Fight for the Future reports on several kinds of harm that face recognition in schools can do.

To the extent that "exacerbating racial biases" refers to the reported lesser accuracy of today's recognition algorithms for black faces, I consider that an advantage for blacks. (If the algorithms were greatly inaccurate for everyone, we would all be safe from them.)

However, this disparity is likely to be temporary. I am sure that companies are working hard on making recognition accurate for all human faces. Unless we assume that this is impossible, we should not base our campaign against face recognition on the current disparity in accuracy.

On the other hand, to the extent that correct recognition of all students would potentiate the effect of the racial bias in other aspects of the school, that harm will get worse if recognition becomes uniformly accurate. If we can demonstrate this, it will be a good argument to use, one that will tend to get stronger.

The Dutch equivalent of the BBC found it made more money by eliminating cookies and "behavioral advertising", and selling ads based on the specific articles they would accompany.

This seems like a step forward towards privacy, but I can't tell how close it actually gets. Cookies are one way of tracking users, but there are others. Does the broadcaster use IP addresses to determine the user's location?

Does the advertiser send ads directly to the user? If so, it might use various nefarious means to get information about the user without the direct help of the broadcaster — including IP address location and browser profiling.

Novartis agreed to a penalty of almost 700 million dollars for a program of (in effect) bribing doctors.

Ralph Nader calls on Pelosi to resurrect the Office of Technology Assessment, which was eliminated by plutocratist Republicans in the 1990s.

Plutocratists find the rational evaluation of technology a nuisance. When it agrees with what plutocrats demand, they find it superfluous; when it disagrees, they call it an obstacle.

The Satanic Temple has published a "sanctified" ritual which includes carrying out an abortion. Based on this, it asserts that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act makes state laws to restrict abortion invalid against an abortion thus sanctified.

I am not an expert on that law, and I would love to see a lawyer's report on whether this argument is likely to prevail in federal court. I hope it does.