privacy

BUSINESS class is a rare luxury – a chance for those with deep pockets to sip champagne, lie flat and catch the latest movies at 35,000 feet.

But what if the option to recline was taken away…

As well as the large TV screen… Would you even be left with a business class seat? One airline thinks so.

Trinity Airways’ new business class seat features a sofa-like chair and a wraparound privacy screen… And that is it.

There is no recline option nor a TV screen.

The plane does have WiFi onboard so you can watch films on your own laptop or tablet though.

Read more on travel inspo

ALL IN

I found the best value all inclusive London hotel… just £55pp with free food & booze

SO FLY

Our fave beach hols under 5 hours from UK with Caribbean dupes & £2 bottles of wine

This ‘no frills’ seat is the new option on the South Korean budget carrier’s rebranded cabins on its new Airbus A330-900neo jets.

The seat is called SoFab and is despite being around since 2023, Trinity recently adopted the seat and is currently the only airline to have it onboard its planes.

Unlike most business class seats that recline, have a large – and usually – LED screen and a cosy lie-flat bed, SoFab instead takes it back to basics.

When you do want to sleep, you will have to pull a tab and a cushioned ottoman will slide out, filling the gap between the seat and the footwell to create the long bed.

This means you can sit upright with your legs stretched out or slouch down into the chair, lying across it and the ottoman.

Reports claim that SoFab’s bed is around 25 per cent larger than other business class seats.

In total it stretches, 198cm long (roomy enough for someone who is 6’5 to lie flat) and 102cm wide.

Across the cabin, these seats are arranged in a 1-2-1 layout so that each passenger can directly access the aisle.

Instead of each seat featuring a door, a curved shell wraps around the passenger acting as a privacy screen,

And for the two passengers in the middle of the plane, there is also a privacy divider between them.

Of course, like most seats, there is air conditioning as well as a USB socket.

As for when it comes to meal time, the tray table can also be a side table – which means passengers don’t have to fully collapse the table just to get up and pop to the loo.

And because the seats down have a screen, the plane is cheaper to fly, which also means cheaper tickets.

While Trinity Airways doesn’t fly direct from the UK, a one-way trip from Rome to Seoul for example, costs around £1,296.21 for a business class seat in December.

In comparison, a one-way trip from Rome to Seoul with Korean Air in business class costs around £1,816.96.

An Icelandic web company, FlokiNET, has defended the data’s publication as satisfying a ‘legitimate’ public interest.

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has asked an Icelandic web hosting company to take down a site with information about tens of thousands of its employees.

On Thursday, the Icelandic company FlokiNET posted a letter it received from the cybersecurity firm ZeroFox, on behalf of DHS.

The letter accused FlokiNET of violating its terms of service by publishing a “stolen” employee dataset and asked it to “remove or disable” the information.

“The content is live and places more than 40,000 identifiable individuals at risk of harassment, stalking, and physical harm,” the letter said.

FlokiNET said the letter concerned one domain, icepi.cx, which has compiled information about employees from a range of DHS agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Those agencies have come under intense scrutiny since the start of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign in 2025.

But the Trump administration has often refused to identify DHS agents involved in specific operations, citing safety risks.

Though FlokiNET said it refused to comply with DHS’s request, it noted that the website’s registrar ultimately suspended the domain. The employee information has since moved to a different domain.

In a statement posted online, FlokiNET defended its decision not to remove the site.

“Federal officers carrying out an enforcement programme are not private individuals while they are carrying it out,” the company said. “The public has a legitimate interest in knowing who is doing that work, under whose authority, and in which office.”

The database was first posted online on Wednesday by Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoSecrets), a group that showcases leaked government data.

In the past, DDoSecrets has released emails from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as well as information from the Israeli Ministry of Justice and police departments in the US.

A hacker group calling itself the “Department of Peace” has claimed responsibility for obtaining and sharing the DHS data.

Since the database was first published, other groups have spread the information elsewhere, including on sites like icepi.cx. As a result, the information is unlikely to be entirely scrubbed from the internet.

The Trump administration, however, has taken an aggressive approach to online platforms purporting to contain information about ICE employees and other agents involved in immigration operations.

Last year, for instance, the US Department of Justice pressured tech giants like Apple to remove apps that track ICE agents, including one called ICEBlock.

The move sparked backlash from Democrats and free-speech advocates, who argued that the public has a right to report on ICE’s movements.

“Blocking access to these apps at the request of the federal government raises the distinct possibility that Apple is working with government to violate its customers’ First Amendment right to record and report on the activities of their government,” Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin wrote in a letter last year, asking Apple to review its decision.

Immigration agents, meanwhile, have taken several steps to conceal their identities during operations, including wearing face masks or street clothes.

That lack of transparency has spurred criticism from human rights groups and immigration advocates, who argue that they have little recourse to pursue allegations of excessive force or impropriety during ICE raids.

Since Trump was sworn in for a second term, at least 25 people have faced gunfire from immigration agents. Six of the shootings have resulted in deaths.

Other cases have involved alleged violations of civil liberties – including unlawful arrests and racial profiling – as well as controversial tactics like car ramming and tackling.

Meta, the company behind Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp has been hit with the largest ever fine against it for its business practices.

A judge in New Mexico on Wednesday ordered the company to pay $25bn (£18.6bn) following a two week trial earlier this year that found it had spent years lying to the public about how it handled Facebook user data.

“The lies extend beyond Facebook’s data practices as well,” the judge said, adding they went to “the heart of Facebook’s core business practices.”

The fine is the largest to date against Meta, which has either been fined or agreed to settle several other lawsuits this year, including an $18bn deal with California over child safety.

The lawsuit stemmed from the role of Meta, then known as Facebook, in what became known as the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

That firm utilized data and information from millions of Facebook users as part of its work in political consulting, including on work related to the 2016 US Presidential election, which saw Donald Trump elected for the first time.

The US Federal Trade Commission in 2019 levied a $5bn fine against the company over its data privacy practices.

Lawyers for New Mexico sued the company over many statements Meta executives had made over the years that user data was never shared with or accessed by third parties without a user’s permission, when in reality it had been.

They claimed that the entire population of the state, roughly 2 million people, was impacted by Meta’s dishonesty regarding the way it controlled user data. A jury found that Meta had violated state laws more than 40 million times.

“For too long, powerful technology companies have operated as though their size and influence put them beyond the reach of the law,” New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez said Wednesday.

“Today’s result makes clear that no corporation is too powerful to be held accountable.”

The state lawyers sought up to $40bn in fines against Meta. Meta had argued anything beyond $3.4bn would be unconstitutional.

Judge Francis Mathew on Wednesday was direct in his decision to fine Meta an amount roughly equal to its profits each quarter.

He said Meta’s violations of law and misrepresentations to the public about how their Facebook data was used and shared were “willful” and spanned “more than 11 years,” stretching from 2010 to 2021.

Communications between senior executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, were “designed to mislead the public,” Judge Mathew wrote in his order.

While the full amount of the penalty against Meta, based on thousands of violations of state law, was calculated as $219bn, Judge Mathew reduced the penalty to the $25bn fine.

A spokesperson for Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

New Mexico has been one of Meta’s most notable adversaries in court. The state this year also fined Meta almost $1bn for misleading the public about the safety of its social media platforms for children.

The judge overseeing that lawsuit ultimately compared Meta to an industrial polluter of the air, with its form of pollution being “the psychological harm and sexual exploitation of children.”

California and several other states had collectively sued Meta over similar issues related to a lack of child safety features on Meta’s platforms and resulting harms to children.

Meta and the states reached a mutual settlement deal, which did not include a fine or any admission of wrongdoing, to end that case only a few days into what was expected to be a multi-week trial.

For months before carrying out Canada’s deadliest school shooting in almost four decades, Jesse Van Rootselaar was consulting an unlikely adviser on how to perpetrate mass murder.

“In a hallway, indoors, or a crowded classroom, the 870 [Remington shotgun] is brutal … Close quarters is its playground,” OpenAI’s ChatGPT guided the 18-year-old, according to reports.

On February 10, 2026, Van Rootselaar shot his mother and half-brother at home before going to a school in the small British Columbia town of Tumbler Ridge, where he killed another six people – including five students – before taking his own life.

Earlier this week, on October 14, US authorities charged a Washington State man with allegedly conspiring with Van Rootselaar to plan the attack. But the mass shooting incident has raised questions that go beyond the traditional legal understanding of culpability.

The British Columbia government in September filed a civil lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, accusing them of failing to prevent the incident and claiming they were aware of the conversations that turned deadly. Families of the victims also filed separate lawsuits. OpenAI’s leadership issued a public apology for their failure to notify authorities.

The company has not responded to requests from Al Jazeera for its comments on the lawsuits.

But as the case against OpenAI progresses, it has spurred a familiar debate: Where should a line be drawn between reporting potentially dangerous behaviour and protecting an individual’s privacy?

“The question of whether companies should be required to turn such information over to law enforcement is extraordinarily difficult, particularly if they don’t already screen chats for indications of such types of threats,” United States-based civil liberties lawyer Jenin Younes told Al Jazeera.

“Forcing companies to implement a surveillance system implicates very serious civil liberties concerns, and that’s probably a bridge too far for me,” Younes added.

“On the other hand, AI gives individuals access to types and quantities of information they didn’t have previously that may facilitate the commission of mass casualty events, a concern it’s not easy to dismiss.”

AI’s ability to distinguish thoughts from threats

One of the biggest challenges facing AI companies is determining whether a user expressing violent thoughts actually intends to act on them.

In August, Anthropic, the company behind AI chatbot Claude, flagged a user to San Francisco police after discovering conversations allegedly threatening its CEO, Dario Amodei.

According to the San Francisco Standard, citing a police report, the user had claimed to possess an AR-15 gun and suggested he had Amodei “in his sights”.

However, when contacted by the newspaper, the man said he was joking and had no intention of carrying out any form of violence. The person was neither charged nor detained, the Standard said.

Fazl Barez, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford specialising in AI safety and governance, said current AI models cannot “reliably” determine whether an interaction with an AI chatbot “is purely hypothetical or is likely to lead to harmful behaviour”.

“Suppose you are a creative writer working on a fictional story and want to explore how a murder plot might unfold. From the context, it may be clear that this is simply a fictional narrative. If the threshold for flagging potentially harmful content is too low, such a writer could be wrongly flagged,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Similarly, consider a graduate student in biology or chemistry studying pathogens that, if misused, could have serious consequences. They might be trying to understand the risks associated with these pathogens and how to mitigate them. Such discussions may be necessary for legitimate research and education. Even when the subject matter is sensitive, they should not automatically be flagged without considering the broader context.”

The researcher said identifying a credible threat may require examining a user’s interactions across multiple conversations, rather than relying on isolated statements.

Barez said someone experiencing intrusive violent thoughts might turn to a chatbot for support, while another person planning an attack may reveal their intentions gradually across several conversations.

“Distinguishing between the two requires careful consideration of context, intent and patterns of behaviour, rather than relying on individual statements alone,” he added.

Chinmayi Sharma, a law professor at Fordham University, said the debate has parallels with the duty imposed on mental health professionals to warn identifiable third parties about credible threats.

However, she said there was a key difference – therapists have professional training, knowledge of their patients and enforceable standards governing their conduct. AI companies do not necessarily have comparable safeguards.

“My concern with AI companies is that right now there’s not a concerted effort to hire mental health professionals, sociologists, individuals that would have the unique expertise on what the indicators of threat are here,” Sharma told Al Jazeera.

“Secondly, licensed professionals are accountable to concrete, legally enforceable standards in their discipline. We don’t have something like that for AI companies.”

The privacy dilemma

The privacy implications extend beyond whether AI companies can accurately identify threats. Millions of people use chatbots to discuss relationships, emotional distress, mental health concerns and deeply personal experiences.

Civil liberties lawyer Younes said many users may not realise how vulnerable those conversations could be to disclosure.

“They often reflect a person’s innermost thoughts, questions, and desires. The majority of people assume that these dialogues will never be viewed by another person,” Younes, president and legal director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said.

Younes warned that the consequences of greater monitoring could extend well beyond those planning violence.

“If people fear their chats can be turned over to law enforcement simply because they express disturbing thoughts/violent fantasies etc, many will be dissuaded from using them,” she told Al Jazeera.

Younes argued that forcing companies to establish systems for monitoring users and reporting conversations could raise serious constitutional concerns in the US, including protections against unreasonable searches.

Meanwhile, Fordham’s Sharma also raised an issue about who could be disproportionately affected by heavy monitoring by AI chatbots.

“The concern is always there about either intentional or unintentional targeting, because if you have models trained on what we consider dangerous speech, they’re almost always going to reflect biases,” she said. “Certain minorities’ speech is over‑flagged as a threat, while other comparable speech is not.

“Even in a world in which everyone is benevolent, we should still be concerned about disparate outcomes,” she said, warning that machines could reproduce such disparities at scale.

‘Not a licensed therapist’ – When do AI companies become liable to report?

While AI companies may face moral pressure to prevent violence, their legal obligations are less clear, legal experts say.

Bryan Choi, a professor of law at the University of Colorado Boulder, said US law recognises a duty to warn in certain circumstances, including when mental health professionals become aware of imminent threats or when a special relationship exists between parties.

But those principles do not necessarily apply to AI companies.

“Under present case law, it seems unlikely that a company such as OpenAI would be held to have such duties to warn,” Choi told Al Jazeera. “The chatbot is not a licensed therapist. There is no special relationship between the company and the victims.”

Choi said existing negligence and product liability laws could potentially be applied to AI companies, but proving responsibility would present significant challenges.

Finding a balance

Fordham’s Sharma suggested that independent institutions could help establish reporting standards rather than leaving decisions entirely to private companies or requiring immediate disclosure to police.

Such bodies she said could develop procedures for assessing threats and explore ways of sharing only relevant information while protecting users’ identities and other personal details.

Meanwhile, Younes argued that users should, at a minimum, be clearly informed about whether their conversations are monitored and what circumstances could lead to information being shared with law enforcement.

“This is almost certainly an issue that will be wrestled with over the coming years, and I’m not sure anyone knows the solution at this particular point in time,” she said.

“Events that have not yet occurred will likely influence how these policies are shaped.”

SACRAMENTO — A private prison company is challenging a new California law requiring detention centers to provide medical care, privacy and other civil rights to people detained by federal immigration authorities.

GEO Group, a for-profit prison company, filed a complaint in federal court over Senate Bill 942, also called the Civil Detainees’ Bill of Rights Act of 2026. It mandates that immigrant and other detainees are afforded privacy, safety, hygienic living conditions and other rights.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the law last week as part of a package of bills to push back on the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement, which the Democratic governor described as “Orwellian.” GEO Group filed its complaint the day after Newsom signed the law.

SB 942 declares that detainees at state, local and privately run facilities have the right to medical, dental and mental health care; physical exercise; clean drinking water and functioning toilets; and other rights. It allows the attorney general to bring civil action against private and public entities that allegedly violate those rights.

GEO Group attorneys argue in the federal complaint that while California elected officials “may disagree with federal immigration policy,” the state “may not impose its preferred immigration-detention standards on federal detention operations, whether those standards would tighten, loosen, supplement, or otherwise alter the federal framework.”

According to its website, the company operates six detention facilities in California, four of which are housing detainees under contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That includes a shuttered state prison that began holding ICE detainees earlier this year.

GEO Group has had some previous success challenging laws seeking to undermine the private prison industry’s role in federal immigration enforcement. A federal court struck down a 2019 law that attempted to bar any “private detention facility within the state” after the company filed suit.

Representatives for GEO Group did not respond to a request for comment. Spokespeople for Newsom, Atty Gen. Rob Bonta and state Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Salinas), who authored the bill, did not immediately comment on the lawsuit.