

I mean, the real sin here is from the Bluetooth SIG. If you make a radio protocol that broadcasts a unique identifier, it’s going to be abused sooner or later.
Google and Apple already know where Bluetooth devices have traveled if an iOS or Android phone using Location Services has come near them at any point.
Other people, like these ALPR guys, can probably harvest a little more data from users of Bluetooth devices, but they aren’t going to be the most meaningful harvester, as they have far fewer collection points.


















https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/09/us/ai-lawyers-sanctioned-mississippi.html
I think one concerning thing is that this is the easiest thing to check. I mean, at some point, I assume that someone is going to rig something up to LexisNexis to actually validate the existence of cited cases, because that’s pretty simple and mechanical. Heck, even those lawyers, even if they don’t have any tech people at their fingertips, could have had a paralegal check citations or something. It really shouldn’t be that fundamentally hard for a lawyer to avoid getting in trouble for this specific issue, even if they generated the text with an LLM.
My bigger concern is that if lawyers are willing to put stuff like this out, they’re presumably also willing to put out information that hasn’t been checked where the errors are subtler and it’s harder to find erroneous material. In the case of citing nonexistent cases, it’s really easy to say “the lawyer clearly didn’t even look at this”, because it’s hard to make that kind of error if you have read over it. This is, once highlighted, flagrant and obvious. But…there’s potential for subtler errors, where it’s harder to tell whether the lawyer did at least try to review the material and just made a basic error, and thus it’s harder to impose punishments for it.