have been attempting to activate Instagram's copyright filters, which can interrupt livestreams or limit how the resulting video gets shared. The Beverly Hills Police Department responded similarly, stating it doesn’t recommend officers play music while being filmed.

A few months later, an Alameda County sheriff’s sergeant played Taylor Swift's "Blank Space" while activists recorded him outside a courthouse in Oakland. This time, the officer explicitly explained what he was doing. "You can record all you want," he said. "I just know it can't be posted on YouTube." A department spokesperson later acknowledged that the attempt had backfired.

The practice also surfaced in Illinois. In an incident report obtained by Motherboard later that year, an officer wrote that he had been "recently advised" to turn on music when he encountered a woman recording him. That detail suggested the tactic was no longer simply occurring to individual officers in the moment; in at least one department, someone appeared to be passing it along as advice.

Platforms are starting to act, but only after the fact

Recording someone in public is not universally illegal in the United States. Laws vary by state, and additional restrictions can apply to audio recording, sexual imagery, stalking, harassment, and the commercial use of someone's likeness. But in general, people have weaker expectations of privacy on a sidewalk, in a park, or in other public places.

Nowadays, though, recording can also violate a platform's rules. Instagram head Adam Mosseri said last week that the platform would remove smart-glasses videos showing people being exploited or harassed.

Meta confirmed that two prominent accounts posting smart-glasses pickup content had been deactivated for violating its harassment policies. Both had amassed more than 1 million followers.

The crackdown creates a clearer consequence for some of the most abusive accounts, but it does not guarantee the removal of every video made without consent. Instagram has focused its policy on harassment and exploitation, leaving a large gray area for recordings that are invasive but do not clearly meet either definition.

More importantly, moderation generally begins after the footage has already been posted. The person recorded must first discover the video, locate the account, report the content, explain the violation, and wait for the platform to decide whether it crossed a line. By then, the video may have already accumulated millions of views or been copied to other accounts.

Government rules are beginning to adapt to technology in certain areas. Beginning July 20, New York prohibited recording-enabled glasses inside every courthouse in the state's Unified Court System. Officials said the ban was intended to prevent people from secretly recording court proceedings in violation of state law and court rules.

Outside those controlled settings, people who do not want to be recorded are still left depending on the wearer’s judgment, a small white light, inconsistent laws, and moderation systems that usually arrive after the damage has begun.

Playing Disney music might occasionally interrupt that process. It could also do absolutely nothing. But when the alternatives are so limited, an unreliable defense may still feel better than no defense at all.



from Mashable https://ift.tt/IvP0MLY
A blog about Technology, new invention and ways of looking.
Amandla Stenberg plays Amari in

When the first trailer for Children of Blood and Bone debuted in Brooklyn this week, the excitement inside the room was palpable.

Director Gina Prince-Bythewood described years of research into African history and spirituality. The cast spoke about identity, ancestry, and the responsibility of bringing Orïsha to life. For fans who have spent years imagining Tomi Adeyemi's bestselling fantasy world, it was the first real glimpse of one of BookTok's most anticipated adaptations.

Outside the theater, however, the conversation surrounding the film has been far more complicated.

Long before audiences saw a single frame of footage, the adaptation had become the subject of debates over colorism, questions about representation, and, more recently, the stunning decision by Adeyemi herself to publicly distance herself from the project she helped develop.

The casting sparked immediate debate.

When Paramount announced the cast in 2025, many readers celebrated seeing a predominantly Black ensemble led by Thuso Mbedu, Regina King, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Cynthia Erivo, Damson Idris, Lashana Lynch, and Idris Elba.

But the announcement also reignited conversations that had followed the adaptation for years.

Much of the criticism centered on the casting of Amandla Stenberg as Princess Amari. In the novel, Amari is described as having "dark copper skin" and is notably darker than the rest of her royal family, a physical difference that contributes to her feeling like an outsider long before she begins questioning the kingdom's treatment of the maji. Many readers argued that casting the lighter-skinned, biracial actor weakened a key aspect of the character's identity and reflected a broader pattern of colorism in Hollywood.

Other fans questioned why relatively few Nigerian actors had been cast in a story so deeply inspired by Nigerian history, Yoruba spirituality, and pre-colonial West African cultures. Those conversations unfolded across Reddit, X, and BookTok, where readers debated what authenticity should look like in a film adaptation of a novel so closely tied to Nigerian identity.

At the time, Stenberg said she understood why readers felt protective of the books and noted that Adeyemi had personally encouraged her to take the role.

Tomi Adeyemi publicly stepped away from the project.

The conversation shifted dramatically earlier this month. In a TikTok (since deleted) addressing fans who had asked why she had stopped promoting the movie, Adeyemi announced she was "officially separating" herself from the adaptation.

"There is a reason I will not post anything about the adaptation of my work," she wrote. She later added that she had not seen the finished film and did not plan to watch it.

Adeyemi, who is credited as an executive producer and co-writer of the screenplay alongside Prince-Bythewood, said she had "tried everything" behind the scenes before deciding to step away, describing the experience as emotionally painful. She encouraged fans to support the film if they wished, but asked those who wanted to support her directly to purchase the books from independent bookstores.

Perhaps the most surprising part of her statement was a series of screenshots showing messages she allegedly sent to Stenberg, telling the actor not to contact her or mention her publicly, before blocking her. The message appears to be from Feb. 28, 2025, and reads: "Do not ever use my name in an interview or video again. Do not text me. Do not call me." Stenberg's previous message in the chain is partially blocked, but the words "my only hope was to reconnect as human beings" can be seen at a point.

The posts immediately reignited online speculation about what had happened behind the scenes, though Adeyemi has not publicly detailed the circumstances that led to the falling out.

Adeyemi's comments have also been viewed through the lens of previous public disputes. In 2018, she accused bestselling romance author Nora Roberts of plagiarizing the title of Roberts' novel Of Blood and Bone. After speaking with Roberts, Adeyemi retracted the allegation, saying she believed the titles had been created independently and apologized. That history has complicated the public response to her latest statements.

While many fans have expressed concern about the adaptation, others say they are hesitant to draw conclusions without more information about what actually happened to lead Adeyemi to sever ties.

What actually happened?

That's the question fans continue to ask, and one that remains largely unanswered.

Neither Paramount nor Prince-Bythewood has publicly addressed Adeyemi's comments, and the author has declined to elaborate beyond describing the experience as painful and saying she was "attacked behind the scenes." In a message dated July 18, posted under a 2025 behind-the-scenes video from set in South Africa, Adeyemi replied to a commenter, saying, "Making an impossible dream come true is a beautiful thing. Even if the dream becomes a nightmare. No one, not this film or you, will ever take away what I achieved."

That uncertainty has left fans in an unusual position. The film continues to generate excitement, buoyed by Prince-Bythewood's reputation following The Woman King, an acclaimed ensemble cast, and a trailer widely praised online. At the same time, some readers say it's difficult to separate that excitement from the knowledge that the creator of Orïsha no longer wants her name associated with the adaptation. Others argue that the work of hundreds of artists, craftspeople, and performers deserves to be judged independently of whatever happened behind closed doors.

Until someone involved chooses to explain further, both realities will likely coexist.

Children of Blood and Bone remains one of the most anticipated fantasy films of 2027. It also arrives carrying questions that no trailer, no matter how spectacular, can answer.

Children of Blood and Bone hits theaters on Jan. 15, 2027.



from Mashable https://ift.tt/c7t9lfm
A blog about Technology, new invention and ways of looking.
A hand grasps a phone showing TikTok's app store page.

A new report accuses TikTok of failing to appropriately moderate a growing "gray market" for GLP-1 weight loss drugs as they continue to surge in popularity.

The content analysis, conducted by gender justice nonprofit UltraViolet, pinpointed hundreds of TikTok accounts promoting unregulated GLP-1 drugs, including GLP-1 alternatives advertised as "research-grade." Accounts often directed users off the platform to purchase drugs on WhatsApp, Discord, and Telegram.

Content about the pharmaceuticals, including the non-FDA approved retatrutide, was easily accessible to users with and without TikTok accounts before and after TikTok's ownership transition in early 2026, the organization found. In addition, the platform's Discover page automatically generated related searches suggesting the sale and purchase of GLP-1s.

Many of the posts specifically targeted women or used photos of real and AI-generated women on account profiles, according to UltraViolet. A large portion of off-market GLP-1 content used harmful messaging about weight loss and appearance, included sexual imagery, or made false claims about women's health, according to the researchers.

UltraViolet reported 202 accounts to the platform for violating Community Guidelines. On average, around one-third of them were removed.

"The volume and accessibility of this content — and the way this content is surfaced and recommended by TikTok’s curation features — suggest the issue is widespread, persistent, and TikTok is not doing enough to stop it," UltraViolet writes.

The organization surveyed the platform in two phases, one prior to TikTok's transition in ownership in late 2025 and one shortly after it was turned over to an American board of investors in early 2026. The analysis notes TikTok updated its Community Guidelines in line with the new ownership before the first phase of the study. The platform also edited its Terms of Service in January.

TikTok's Community Guidelines don't prohibit the discussion or mention of GLP-1 products. The platform also allows pharmaceutical advertising in line with regional laws.

However, the platform prohibits showing or promoting disordered eating or dangerous weight loss behaviors, as well as ads and sponsored posts that are "marketed for weight loss, weight gain, fat reduction, detox, appetite suppressants, or that promote unsafe mental health behaviors." This includes "products that use 'Glucagon-like peptide (GLP), 'GLP-1,' or similar terms in the product title or branding," the company's advertising guidelines state. The policy does not apply to products marketed to support those taking GLP-1 drugs.

In addition, the platform doesn't allow "trading, marketing, or providing access to regulated, prohibited, or high-risk goods and services," or directing users to third-party platforms to acquire such goods. Previously, TikTok explicitly cited both black and gray markets as prohibited "unofficial markets."

"We’ve seen this movie before: Tech oligarchs gain control of huge swaths of the internet and shape the content and ads we see for their own political and financial gain at the cost of user safety and the public good," said UltraViolet campaign director Jenna Sherman. “The twist this time is that we are in an unprecedented age of sophisticated algorithms, groundbreaking weight loss medications, and unhealthy weight-loss obsession. Altogether, it’s a disaster.” 

As of publication, TikTok declined to provide Mashable with an official response to UltraViolet's report.

Last week, Novo Nordisk, makers of Wegovy and Ozempic, filed a lawsuit against competitor Eli Lilly, makers of Zepbound and Mounjaro, accusing the pharmaceutical giant of deceptively marketing its drugs. In the first half of 2025, the two companies spent a total of $700 million marketing their drugs.

Many social media users have reported feeling inundated by GLP-1 advertisements, including those who are in active eating disorder recovery and those who have attempted to block posts about GLP-1s and weight management from their feeds.



from Mashable https://ift.tt/Is5aLWd
A blog about Technology, new invention and ways of looking.
Anthropic and Google logos

If you've used Anthropic's AI chatbot Claude, and shared any of your Claude conversations with friends, those chats may have been publicly available via Google.

That's what emerged this weekend when Reddit users noticed that shared Claude conversations were being indexed by Google Search. Seemingly private conversations between users and the AI chatbot, in other words, were publicly searchable on Google.

According to Reddit, those affected included a Claude user who was creating a crypto wallet and accidentally exposed keys to the currency, and a lawyer asking the chatbot for legal advice on whether they had to self-report a breach of conduct.

Anthropic has since addressed the issue. Google appears to have de-indexed and removed all shared Claude conversations from its search engine as of this writing.

How did this happen?

By default, Claude conversations are private. However, there is a feature which lets users share specific Claude chats. When doing this, Anthropic creates a static page that allows users to share the chat with others — and also made it indexable by search engines.

Simple "noindex" tags can be included in a web page's code, telling search engines not to index a page. It does not appear that Anthropic used those tags. That means each shared Claude conversation had the potential to be indexed by Google.

Reddit users were able to find shared Claude conversations by searching for "site:claude.ai/share." This query would pull up all indexed pages using that URL structure, which every shared Claude conversation utilized.

Does AI have a privacy problem?

The shared Claude chats have since been removed from Google. But this isn't the first time we've seen insecure AI chatbot conversations.

Last year, ChatGPT users experienced the same issue; their shared conversations were also being indexed by Google. OpenAI pulled the feature once users began finding shared conversations in Google Search.

The same thing happened with Claude before too. Just one month after the ChatGPT incident, shared Claude conversations were discovered in Google Search. Anthropic was able to remove them from Google and addressed the issue at the time, saying it had blocked search engine crawlers. Yet it seems shared Claude chats were still being indexed.

Mashable has reached out to Anthropic for more information, and we will update this piece if we hear back.

How can I check privacy on my Claude conversations?

If you've never shared a Claude conversation, you have no need to worry. This wasn't a leak of private conversations, which is what all Claude chats are by default. The issue affected only shared Claude chats. 

If you have shared Claude chats, then there's a chance your conversation was publicly available via Google Search.

To manage that feature, simply login to your Claude account, go to Settings, followed by Privacy, then Shared Chats, and click on Manage. You should see a list of all your shared chats, and sharing can be turned off for all of them.



from Mashable https://ift.tt/40Q1JkB
A blog about Technology, new invention and ways of looking.
A MacBook in a Casetify sleeve and iPhone in a Casetify case sitting on the grass.

TL;DR: Starting July 26, get 15% off two or more items during Casetify's Back-To-School Sale using promo code BTS26.


Credit: Casetify
Get 15% off two or more items using promo code BTS26

I live life on the edge, which is to say I don't even have insurance on my phone. Instead, I put all my faith (and my device's safety) into a good case and a glass screen protector. If you're sending kids back to school, you probably want that same level of protection for their devices, especially since buying a reliable case is a whole lot cheaper than replacing a shattered screen or buying them a brand-new phone.

To help stretch the life of the devices you already own, Casetify is launching a back-to-school promotion. Starting July 26 and running through August 9, you can get 15% off two or more items by using the promo code BTS26 at checkout. (The only catch is that your cart has to include at least one phone case to get the discount.) If you want to save a little extra, checking out through the Casetify app will get you an additional 5% off.

If you prefer to buy things in person, Casetify is available in 343 Target stores nationwide right now, so you can just grab a case while you check off the rest of your school supply list. Just keep in mind that the BTS26 promo code is strictly for online and app orders.



from Mashable https://ift.tt/eVCFJyH
A blog about Technology, new invention and ways of looking.
PDNob Pro PDF Editor: Lifetime Subscription

TL;DR: PDNob Pro PDF Editor combines AI-powered editing, OCR, document summaries, file conversion, and e-signatures in one app. Get a lifetime subscription for $34.99 (reg. $349.95) with code SAVE15.


If you only open a PDF editor a few times per month, paying for a PDF app subscription can feel like overkill. PDNob Pro PDF Editor bundles editing, AI tools, OCR, and file conversions into a one-time purchase for just $34.99 (reg. $349.95) with code SAVE15.

At its core, PDNob handles the PDF basics you’d expect. You can edit text and images without wrecking the formatting, merge and split files, convert PDFs into Word, Excel, or PowerPoint documents, annotate drafts, fill and sign forms, and redact sensitive information before sharing. Equipped with OCR technology, it can also turn scanned contracts, receipts, books, and other image-based documents into editable, searchable files.

Mashable Deals
Be the first to know!
Get editor selected deals texted right to your phone!
By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Thanks for signing up!

It’s more than just a standard PDF editor, though. Instead of reading an entire manual or report, you can use its AI tools to ask questions about a document, generate summaries, translate passages, or pull out key information in seconds. The lifetime license includes 6,000 AI credits, making those features useful long after your first project.

It also works across Windows, Mac, and iPhone, so you’re not locked into a single operating system if you switch devices throughout the day. One license supports two users with simultaneous use on two devices, includes 20GB of cloud storage, and comes with lifetime updates.

Normally $349.95, you can get a lifetime subscription to PDNob Pro PDF Editor for just $34.99 with code SAVE15.

StackSocial prices subject to change.



from Mashable https://ift.tt/S87pnMr
A blog about Technology, new invention and ways of looking.
Trump presents Messi with a World Cup medal

An independent group that monitors potential manipulation of sports competitions has announced the results of a yet-to-be-released report examining irregularities related to betting and gambling on FIFA World Cup matches.

The organization called Group of Copenhagen monitored all 104 matches and determined that 15 games rose to the level of requiring enhanced monitoring. The group also assessed 12 major controversies from an "integrity risk perspective."

While the Group of Copenhagen has yet to release its full detailed report, the New York Times has reported that a few of these flagged events involve the online prediction market Polymarket.

The report singles out how $4.8 million was placed on Polymarket for Spain not to defeat Cape Verde in their group stage game, which was the first game either team played in this year's tournament. The game's result, a goalless draw, was considered to be one of the biggest shocks of the entire World Cup. Spain was a tournament favorite and went on to win the championship. Cape Verde was playing its first-ever World Cup game.

However, much more notable than a surprising game outcome is the market that was opened on Polymarket based on the red card issued to the U.S. Men's National Team striker Folarin Balogun.

According to the report, a Polymarket market was opened on July 2, which asked: “Will Folarin Balogun play against Belgium?” That was the same day that Balogun was issued a red card in U.S.'s match against Bosnia and Herzegovina. The red card meant Balogun would not be able to play in the match against Belgium.

However, on July 5, before the U.S. vs. Belgium match, FIFA announced that Balogun would be allowed to play and that his ban would be suspended. President Donald Trump would take credit for FIFA's decision shortly after, saying he had a phone call with FIFA head Gianni Infantino. Reporting later confirmed that U.S. officials went to work immediately following the red card being issued to have it overturned.

Did Trump officials who were privy to this information partake in insider trading to make a profit on Polymarket? It's a legitimate question to ask, especially in light of recent news that Trump's teleprompter operator profited from their position by placing trades on Kalshi.

Prediction markets have blown up in popularity in recent years. Kalshi, a prediction market that partnered with the World Cup's official prediction market sponsor, ADI Predictstreet, has said that a record $1.2 billion in trades was placed on its platform to predict the World Cup winner. The company said it also gained 3 million new users directly from the World Cup.

According to experts interviewed by the New York Times, the irregularities don't necessarily mean that any manipulation occurred. While the Group of Copenhagen's research was coordinated with FIFA’s own Integrity Task Force, FIFA has released its own findings claiming that “no suspicious betting activity or indications of match manipulation in connection with any fixture” had been identified. 



from Mashable https://ift.tt/qa51Yu7