Attacks against modern generative artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) pose a real threat. Yet discussions around these attacks and their potential defenses are dangerously myopic. The dominant narrative focuses on “prompt injection,” a set of techniques to embed instructions into inputs to LLM intended to perform malicious activity. This term suggests a simple, singular vulnerability. This framing obscures a more complex and dangerous reality. Attacks on LLM-based systems have evolved into a distinct class of malware execution mechanisms, which we term “promptware.” In a ...

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 16 February 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02550-4

A three-round survey of climate change adaptation experts — researchers and practitioners from across the globe — reveals that there is broad agreement on 13 elements that are foundational for defining transformational adaptation to climate risks. Nevertheless, there are differences between response groups on which aspects of transformational adaptation matter the most.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 16 February 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02554-0

Climate change threatens the future of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Here the authors show that individual drainage basins have different thresholds and loss patterns, suggesting the need to consider the dynamical interactive nature of the basins and their individual tipping points.

This is a current list of where and when I am scheduled to speak:

• I’m speaking at Ontario Tech University in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada, at 2 PM ET on Thursday, February 26, 2026.
• I’m speaking at the Personal AI Summit in Los Angeles, California, USA, on Thursday, March 5, 2026.
• I’m speaking at Tech Live: Cybersecurity in New York City, USA, on Wednesday, March 11, 2026.
• I’m giving the Ross Anderson Lecture at the University of Cambridge’s Churchill College at 5:30 PM GMT on Thursday, March 19, 2026.
• I’m speaking at RSAC 2026 in San Francisco, California, USA, on Wednesday, March 25, 2026...

An exploration of the interesting question.

The New York Times reported that Meta is considering adding face recognition technology to its smart glasses. According to an internal Meta document, the company may launch the product “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.” 

This is a bad idea that Meta should abandon. If adopted and released to the public, it would violate the privacy rights of millions of people and cost the company billions of dollars in legal battles.   

Your biometric data, such as your faceprint, are some of the most sensitive pieces of data that a company can collect. Associated risks include mass surveillance, data breach, and discrimination. Adding this technology to glasses on the street also raises safety concerns.  

 This kind of face recognition feature would require the company to collect a faceprint from every person who steps into view of the camera-equipped glasses to find a match. Meta cannot possibly obtain consent from everyone—especially bystanders who are not Meta users.  

Dozens of state laws consider biometric information to be sensitive and require companies to implement strict protections to collect and process it, including affirmative consent.  

Meta Should Know the Privacy and Legal Risks  

Meta should already know the privacy risks of face recognition technology, after abandoning related technology and paying nearly $7 billion in settlements a few years ago.  

In November 2021, Meta announced that it would shut down its tool that scanned the face of every person in photos posted on the platform. At the time, Meta also announced that it would delete more than a billion face templates. 

Two years before that in July 2019, Facebook settled a sweeping privacy investigation with the Federal Trade Commission for $5 billion. This included allegations that Facebook’s face recognition settings were confusing and deceptive. At the time, the company agreed to obtain consent before running face recognition on users in the future.   

In March 2021, the company agreed to a $650 million class action settlement brought by Illinois consumers under the state's strong biometric privacy law. 

And most recently, in July 2024, Meta agreed to pay $1.4 billion to settle claims that its defunct face recognition system violated Texas law.  

 Privacy Advocates Will Continue to Focus our Resources on Meta  

 Meta’s conclusion that it can avoid scrutiny by releasing a privacy invasive product during a time of political crisis is craven and morally bankrupt. It is also dead wrong.  

Now more than ever, people have seen the real-world risk of invasive technology. The public has recoiled at masked immigration agents roving cities with phones equipped with a face recognition app called Mobile Fortify. And Amazon Ring just experienced a huge backlash when people realized that a feature marketed for finding lost dogs could one day be repurposed for mass biometric surveillance.  

The public will continue to resist these privacy invasive features. And EFF, other civil liberties groups, and plaintiffs’ attorneys will be here to help. We urge privacy regulators and attorneys general to step up to investigate as well.  

The agency relied on legal arguments to erase the basis for climate rules, ditching provisions that tried to poke holes in the scientific consensus on global warming.

The president has mocked global warming as a “hoax,” but his administration avoided testing that claim in court as it targeted the endangerment finding.

With its repeal of a scientific finding that requires greenhouse gas regulation, the agency has reopened a long-settled legal question over its own authority to act on climate change.

GOP lawmakers who engage in climate issues have been relatively quiet about the decision.

Revolution Wind in New England is nearing completion after overcoming Trump administration efforts to halt the project.

The state could become the first to sue fossil fuel companies for emissions that allegedly intensify disasters and lead property insurers to raise premiums.

The opposition exposes a fault line in the environmental, labor and business coalition that helped give California Gov. Gavin Newsom a major win on cap and trade last year.

The upshot is that “financial institutions may need to choose between financing growth and maintaining the pace of reducing financed emissions,” the bank said.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz joined industry in attacking the EU carbon market as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen defended its “clear benefits.”

The Associated Press looked at the impact on emissions if 10 percent of Americans changed four everyday behaviors.

The mascots of these Olympics are stoats, weasel-like animals whose fur changes from brown to white for winter, to blend in with the landscape.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 13 February 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02571-7

Planning for climate action in food systems requires disaggregated spatial information on greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Now, a study on the major emission sources for global croplands yields such emissions estimates, identifies the locations of hotspots and assesses mitigation trade-offs with food productivity.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 13 February 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02559-3

This study shows that the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) drives sea surface salinity (SSS) variability in the China Seas through coupled freshwater and oceanic processes, influencing regional fisheries. Under a warming climate, projected intensification of ENSO will amplify SSS heterogeneity.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 13 February 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02561-9

The authors model the emergence of climate-driven changes in Antarctic sea ice, phytoplankton, krill, fish and penguins. They show earlier emergence for higher trophic levels, as well as highly seasonal and regional responses.