Tech
Privacy will be under unprecedented attack in 2026 | Computer Weekly
The privacy of electronic communications will face new risks in 2026, as the UK and other governments push for greater capabilities to harvest and analyse more data on private citizens, and to make it harder to protect communications with end-to-end encryption.
Over the next 12 months, we can expect more pressure from the UK and Europe to restrict the unencumbered use of end-to-end encrypted email and messaging services such as Signal, WhatsApp and many others.
In the 1990s, the US government tried and ultimately failed to persuade telecommunications companies to install a device known as the Clipper chip to provide the US National Security Agency (NSA) with “backdoor” access to voice and data communications.
The Crypto wars of 2026 are more subtle, with controls and restrictions on encryption pushed by governments, law enforcement agencies and intelligence services as a means of detecting child sexual abuse and terrorist material being promulgated through encrypted email and messaging systems.
The answer governments are settling on is to encourage the use of scanning technology in a voluntary or compulsory way, to identify problematic content before it is encrypted.
Cryptographers and computer scientists have repeatedly warned that such plans will create security vulnerabilities that will leave the public less safe than before.
Chat Control and client-side scanning
The European Parliament and Council are expected to adopt the controversial Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR) in spring 2026. In its current form, it proposes that messaging platforms voluntarily scan private communications for offending content, combined with proposals for age verification to check the age of users.
Known by the nickname Chat Control, its critics – such as former MEP Patrick Breyer, a jurist and digital rights activist – claim the regulation will open the doors to “warrantless and error-prone” mass surveillance of European Union (EU) citizens by US technology companies. The algorithms, say critics, are notoriously unreliable, potentially exposing tens of thousands of legal private chats to police scrutiny.
Chat Control will also put pressure on technology companies to introduce age checks to help them “reliably identify minors”, a move that would likely require every citizen to upload an ID or take a face scan to open an account on an email or messaging service. According to Breyer, this creates a de facto ban on anonymous communication, putting whistleblowers, journalists and political activists who rely on anonymity at risk.
Online Safety Act
In the UK, there remain concerns about provisions in the Online Safety Act that, if implemented by regulator Ofcom, would require technology companies to scan encrypted messages and emails.
These powers attracted widespread criticism from technology companies as the bill passed into law, with Signal warning it would pull its encrypted messaging service from the UK if it was forced to introduce what it called a “backdoor”.
Commentators think there is little current appetite for Ofcom to mandate client-side scanning for private communications, given the level of opposition.
But it may require providers of public and semi-public services, such as cloud storage, to introduce scanning services to detect illegal content.
“I think they may be waiting to see what happens in Europe with the Chat Control proposal, because it’s quite hard for the UK to go alone,” James Baker, campaigner at the Open Rights Group, told Computer Weekly.
Perceptual hash matching
One of the items on Ofcom’s agenda is a form of scanning, known as perceptual hash matching, which uses an algorithm to decide whether images or videos are similar to known child abuse or terrorism images.
A consultation document from Ofcom proposes requiring tech platforms that allow users to upload or share photographs, images and videos – including file storage and sharing services, and social media companies – to introduce the technology for detecting terrorism and abuse-related material.
“We also think some services should go further – assessing the role that automated tools can play in detecting a wider range of content, including child abuse material, fraudulent content, and content promoting suicide and self-harm, and implementing new technology where it is available and effective,” it says in its consultation document.
But there are questions about the accuracy of perceptual hash matching, and the risk that its use may lead to people wrongly being barred from online services for alleged crimes they have not committed.
Critics point out that perceptual hash matching used to be called “fuzzy matching” – and for good reason. Although its new name, “perceptual hash matching”, gives the impression of precision and predictability, in reality, it produces false positives and negatives.
Hundreds of people have been blocked from Instagram, owned by Meta, after being wrongly accused of breaching Meta’s policies on child sexual exploitation and abuse. The company’s actions took a huge emotional toll on the people affected, and in some cases led to people losing their online businesses, the BBC reported in October 2025.
Alec Muffett, security expert and former Facebook engineer, told Computer Weekly that Ofcom’s proposals display “a horrifying lack of safety by design” and said its proposal to force companies to adopt the technology without mitigating the potential risks is “derelict”.
“Perceptual hashing is just a fancy name for what we used to call ‘fuzzy matching’ with ‘digital fingerprints’, and even if we ignore the problem of false positives, we are left with the risk of creating an enormous cloud surveillance engine by logging all queries for even benign digital fingerprints,” he said.
Encryption apps viewed as national security risk
There are signs of increasing government discomfort with encrypted communications. In December 2025, the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation delivered a stark warning that developers of encryption technology could be subject to police stops, detention and questioning, and the seizure of their electronic devices under national security laws.
According to Jonathan Hall KC, the developer of an app whose selling point is that it offers end-to-end encryption, could be considered to be unwittingly engaged in “hostile activity” under Section 3 of the Counterterrorism and Border Security Act 2019.
“It is a reasonable assumption that [the development of the app] would be in the interests of a foreign state even if the foreign state has never contemplated this potential advantage,” he wrote.
Digital ID all over again
The UK’s proposals for a mandatory digital ID scheme look set to be another battleground for privacy in 2026. The government says the scheme will help to crack down on illegal immigration by introducing mandatory “right to work” checks by the end of the Parliamentary term.
MPs were scathing when the bill was introduced in Parliament. “The real fear here is that we will be building an infrastructure that can follow us, link our most sensitive information and expand state control over all our lives,” said Rebecca Long-Bailey during the debate. Others raised concerns about the cyber security risks of storing details of the population on a central government database.
Gus Hosein, executive director of campaign group Privacy International, notes that the Home Office is repeating the same arguments originally put forward in 2023 when Tony Blair attempted to introduce a national identity card. The scheme was scrapped by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition in 2010. “It’s just the same boring rhetoric: ‘It’s going to stop ID fraud, it’s going to stop terrorism, it’s going to stop migration problems,’” he said. “Do we really have to go through the whole process of debunking this again?”
Hosein said the prospects of the Home Office coming up with a workable system before the next election are low. The political climate is different this time. Nearly three million people have signed a Parliamentary petition calling for the idea to be scrapped. “If they try and do the classic thing, which is to try and build something grand and momentous, it will take forever,” he said. “I would not mind an ID system that actually worked, I just don’t want the Home Office within 10,000 miles of it.”
When combined with facial recognition, digital ID raises further privacy issues. Campaign groups are expected to bring a legal challenge in 2026 after Freedom of Information Act requests revealed that the government covertly allowed police forces to search 150 million UK passport and immigration database photos for matches of images captured by facial recognition technology.
Big Brother Watch and Privacy International have issued legal letters before action to the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police. They argue that there is no clear legal basis for the practice and that the Home Office has kept the public and Parliament in the dark.
“There is a risk when you roll out digital facial recognition cameras that the images used for digital ID will be used to track you around town centres,” said the Open Rights Group’s Baker.
Apple backdoors and technical capability notices
This year will see further legal challenges at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal against the Home Office’s secret order issued against Apple, requiring it to facilitate access for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to encrypted data stored by Apple’s customers on iCloud.
Scheduled for the spring, the case brought by Privacy International and Liberty will challenge the lawfulness of the Home Office using a technical capability notice (TCN) to require Apple to disclose the encrypted data of users of its Advanced Data Protection (ADP) service worldwide.
Apple is expected to issue a new legal challenge after the UK government abandoned its original wide-ranging TCN and replaced it with an order focused on providing access only to ADP users in the UK, ending Apple’s legal challenge, at least for now.
The case has the potential to turn into a mammoth battle, reaching the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.
Surveillance of journalists
This year will also see further legal challenges that will test the boundaries between state intrusion and the professional privileges accorded to lawyers and journalists to protect the confidentiality of their clients or journalistic information.
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal is due to decide on a case brought by the BBC and former BBC journalist Vincent Kearney against the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Security Service, MI5.
The Security Service broke with the conventions of Neither Disclose Nor Deny (NCND) to acknowledge to the tribunal that it had unlawfully obtained phone communications data from Kearney in 2006 and 2009, while he was working at the BBC, in an attempt to identify his confidential sources.
Although MI5 followed the Communications Data code of practice at the time, the code did not meet the strict legal tests for accessing journalistic material, which is protected under the European Convention of Human Rights.
In a judgment just before Christmas, the IPT rejected arguments that MI5 should disclose further details of surveillance operations against Kearney and other BBC journalists, including operations that had proper legal approval. The IPT will decide what remedy is due in 2026, and whether Kearney and the BBC should receive compensation.
Another legal case will test the boundaries between police surveillance and the legal protection given to lawyers to protect the confidentiality of discussions with their clients when subject to police stops.
Fahad Ansari, a lawyer who acted for Hamas in an attempt to overturn its proscription as a terrorist organisation in the UK, had his mobile phone seized by police after he was detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at a ferry port, after returning from a family holiday.
The case is believed to be the first targeted use of Schedule 7 powers – which allow police to stop and question people and seize their electronic devices without the need for suspicion – against a practising solicitor.
Ansari is seeking a judicial review to challenge the right of police to examine the contents of his phone, which contains confidential and legally privileged material from his clients, accumulated over 15 years.
The legal fallout from EncroChat and SkyECC
The legal fallout from an international police operation to hack encrypted phone network Sky ECC and EncroChat more than five years ago will continue.
French police led operations to harvest tens of millions of encrypted messages used as evidence of criminality to bring prosecutions against drug gangs across Europe and the UK.
Defence lawyers and forensic experts have raised questions about the reliability of the evidence supplied by the French to the UK and EU states through Europol.
France has declared the hacking operation against EncroChat and Sky ECC a state secret and refused to allow members of the French Gendarmerie to give evidence on how the intercepted data was obtained.
This has meant individuals facing charges outside France based on evidence from EncroChat or SkyECC have no legal recourse to challenge the legality of the French hacking operation.
Courts in the EU are obliged to accept the evidence provided by France under the “mutual recognition” principal that applies when one EU state supplies evidence to another under a European Investigation Order.
At the same time, people have been denied the right to challenge the evidence against them in the French courts, leaving people charged with offences based on the hacked phone data without legal recourse to appeal in any jurisdiction.
Decisions by the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, expected this year, could end that anomaly.
In one case, the French Supreme Court – La Cour de cassation – has asked the Court of Justice to decide whether France’s refusal to allow non-French citizens to challenge the lawfulness of the French hacking operations in France contravenes EU law. According to La Cour de cassation, the decision is likely to have “significant consequences” for legal proceedings based on intercepted evidence in the EU.
In the second case, the European Court of Human Rights is expected to decide on a complaint from a German citizen, Murat Silgar, who was jailed for drug offences on the basis of EncroChat evidence.
Silgar argues that the German courts had used illegally obtained communications data and that technical details of the French retrieval of EncroChat data were not shared with him, in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects the right to a fair trial, and the right to private correspondence.
Justus Reisginer, a member of a coalition of defence lawyers known as the Joint Defence Team, told Computer Weekly the cases would address “a fundamental principle” in cross-border and digital investigations. “The law of the European Union requires that people have an effective remedy,” he said.
These are just a few of the battle lines between technology and privacy that will play out in 2026. For governments, the promise of a “technical fix” to deal with wider societal problems, such as child abuse and terrorism offences, is attractive. But history has shown that “technical fixes” rarely work, and often have unforeseen consequences.
If you’ve been following last year’s smart ring drama, you may have seen that the number of health-tracking rings you can buy has shrunk since October 21, 2025.
As we reported in August, the US International Trade Commission ruled in favor of Oura in a patent case in which Oura alleged that its competitors RingConn and Ultrahuman had infringed on the company’s patent for a smart ring that tracks health and fitness stats. Oura’s victory subsequently led to RingConn and Ultrahuman being banned from importing new rings into the US.
The lawsuit was bad news for both Oura competitors, and especially Ultrahuman, which had planned to expand its US-based manufacturing facility to meet growing market demand (and ostensibly to also get around the new US tariffs). Ultrahuman is distinguished from Oura in that its smart ring does not have a subscription; Oura users pay $6 per month to use its rings.
I caught up briefly with Ultrahuman’s chief business officer, Bhuvan Srinivasan, to clarify the company’s next steps to address the US market, and find out more about the latest smart ring squabbles.
Why Were the Rings Banned?
The ITC ruled that RingConn and Ultrahuman had infringed on the 178 patent, which protects a specific ring hardware design—for example, if the ring has a layered arrangement with internal and external components housing interior electrical components.
If you think this is a surprisingly broad description that can cover … well, pretty much any smart ring, or a wide range of electronic devices in general, you are correct. Over the past few years, many smart ring manufacturers have been embroiled in legal disputes over this patent.
This has panned out in a few different ways. In 2024, Oura announced that it had reached a multi-year licensing agreement with Circular, the French smart ring manufacturer, that would allow Circular to continue selling new rings in the US. (This move looks a little less generous when you consider that my two-week testing period of the Circular Ring 2 was plagued with server and connection issues.)
Also in 2024, Samsung attempted to preemptively sue Oura against future patent infringement claims in a case which a judge dismissed. Samsung’s concerns were not unwarranted. In late 2025, Oura then filed another complaint against Samsung (the Galaxy Ring), Reebok (the Reebok smart ring), Zepp Health (Amazfit ring), and Nexxbase (the Luna Ring). Oura then reached a licensing agreement with RingConn and another competitor, Omate, that would allow the company to continue selling rings in the United States.
When Joseph Pilates developed what he first called Contrology in the early 20th century, there were no dedicated studios or intimidating contraptions. There wasn’t even a reformer yet. (That came later, improvised from leather straps and hospital bed frames.) The idea was simple then, and it still is now: Pilates asks you to work with what you already have. Your body does the work, and a mat just makes it more comfortable.
Pilates is about moving with intention. Total body exercises are rooted in precision and balance, favoring slow, controlled movements over momentum or strength. Full range of motion, emphasizing time under tension, deep core engagement, and uniformity of mind, body, and spirit are emphasized. It sounds peaceful, but it’s not exactly the easiest workout.
The right gear won’t do the workout for you, but it can make it more comfortable, more effective, and frankly, more fun. Below, we’ve gathered the best Pilates equipment worth having for home workouts, whether you’re a beginner or deep in your Pilates princess era. For more wellness recommendations, check out our other guides, including the Best Protein Powders, Best Massage Guns, and Yoga Mats, Props, and Everything Else You Need for Your Practice.
Featured In This Guide
-SOURCE-Forme.jpg)
Jump to
Pilates Clothes
Nothing motivates me to work out quite like a great Pilates outfit. You can technically wear just about anything, but I would stick to more fitted activewear, so your Pilates instructor can check your form. Avoid loose or oversized clothing, and prioritize stretchy fabrics that won’t restrict movement. This lineup of athleisure has been tried and tested in Pilates; they move well, feel comfortable, and hold up every session.
If you buy one thing, make it grippy socks. Whether you’re on a mat or a reformer machine, those rubberized soles help prevent slipping and sliding, giving you better traction and stability during movements. A good pair can also offer light cushioning and arch support. If you’re practicing in a shared studio or using communal equipment, breathable Pilates socks are a hygienic upgrade, too.
We want our bottoms to stay put through roll-ups, leg circles, and long pulses, without digging or losing shape. They also need to be squat-proof. High-waisted leggings (full-length or capri) made from a soft, stretchy fabric are ideal for Pilates and other low-impact workouts. Biker shorts also work, but in a heated class, an extra layer of fabric can help maintain grip on props during leg work.
These are the best leggings for Pilates based on our testing, including a Lululemon biker short we love. For more favorites, check out our Best Leggings guide.
For Pilates, look for low- to medium-impact styles that are typically supportive without feeling compressive. I gravitate toward wide bands with no underwires that won’t dig in during floor work, but I’m also aware that those features might not be supportive for bigger busts. These are our top favorites, including a posture-correcting bra if alignment or lower back pain is a concern. For more picks, check out our Best Sports Bras guide.
An all-in-one jumpsuit with a built-in bra takes the guesswork out of getting dressed for Pilates. Our favorites offer supportive, comfortable coverage that moves with you from warm-up to cooldown.
Pilates-Specific Gear
You can absolutely do Pilates with nothing but yourself, but if you want to turn up the intensity or vary your workout routines, here are a few must-haves.
Exercise mats are essential because they deliver much-needed padding to cushion your joints during floor work. The proper ones are designed with a grippy, textured surface for added traction. They keep you steady, supporting better control. And they serve as a protective barrier between your skin and the yucky floor.
I also always need a towel when working out, and if you’re taking a heated class, this is especially necessary to absorb sweat. Pro tip: You can also turn your towel into a resistance band by twisting it and pulling against it. For more picks, check out our Best Yoga Mats guide.
You don’t need to splurge on a $2,000 reformer to practice Pilates at home. I take heated mat Pilates at my local fitness studio twice a week, and we usually use a combination of props: an exercise ball, Pilates ring (aka. a magic circle), and light weights. I like to use 2- or 3-pound dumbbells, but wrist and ankle weights don’t require grip strength and still add extra intensity to your full-body Pilates workout. Core sliders, which go under your hands or feet, add resistance to your movements and are an affordable alternative to the springs of a reformer.
We’ve spotlighted a few of our favorites below, but you can find more tested picks in our Best Reusable Water Bottles guide.
Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.
The European Commission has published its implementation strategy for the VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) package, setting out actions to help businesses and Member States with the practical roll-out of upcoming VAT framework updates.
The European Commission has released its implementation strategy for the ViDA package, outlining actions and timelines for rollout.
ViDA introduces digital reporting, platform economy VAT rules, and single VAT registration to simplify compliance.
Expected benefits include €172– 214 billion (~$201.6–250.9 billion) over ten years, with €51 billion (~$59.8 billion) in business savings.
The ViDA package introduces new digital reporting requirements, targeted VAT adaptations for the platform economy, and a streamlined single VAT registration process, aiming to simplify compliance and reduce administrative burdens. The strategy provides a roadmap with key action points and timelines to ensure coordinated implementation across the EU.
By aligning ViDA measures with broader EU digital policies, the Commission seeks to enhance transparency in digital transactions and support businesses operating across borders, European Commission said in a release.
The approach also emphasises close monitoring of ViDA’s integration with other legislative efforts to maximise efficiency and strengthen the Single Market.
The Commission estimates that the ViDA package could generate economic benefits of €172– 214 billion (~$201.6–$250.9 billion) over ten years, including around €51 billion (~$59.8 billion) in savings for businesses. The strategy underscores the EU’s commitment to modernising its VAT system to meet the demands of the digital economy while boosting competitiveness.
Fibre2Fashion News Desk (HU)
PGA of America CEO steps down after one year to take care of mother and mother-in-law
Bama QB Simpson says he’s headed to NFL draft
Does new US food pyramid put too much steak on your plate?
-
Entertainment1 week agoGeorge Clooney, his wife Amal and their twins granted French citizenship
-
Sports1 week agoMorocco reach AFCON last 16 | The Express Tribune
-
Business1 week agoA major drop in the prices of petroleum products is likely with the arrival of the New Year. – SUCH TV
-
Fashion1 week agoUK year-end review 2025: Seeking new avenues
-
Fashion1 week agoSaat & Saat acquires Turkish apparel leader Aydinli Group
-
Sports1 week ago
Tom Wilson’s New Year’s Eve: Two goals, a fight, a win and an Olympic nod
-
Business1 week agoOctopus Energy to spin off $8.65bn tech arm Kraken
-
Business7 days agoEnergy price cap rises slightly as temperatures fall