regulation

iowa-county-adopts-strict-zoning-rules-for-data-centers,-but-residents-still-worry

Iowa county adopts strict zoning rules for data centers, but residents still worry


Though the rules are among the strictest in the US, locals say they aren’t enough.

A rendering of the QTS data center currently under construction in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Credit: QTS

PALO, Iowa—There are two restaurants in Palo, not counting the chicken wings and pizza sold at the only gas station in town.

All three establishments, including the gas station, stand on the same half-mile stretch of First Street, an artery that divides the marshy floodplain of the Cedar River to the east from hundreds of acres of cornfields on the west.

During historic flooding in 2008, the Cedar River surged 10 feet above its previous record, cresting at 31 feet and wiping out homes and businesses well outside the floodplain.

Nearly 20 years later, those structures have been rebuilt, but Palo residents still worry about the river. Except these days, they worry that data centers will drink it dry.

In an effort to shield residents and natural resources from the negative impacts of hyperscale data center development in rural Linn County, officials have adopted what may be one of the most comprehensive local data center zoning ordinances in the nation.

The new ordinance requires data center developers to conduct a comprehensive water study as part of their zoning application and to enter into a water-use agreement with the county before construction. It also places limits on noise and light pollution, introduces mandatory setbacks of 1,000 feet from residentially zoned property, and requires developers to compensate the county for damage to roads or infrastructure during construction and to contribute to a community betterment fund.

“We are trying to put together the most protective, transparent ordinance possible,” Kirsten Running-Marquardt, chair of the Linn County Board of Supervisors, told the nearly 100 residents who gathered for the draft ordinance’s first public reading in early February.

But seated beneath a van-sized American flag hanging from the rafters of the drafty Palo Community Center gymnasium, residents asked for even stronger protections.

One by one, they approached the microphone at the front of the gym to voice concerns about water use, electricity rates, light pollution, the impacts of low-frequency noise on livestock, and the county’s ability to enforce the terms of the ordinance. Some, including Dorothy Landt of Palo, called for a complete moratorium on new data center development.

“Why has Linn County, Iowa, become a dumping ground for soon-to-be obsolete technology that spoils our landscape and robs us of our resources?” Landt asked. “While I admire the efforts of the Board of Supervisors to propose a data center ordinance, I would prefer to see all future data centers banned from Linn County.”

The county is already home to two major data center projects, operated by Google and QTS. Both are located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa’s second-largest city, and are therefore subject to its laws. The new ordinance would apply only to unincorporated areas of the county, which make up more than two-thirds of its geographic footprint.

In October 2025, Google informed the Linn County Board of Supervisors of early plans to construct a six-building campus in Palo, part of unincorporated Linn County, alongside the soon-to-reopen Duane Arnold Energy Center, Iowa’s sole nuclear power plant. Later that month, Google signed a 25-year power purchase agreement with the plant, committing to buy the bulk of the electricity it generates.

A view of the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Palo, Iowa.

Credit: NextEra Energy

A view of the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Palo, Iowa. Credit: NextEra Energy

Google has not yet submitted a formal application to the county for the second campus, but its announcement last year, as well as interest from another, unnamed, hyperscale data company, prompted Linn County officials to begin work on an ordinance setting the terms for any new development, said Charlie Nichols, director of planning and development for Linn County.

“I just don’t want to be misled by anything. … I want to know as much as possible before we go ahead with this,” Sue Biederman of Cedar Rapids told supervisors at the public meeting in February.

In drafting the ordinance, Nichols and his staff drew on the experiences of communities nationwide, meeting with local government officials in regions that have seen massive booms in data center development, including several counties in northern Virginia, the “data center capital of the world.”

As data center development balloons, many communities that initially zoned the operations as warehouses or standard commercial users are abandoning that practice, Nichols noted.

The extreme energy and water demands of data centers simply cannot be accounted for by existing zoning frameworks, he said. “These are generational uses with generational infrastructure impacts, and treating them as a normal warehouse or normal commercial user is just not working.”

Loudoun County, Virginia, for example, is home to 198 data centers, nearly all of which were built before the county required conditional or “special exception” use designations for data centers. At the urging of hyperscale-weary residents, the county is now in the second phase of a plan to establish data-center-specific zoning standards.

Similar reassessments are taking place across the country, Chris Jordan, program manager for AI and innovation at the National League of Cities, wrote in an email to Inside Climate News. “We’re seeing tighter zoning standards, more required impact studies, and in some cases temporary moratoria while communities assess infrastructure capacity,” Jordan wrote.

The Linn County, Iowa, ordinance goes one step further than tightening existing zoning rules. Instead, it creates a new, exclusive-use zoning district for data centers, granting county officials the power to set specific application requirements and development standards for projects.

Residents of Linn County, Iowa, gather at the Palo Community Center on Feb. 4 to comment on a draft of a new data center ordinance.

Credit: Anika Jane Beamer/Inside Climate News

Residents of Linn County, Iowa, gather at the Palo Community Center on Feb. 4 to comment on a draft of a new data center ordinance. Credit: Anika Jane Beamer/Inside Climate News

No other counties in the state have introduced similar zoning requirements, said Nichols. In fact, few jurisdictions nationwide have.

“Linn County’s approach is more comprehensive than many local zoning updates we’ve seen,” Jordan wrote. The creation of a data center-specific district, especially one that requires formal water-use agreements and economic development agreements, goes further than typical zoning amendments for data centers, Jordan said.

Despite the layers of protection baked into the new ordinance, Linn County still has limited ability to protect local water resources. Without a municipal water utility, permitting in rural Iowa communities falls to the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR), explained Nichols. Similarly, electric rates fall under the jurisdiction of the state utilities commission and cannot be regulated by the county.

Data centers may tap rivers or drill deep wells into shared aquifers, so long as that use complies with the terms of their water-use permit from the Iowa DNR. That leaves the Cedar River and public and private wells, which provide drinking water to much of Linn County, vulnerable.

Residents fear a new, large water user will dry up their wells, as occurred near a Meta data center in Mansfield, Georgia.

“We know that we can have multi-year droughts. The question is, are we depleting that river and the water table faster than it’s running?” Leland Freie, a Linn County resident, told supervisors at the first public meeting on the ordinance.

Without superseding state authority, the Linn County ordinance attempts to claw back a bit more local control, Nichols explained.

As part of their zoning application, data centers would submit a study “prepared by a qualified professional” assessing the capacity of proposed water sources, anticipating demands and cooling technologies, and developing contingency plans in case the water supply is interrupted.

Credit: Inside Climate News

Credit: Inside Climate News

Requiring a water study ensures, at a minimum, a baseline understanding of local water resources and dynamics near proposed data centers. That’s something the state of Iowa generally lacks, said Cara Matteson, a former geologist and the sustainability director for Linn County.

DNR staff told Matteson that water data gathered in Linn County by qualified researchers on behalf of a data center applicant would be incorporated in state-level permitting and enforcement decisions.

The department confirmed in an email to Inside Climate News that it would use the additional local water data.

If a data center’s application is approved, developers would then enter into an agreement with Linn County, outlining terms for water-use monitoring and reporting to both the county and the DNR. The agreement could also include contingency plans for droughts.

Still, the county has limited ability to act on the water monitoring data it’s seeking. The DNR doesn’t just issue water-use permits; it also issues penalties for permit violations.

Linn County’s zoning rule underwent several modifications in response to questions raised by attendees at the first two public readings, Nichols said.

From its first reading to final adoption, the ordinance has expanded to include language setting light pollution standards, requiring a waste management plan, including the Iowa DNR in the water-use agreement to address potential well interference issues, and requiring an applicant-led public meeting before any zoning commission meetings.

“I am very confident that no ordinance for data centers in Iowa is asking for more information or asking for more requirements to be met than our ordinance right now,” said Nichols at the final reading.

The Cedar Rapids Metro Economic Alliance has said that it strongly supports current and future data center development in the area. The new ordinance is not an effective moratorium, Nichols said. He said he “strongly believes” that a data center can be built within the adopted framework.

Google spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment.

New rules may prompt data centers to develop elsewhere, acknowledged Brandy Meisheid, a supervisor whose district includes many of Linn County’s smaller communities. But the ordinance sets out to protect residents, not developers, Meisheid said. “If it’s too high a price for them to pay, they don’t have to come.”

Anika Jane Beamer covers the environment and climate change in Iowa, with a particular focus on water, soil, and CAFOs. A lifelong Midwesterner, she writes about changing ecosystems from one of the most transformed landscapes on the continent. She holds a master’s degree in science writing from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as a bachelor’s degree in biology and Spanish from Grinnell College. She is a former Outrider Fellow at Inside Climate News and was named a Taylor-Blakeslee Graduate Fellow by the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News.

Photo of Inside Climate News

Iowa county adopts strict zoning rules for data centers, but residents still worry Read More »

epa’s-pfas-rules:-we’d-prefer-zero,-but-we’ll-accept-4-parts-per-trillion

EPA’s PFAS rules: We’d prefer zero, but we’ll accept 4 parts per trillion

Approaching zero —

For two chemicals, any presence in water supplies is too much.

A young person drinks from a public water fountain.

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it has finalized rules for handling water supplies that are contaminated by a large family of chemicals collectively termed PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances). Commonly called “forever chemicals,” these contaminants have been linked to a huge range of health issues, including cancers, heart disease, immune dysfunction, and developmental disorders.

The final rules keep one striking aspect of the initial proposal intact: a goal of completely eliminating exposure to two members of the PFAS family. The new rules require all drinking water suppliers to monitor for the chemicals’ presence, and the EPA estimates that as many as 10 percent of them may need to take action to remove them. While that will be costly, the health benefits are expected to exceed those costs.

Going low

PFAS are a collection of hydrocarbons where some of the hydrogen atoms have been swapped out for fluorine. This swap retains the water-repellant behavior of hydrocarbons while making the molecules highly resistant to breaking down through natural processes—hence the forever chemicals moniker. They’re widely used in water-resistant clothing and non-stick cooking equipment and have found uses in firefighting foam. Their widespread use and disposal has allowed them to get into water supplies in many locations.

They’ve also been linked to an enormous range of health issues. The EPA expects that its new rules will have the following effects: fewer cancers, lower incidence of heart attacks and strokes, reduced birth complications, and a drop in other developmental, cardiovascular, liver, immune, endocrine, metabolic, reproductive, musculoskeletal, and carcinogenic effects. These are not chemicals you want to be drinking.

The striking thing was how far the EPA was willing to go to get them out of drinking water. For two chemicals, Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), the Agency’s ideal contamination level is zero. Meaning no exposure to these chemicals whatsoever. Since current testing equipment is limited to a sensitivity of four parts per trillion, the new rules settle for using that as the standard. Other family members see limits of 10 parts per trillion, and an additional limit sets a cap on how much total exposure is acceptable when a mixture of PFAS is present.

Overall, the EPA estimates that there are roughly 66,000 drinking water suppliers that will be subject to these new rules. They’ll be given three years to get monitoring and testing programs set up and provided access to funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to help offset the costs. All told, over $20 billion will be made available for the testing and improvements to equipment needed for compliance.

The Agency expects that somewhere between 4,000 and 6,500 of those systems will require some form of decontamination. While those represent a relatively small fraction of the total drinking water suppliers, it’s estimated that nearly a third of the US’ population will see its exposure to PFAS drop. Several technologies, including reverse osmosis and exposure to activated carbon, are capable of pulling PFAS from water, and the EPA is leaving it up to each supplier to choose a preferred method.

Cost/benefit

All of that monitoring and decontamination will not come cheap. The EPA estimates that the annual costs will be in the neighborhood of $150 billion, which will likely be passed on to consumers via their water suppliers. Those same consumers, however, are expected to see health benefits that outweigh these costs. EPA estimates place the impact of just three of the health improvements (cancer, cardiovascular, and birth complications) at $150 billion annually. Adding all the benefits of the rest of the health improvements should greatly exceed the costs.

The problem, of course, is that people will immediately recognize the increased cost of their water bills, while the savings of medical problems that don’t happen are much more abstract.

Overall, the final plan is largely unchanged from the EPA’s original proposal. The biggest differences are that the Agency is giving water suppliers more time to comply, somewhat more specific exposure allowances, and the ability of suppliers with minimal contamination to go longer in between submitting test results.

“People will live longer, healthier lives because of this action, and the benefits justify the costs,” the agency concluded in announcing the new rules.

EPA’s PFAS rules: We’d prefer zero, but we’ll accept 4 parts per trillion Read More »

us-agency-tasked-with-curbing-risks-of-ai-lacks-funding-to-do-the-job

US agency tasked with curbing risks of AI lacks funding to do the job

more dollars needed —

Lawmakers fear the NIST will have to rely on companies developing the technology.

They know...

Enlarge / They know…

Aurich / Getty

US president Joe Biden’s plan for containing the dangers of artificial intelligencealready risks being derailed by congressional bean counters.

A White House executive order on AI announced in October calls on the US to develop new standards for stress-testing AI systems to uncover their biases, hidden threats, and rogue tendencies. But the agency tasked with setting these standards, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), lacks the budget needed to complete that work independently by the July 26, 2024, deadline, according to several people with knowledge of the work.

Speaking at the NeurIPS AI conference in New Orleans last week, Elham Tabassi, associate director for emerging technologies at NIST, described this as “an almost impossible deadline” for the agency.

Some members of Congress have grown concerned that NIST will be forced to rely heavily on AI expertise from private companies that, due to their own AI projects, have a vested interest in shaping standards.

The US government has already tapped NIST to help regulate AI. In January 2023 the agency released an AI risk management framework to guide business and government. NIST has also devised ways to measure public trust in new AI tools. But the agency, which standardizes everything from food ingredients to radioactive materials and atomic clocks, has puny resources compared to those of the companies on the forefront of AI. OpenAI, Google, and Meta each likely spent upwards of $100 million to train the powerful language models that undergird applications such as ChatGPT, Bard, and Llama 2.

NIST’s budget for 2023 was $1.6 billion, and the White House has requested that it be increased by 29 percent in 2024 for initiatives not directly related to AI. Several sources familiar with the situation at NIST say that the agency’s current budget will not stretch to figuring out AI safety testing on its own.

On December 16, the same day Tabassi spoke at NeurIPS, six members of Congress signed a bipartisan open letter raising concern about the prospect of NIST enlisting private companies with little transparency. “We have learned that NIST intends to make grants or awards to outside organizations for extramural research,” they wrote. The letter warns that there does not appear to be any publicly available information about how those awards will be decided.

The lawmakers’ letter also claims that NIST is being rushed to define standards even though research into testing AI systems is at an early stage. As a result there is “significant disagreement” among AI experts over how to work on or even measure and define safety issues with the technology, it states. “The current state of the AI safety research field creates challenges for NIST as it navigates its leadership role on the issue,” the letter claims.

NIST spokesperson Jennifer Huergo confirmed that the agency had received the letter and said that it “will respond through the appropriate channels.”

NIST is making some moves that would increase transparency, including issuing a request for information on December 19, soliciting input from outside experts and companies on standards for evaluating and red-teaming AI models. It is unclear if this was a response to the letter sent by the members of Congress.

The concerns raised by lawmakers are shared by some AI experts who have spent years developing ways to probe AI systems. “As a nonpartisan scientific body, NIST is the best hope to cut through the hype and speculation around AI risk,” says Rumman Chowdhury, a data scientist and CEO of Parity Consultingwho specializes in testing AI models for bias and other problems. “But in order to do their job well, they need more than mandates and well wishes.”

Yacine Jernite, machine learning and society lead at Hugging Face, a company that supports open source AI projects, says big tech has far more resources than the agency given a key role in implementing the White House’s ambitious AI plan. “NIST has done amazing work on helping manage the risks of AI, but the pressure to come up with immediate solutions for long-term problems makes their mission extremely difficult,” Jernite says. “They have significantly fewer resources than the companies developing the most visible AI systems.”

Margaret Mitchell, chief ethics scientist at Hugging Face, says the growing secrecy around commercial AI models makes measurement more challenging for an organization like NIST. “We can’t improve what we can’t measure,” she says.

The White House executive order calls for NIST to perform several tasks, including establishing a new Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute to support the development of safe AI. In April, a UK taskforce focused on AI safety was announced. It will receive $126 million in seed funding.

The executive order gave NIST an aggressive deadline for coming up with, among other things, guidelines for evaluating AI models, principles for “red-teaming” (adversarially testing) models, developing a plan to get US-allied nations to agree to NIST standards, and coming up with a plan for “advancing responsible global technical standards for AI development.”

Although it isn’t clear how NIST is engaging with big tech companies, discussions on NIST’s risk management framework, which took place prior to the announcement of the executive order, involved Microsoft; Anthropic, a startup formed by ex-OpenAI employees that is building cutting-edge AI models; Partnership on AI, which represents big tech companies; and the Future of Life Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to existential risk, among others.

“As a quantitative social scientist, I’m both loving and hating that people realize that the power is in measurement,” Chowdhury says.

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

US agency tasked with curbing risks of AI lacks funding to do the job Read More »

challenges-behind-applying-real-world-laws-to-xr-spaces-and-ensuring-user-safety

Challenges Behind Applying Real-World Laws to XR Spaces and Ensuring User Safety

Immersive technologies bridging the gap between the physical and digital worlds can create new business opportunities. However, it also gives rise to new challenges in regulation and applying real-world laws to XR spaces. According to a World Economic Forum report, we are relatively slow in innovating new legal frameworks for emerging technologies like AR and VR.

Common Challenges of Applying Laws to AR and VR

XR technologies like AR and VR are already considered beneficial and are used in industries like medicine and education. However, XR still harbors risks to human rights, according to an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) article.

Issues like data harvesting and online harassment pose real threats to users, and self-regulation when it comes to data protection and ethical guidelines is insufficient in mitigating such risks. Some common challenges that crop up when applying real-world laws to AR and VR include intellectual property, virtual privacy and security, and product liability.

There’s also the need for a new framework tailored to fit emerging technologies, but legislative attempts at regulation may face several hurdles. It’s also worth noting that while regulation can help keep users safe, it may also potentially hamper the development of such technologies, according to Digikonn co-founder Chirag Prajapati.

Can Real-World Laws Be Applied to XR Spaces?

In an interview with IEEE Spectrum in 2018, Robyn Chatwood, an intellectual property and information technology partner at Dentons Australia, gave an example of an incident that occurred in a VR space where a user experienced sexual assault. Unfortunately, Chatwood remarked that there are no laws saying that sexual assault in VR is the same as in the real world. When asked when she thinks these issues will be addressed, Chatwood remarked that, in several years, another incident could draw more widespread attention to the problems in XR spaces. It’s also possible that, through increased adoption, society will begin to recognize the need to develop regulations for XR spaces.

On a more positive note, the trend toward regulations for XR spaces has been changing recently. For instance, Meta has rolled out a minimum distance between avatars in Horizon Worlds, its VR social media platform. This boundary prevents other avatars from getting into your avatar’s personal space. This system works by halting a user’s forward movement as they get closer to the said boundary.

There are also new laws being drafted to protect users in online spaces. In particular, the UK’s Online Safety Bill, which had its second reading in the House of Commons in April 2022, aims to protect users by ensuring that online platforms have safety measures in place against harmful and illegal content and covers four new criminal offenses.

In the paper, The Law and Ethics of Virtual Assault, author John Danaher proposes a broader definition of virtual sexual assault, which allows for what he calls the different “sub-types of virtual sexual assault.” Danaher also provides suggestions on when virtual acts should be criminalized and how virtual sexual assault can be criminalized. The paper also touches on topics like consent and criminal responsibility for such crimes.

There’s even a short film that brings to light pressing metaverse concerns. Privacy Lost aims to educate policymakers about the potential dangers, such as manipulation, that come with emerging technologies.

While many legal issues in the virtual world are resolved through criminal courts and tort systems, according to Gamma Law’s David B. Hoppe, these approaches lack the necessary nuance and context to resolve such legal disputes. Hoppe remarks that real-world laws may not have the specificity that will allow them to tackle new privacy issues in XR spaces and shares that there is a need for a more nuanced legal strategy and tailored legal documents to help protect users in XR spaces.

Issues with Existing Cyber Laws

The novelty of AR and VR technologies makes it challenging to implement legislation. However, for users to maximize the benefits of such technologies, their needs should be considered by developers, policymakers, and organizations that implement them. While cyber laws are in place, persistent issues still need to be tackled, such as challenges in executing sanctions for offenders and the lack of adequate responses.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) also cites several obstacles to cybercrime investigations, such as user anonymity from technologies, attribution, which determines who or what is responsible for the crime, and traceback, which can be time-consuming. The UNODC also notes that the lack of coordinated national cybercrime laws and international standards for evidence can hamper cybercrime investigations.

Creating Safer XR Spaces for Users

Based on guidelines provided by the World Economic Forum, there are several key considerations that legislators should consider. These include how laws and regulations apply to XR conduct governed by private platforms and how rules can potentially apply when an XR user’s activities have direct, real-world effects.

The XR Association (XRA) has also provided guidelines to help create safe and inclusive immersive spaces. Its conduct policy tips to address abuse include creating tailored policies that align with a business’ product and community and including notifications of possible violations. Moreover, the XRA has been proactive in rolling out measures for the responsible development and adoption of XR. For instance, it has held discussions on user privacy and safety in mixed reality spaces, zeroing in on how developers, policymakers, and organizations can better promote privacy, safety, and inclusion, as well as tackle issues that are unique to XR spaces. It also works with XRA member companies to create guidelines for age-appropriate use of XR technology, helping develop safer virtual spaces for younger users.

Other Key Players in XR Safety

Aside from the XRA, other organizations are also taking steps to create safer XR spaces. X Reality Safety Intelligence (XRSI), formerly known as X Reality Safety Initiative, is one of the world’s leading organizations focused on providing intelligence and advisory services to promote the safety and well-being of ecosystems for emerging technologies.

It has created a number of programs that help tackle critical issues and risks in the metaverse focusing on aspects like diversity and inclusion, trustworthy journalism, and child safety. For instance, the organization has shown support for the Kids PRIVACY Act, a legislation that aims to implement more robust measures to protect younger users online.

XRSI has also published research and shared guidelines to create standards for XR spaces. It has partnered with Standards Australia to create the first-ever Metaverse Standards whitepaper, which serves as a guide for standards in the metaverse to protect users against risks unique to the metaverse. These are categorized as Human Risks, Regulatory Risks, Financial Risks, and Legal Risks, among other metaverse-unique risks.

The whitepaper is a collaborative effort that brings together cybersecurity experts, VR and AR pioneers, strategists, and AI and metaverse specialists. One of its authors, Dr. Catriona Wallace, is the founder of the social enterprise The Responsible Metaverse Alliance. Cybersecurity professional Kavya Pearlman, the founder and CEO of XRSI, is also one of its authors. Pearlman works with various organizations and governments, advising on policymaking and cybersecurity to help keep users safe in emerging technology ecosystems.

One such issue that’s being highlighted by the XRSI is the risks that come with XR data collection in three areas: medical XR and healthcare, learning and education, and employment and work. The report highlights how emerging technologies create new privacy and safety concerns, risks such as the lack of inclusivity, the lack of equality in education, and the lack of experience in using data collected in XR spaces are cropping up.

In light of these issues, the XRSI has created goals and guidelines to help address these risks. Some of the goals include establishing a standards-based workflow to manage XR-collected data and adopting a new approach to classifying such data.

The EU is also taking steps to ensure data protection in emerging technologies, with new EU laws aiming to complement the GDPR’s requirements for XR technologies and services. Moreover, the EU data protection law applies to most XR technologies, particularly for commercial applications. It’s possible that a user’s explicit consent may be required to make data processing operations legitimate.

According to the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), policymakers need to mitigate so-called regulatory uncertainty by making it clear how and when laws apply to AR and VR technologies. The same ITIF report stresses that they need to collaborate with stakeholder communities and industry leaders to create and implement comprehensive guidelines and clear standards for AR and VR use.

However, while creating safer XR spaces is of utmost importance, the ITIF also highlights the risks of over-regulation, which can stifle the development of new technologies. To mitigate this risk, policymakers can instead focus on developing regulations that help promote innovation in the field, such as creating best practices for law enforcement agencies to tackle cybercrime and focusing on funding for user safety research.

Moreover, the ITIF also provides some guidelines regarding privacy concerns from AR in public spaces, as well as what steps leaders and policymakers could take to mitigate the risks and challenges that come with the use of immersive technologies.

The EFF also shares that governments need to execute or update data protection legislation to protect users and their data.

There is still a long way to go when applying real-world laws to XR spaces. However, many organizations, policymakers, and stakeholders are already taking steps to help make such spaces safer for users.

Challenges Behind Applying Real-World Laws to XR Spaces and Ensuring User Safety Read More »