Latest news with #New York Times
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘If I switch it off, my girlfriend might think I'm cheating': inside the rise of couples location sharing
When Alan and his partner got together, they were 'both in failing marriages'. 'If location tracking had been an option for our ex-spouses in those days, things would have been rather different,' he says. Alan, from north Oxfordshire, is still a fan of location sharing, despite the fact it would have once thwarted his romantic indiscretions. 'I'm sure we would have still ended up together, but navigating the clandestine meetings would have been trickier.' The ability to share your location on your mobile phone has become a common way to keep tabs on friends, family and romantic partners. For some, it has become the signifier of a serious relationship: last year, the New York Times called location sharing 'the final frontier in digital expressions of coupledom' and likened it to the Instagram 'hard launch' (effectively announcing that you're in a relationship by posting a photo of your partner for the first time). Others location-share on a whim and find themselves able to track the whereabouts of people they haven't seen in person for years. But while it may have become the norm in certain circles, many remain resistant to what can feel like yet more digital surveillance. Just because we have the ability to know where our loved ones are at all times, does that mean we should? I've never shared my location with anyone beyond time-limited sharing on WhatsApp – usually while attempting to meet someone in a vague location such as the park. But I agree to try it out with my partner for a week in order to gauge the appeal, or lack of. We're often in different cities – but I feel I usually have a good idea of his whereabouts, and vice versa. I'm not expecting any surprises. After consenting to mutual location sharing via the iPhone's Find My app – while sitting in the same room – I notice that we also have the option to set up notifications. He's keen to know that I've got home safely when we're not together – and safety is certainly a big part of the appeal for many users – so I allow the app to alert him each time I reach my front door. In a disappointingly heteronormative and retrograde move, I'm more interested in knowing when he goes out – where's he off to now? – and set up my own notifications accordingly. Apple's Find My function launched in 2009 under the name Find My iPhone, using GPS technology to help users locate missing devices. Find My Friends was launched as a separate app in 2011, and reportedly marketed to anxious parents who were keen to know the whereabouts of their children. Speaking to people who habitually use location trackers, this still seems to be one of the primary uses of these kinds of apps, as is tracking the location of elderly parents; the emphasis with both is on safety. When it comes to friends and partners, however, motives are more varied, ranging from curiosity to coercion. The two Apple apps were merged in 2019, and simply called Find My. Google's Find Hub, formerly known as Find My Device, performs a similar function on Android, while apps such as Life360 offer a 'comprehensive solution for families with mixed device environments' – ie a blend of iPhones and Android phones. The official X account for Life360, incidentally, feels very much geared towards younger generations, with posts such as, 'i love it when someone says they checked my location. like thx for checking on me' and 'She follows you on Instagram and me on Life360 … we are not the same.' This makes sense: a recent Australian survey found that nearly one in five young people (18-24 years old) think it's OK to track their partner whenever they want. Having grown up with the internet, gen Z are, generally, more comfortable sharing their data online; Snapchat, the social media platform notoriously most popular with younger users, has long incorporated location sharing with its Snap Maps feature. But Joanna Harrison, a couple therapist and the author of Five Arguments All Couples (Need to) Have, believes location sharing can threaten the 'balance between independence and togetherness' that is important in all relationships, particularly romantic ones. 'It would be a shame if these apps took away an opportunity to share the details of each other's independent lives because they already knew them,' she says. 'There's also a part of me that feels that a bit of romance is lost when you know, to the second, where someone is. What about the satisfying feeling of longing to be met when you know someone is arriving, but you don't quite know when?' For Alan, 75, it's a practical measure: he and his partner mutually enabled location tracking on their phones many years ago. He says it's useful for predicting when the other is on their way home – especially when working irregular hours, with lengthy commutes. Being able to follow each other's journeys gives them peace of mind, and makes it easier to time the cooking of meals. 'The other way we use it is if one of us spots that the other is in town,' he says. 'We can ask them to pop into a shop to get something.' This is less useful for me, since my partner lives in Glasgow while I am regularly in London for work. Even so, it is interesting – concerning? – to notice how quickly Find My joins the roster of apps I open routinely, often on autopilot. Instagram, Gmail, Vinted, Weather, Find My. I start to understand why so many people describe it as comforting. I follow my partner's little blue dot around a parkrun; I see him popping to the shops, to the dentist. I feel a pang of jealousy when he visits my favourite bakery without me – but if location tracking has replaced my doomscrolling, it does feel relatively less anxiety-ridden. Of course, that's not the case for everyone. When I tell (broadly millennial) friends about my experiment, not one of them offers to share their location with me. In a way, I'm relieved: I can only imagine the fomo spawned by seeing people out, together, without me. I imagine that, if it was still enabled, the temptation to sneak a peek at an ex's location would be tantamount to browsing their new partner's Instagram profile: you're only torturing yourself. The tech itself is not infallible. 'My husband and I share our locations with each other,' says Emily, 33, from London, 'and mostly it isn't an issue – although he did once message me, panicking, when I was heavily pregnant and my location showed me being in a hospital.' She was, in fact, on a train, travelling past the hospital. Equally, my partner is usually notified that I am home when I am still almost five minutes' walk away – close to being safely through my front door, yes, but no guarantee. Then again, the alternative is perhaps no more reliable: after a night out, a friend messages to check I got home safely, as is standard procedure among so many women. Yes, I reply, all good. But I'm in my PJs, in bed – and could easily have already been asleep. Some research suggests that online surveillance 'could support intimacy in couples with limited interactions, due to geographical separation or psychological reasons' – although this was not limited to location tracking specifically. That said, the domestic abuse charity Refuge also reported that, in 2019, 72% of women accessing its services said they had been subjected to technology-facilitated abuse. This was not limited to location tracking, however, and, as the digital rights advocate Samantha Floreani points out, other research suggests that 'the notion of careful surveillance can form intimacy in ways that complicates typical ideas of privacy'. On a recent episode of the Modern Love podcast, the host, Anna Martin, likened being able to see someone's location to having a superpower. 'But like any superpower,' she said, 'it must be used responsibly. And sometimes, that means just turning it off.' Nedra Glover Tawwab, a relationship therapist and the author of books including Set Boundaries, Find Peace, shares her location with her husband. She often travels for work and 'it gives me comfort knowing that he knows where I am, without us having to talk or text about it', she says. 'When I travel with friends, we often share our locations to ensure we remain connected when we separate.' I ask whether she believes location sharing is a sign of trust within relationships – or distrust. 'If someone is constantly monitoring your every move, it constitutes a violation of your privacy, even if you share your location,' she says. It's not so much the tech itself but how it is used that is the indicator of trust. 'Checking to see if someone's plane landed is different from calling them each time they leave the house to let them know you're watching.' For Harrison, 'the key is how it is agreed on in the first place'. If there's an imbalance – one person uses it far more than the other, or 'uses it to handle anxieties about where their partner is' – then this could foster distrust within couples. I come to view it like any voluntary compromise in privacy where trust plays a role: my partner knows my phone's passcode, for example, but I'd still be miffed to find him riffling through my messages. Of course, plenty of people wouldn't dream of sharing their location (or their passcode, for that matter). Various friends look at me in horror when I tell them that I'm trying it out and say that they could never – despite not living particularly duplicitous lives. 'My girlfriend and I decided to switch on Find My in case something happened to one of us on a night out when the other wasn't there,' says one Guardian reader, who wished to remain anonymous. 'Neither of us uses it to keep tabs on each other, but I've found the idea of it slightly worrying, as I'm usually quite conservative about my digital privacy. I've felt worried that, if I were to suggest switching it off, my girlfriend might suspect I'm looking to cheat on her.' This, I suspect, may be one of the more common problems with location sharing. I've been wondering when – or if – my partner and I will renege on our own agreement. And, if we do, will I feel free from being surveilled – or will I miss the security of feeling that I am never truly alone? He, it turns out, had assumed we would turn tracking off once the week was up; admittedly, he keeps forgetting it's on, only being reminded when he receives a notification. This seems a risk for anyone who shares their location without setting up such alerts – although, personally, I'd rather not add to the near-constant stream of notifications already pinging away on my phone. 'Having a challenging conversation about not wanting to share your location any more can seem like a blow to the relationship,' says Tawwab. 'Whatever the reason, it can seem like a back-pedalling act.' She notes that declining to share with someone can risk leading them to think you have something to hide – but stresses that total privacy is your right. To this, I would add that no amount of tracking is likely to deter a deceitful partner; there's always a way around it. 'We operated fine in the world without sharing our locations,' says Tawwab. 'So if not sharing is your preference, you don't have to share, even if the other person chooses to share with you.' Harrison agrees that it's not for everyone. 'The key thing is to think about what it means to use the apps for each of you and to explore any anxieties, concerns and hopes for it. In a sense, this is a conversation any couple would benefit from having, whether or not they use the apps: how are we keeping in touch with each other when we are apart, and what are each of our expectations here?' Location sharing may have its benefits, but it is easy to see how something might be lost, too. When I message friends to ask if they got home OK, it's also me letting them know that I had fun, that I hope to see them again soon, that I love them. 'Clearly some people find location sharing convenient and helpful,' says Harrison. But, 'it is a bit of a shame to miss out on the human connection of a message that says: 'I'll be home in an hour, on my way.'' Some people featured in this article responded to a community callout. You can contribute to open callouts here
Washington Post
2 days ago
- Health
- Washington Post
Organ retrieval reforms ordered after some donors showed 'signs of life'
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced reforms to the nation's organ transplant system Monday, citing recent findings that the process of removing organs has on some occasions begun even when donors showed signs of life. The federally chartered nonprofit groups known as organ procurement organizations (OPOs) that coordinate the donation process will face decertification if they fail to follow protocols that regulate when an organ can be extracted from a dead patient, according to a release from HHS. The announcement, which comes ahead of a House hearing Tuesday morning on safety breaches in the organ donation system, stems from an HHS investigation into reports that workers for OPOs pressured doctors to start procuring kidneys, livers and other organs from patients even as they showed signs of life. It follows a report by the New York Times Sunday about such patients, including one who was presumed to be dead but whose heart was discovered to be beating after a surgeon made an incision in her chest for procurement surgery. 'Our findings show that hospitals allowed the organ procurement process to begin when patients showed signs of life, and this is horrifying,' Kennedy said in a statement. In a March report, HHS looked at 351 cases in which organ donation was authorized but not completed. It found 103 cases with 'concerning features, including 73 patients with neurological signs incompatible with organ donation,' according to Kennedy's statement. At least 28 patients may not have been deceased when organ procurement was initiated, the statement said. HHS also said it found evidence of 'poor neurological assessments, lack of coordination with medical teams, questionable consent practices and misclassification of causes of death.' Kennedy said OPOs will need to adopt a formal process allowing any staff member to halt a donation process if patient safety concerns arise. They also will need to review any failures to follow protocols — including a requirement to wait five minutes after a patient is dead before making an incision — and develop clear policies around who is and isn't eligible for organ donation. The nation's supply of organs — which falls far short of demand — has been boosted in recent years by the practice of removing organs from patients who have experienced 'circulatory death.' Such patients may still show brain activity but doctors have determined they are near death and won't recover. With family consent, life support can be withdrawn and doctors then wait for the heart to stop beating. Most organ donations are still from brain-dead patients, but OPOs in some cases have pressured doctors to move quickly in procuring organs in the short time frame required. HHS launched its investigation after a House committee hearing in September, where the former employee of an OPO revealed that she, a surgeon and other workers refused to procure organs from a patient who was being prepared for surgery but was shaking his head and crying. The procurement organization, Network for Hope, is responsible for coordinating organ donation in Kentucky and parts of Ohio and West Virginia. Its officials were not immediately available for comment.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
4 Key Signs Gas Prices Will Spike Due to Shortages in the Middle East
A major barometer for how many Americans feel about the economy is fuel prices. Rising prices at the pump can squeeze an already tight budget. Thankfully, GasBuddy reports that gas prices have been relatively stable in recent months. Read More: Find Out: Rising conflicts in the Middle East may threaten that stability. Recent actions by Israel and Iran could directly impact what Americans pay at the pump. Here are four key signs that gas prices will spike due to shortages by oil-producing countries in the Middle East. Iran Closing the Strait of Hormuz Americans may have heard reports of Iran considering closing access to the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait provides the only route from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean. Iran controls the northern side of the Strait. Closing access to it could have a significant impact on the price of oil. The New York Times indicated why this would be important, noting, 'A quarter of the world's oil and 20 percent of the world's liquefied natural gas passes through the Strait of Hormuz, so mining the choke point would cause oil and gas prices to soar.' While most of the oil going through the Strait goes to Asia, America would feel the impact of a move with increased energy costs. Discover Next: Continued Tensions Any time military action occurs, it can lead to a potential increase in cost, particularly when commodities are impacted. Continued hostilities in the Middle East will only exacerbate the risk of increased oil prices. 'With Israel and Iran trading attacks, oil prices have surged to multi-month highs — setting the stage for additional price hikes at gas pumps across the country. As long as tensions in the Middle East continue to escalate, the risk of further impacts on oil prices remains high,' said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, in an interview with Fortune. De Haan noted Americans can expect prices to increase by $0.10 to $0.20 per gallon in the near term, if not more. 'Motorists should prepare for what will likely be modest price increases, for now, but the situation has the potential to worsen at any moment,' said De Haan. Possible Regime Change Military action typically poses a risk to the price of goods, but regime change can be even more detrimental. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had not been publicly heard from for nearly a week after the United States bombed sites in Iran. Added to that, President Trump hinted at a possible regime change. And historically, regime changes have significantly increased oil prices Regime change could send oil prices significantly higher, particularly if it results in a loss of oil from Iran. 'The main concern is any disruption to energy flows and global confidence. A complete loss of Iranian oil, which accounts for 4% of global production, could push crude to $100 per barrel,' according to J.P. Morgan. OPEC+ Cuts Production OPEC and OPEC+ countries account for roughly 60% of the world's crude oil, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. There have been no indications that nations will cut production in light of recent actions in the Middle East. However, any move to cut production typically results in increased costs at the pump. Worse yet, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is at historically low levels, partly due to actions taken by the Biden administration. Additionally, there are no plans to replenish it. The combination of not refilling the SPR could prove costly if OPEC does reduce production. 'The decision not to refill the emergency reserve is significant for U.S. consumers and energy security. The SPR's depleted status limits the government's ability to intervene during supply shocks or price spikes, potentially leaving American families and industries more exposed to global oil market volatility,' according to Newsweek. While gas prices have been relatively stable of late, activities in the Middle East could cause prices to spike. It's best to stay informed and identify ways to save at the pump for Americans concerned with gas costs. More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 6 Popular SUVs That Aren't Worth the Cost -- and 6 Affordable Alternatives 5 Cities You Need To Consider If You're Retiring in 2025 This article originally appeared on 4 Key Signs Gas Prices Will Spike Due to Shortages in the Middle East
New York Times
14-07-2025
- Entertainment
- New York Times
Something Only I Can See
On This Week's Episode: When you're the only one who can see something, sometimes it feels as if you're in on a special secret. The hard part is getting anyone to believe your secret is real. In this episode, people try to show others what they see — including a woman with muscular dystrophy who believes she has the same condition as an Olympic athlete. New York Times Audio is home to the 'This American Life' archive. Download the app — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter.
Russia Today
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Ukraine accuses NYT of spreading ‘Russian propaganda'
The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry has accused the New York Times of propaganda after its reporter traveled to the part of western Russia which previously came under attack by Ukrainian troops. Kiev took issue with the July 12 story by Times journalist and photographer Nanna Heitmann, who described life in the Kursk region, which borders Ukraine. In August 2024, Ukrainian forces crossed Russia's internationally recognized border and captured the small city of Sudzha and dozens of villages, but were eventually expelled last April. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky said at the time that the incursion was meant to acquire leverage for future peace talks. 'Whoever at Times thought it was smart to report alongside Russian war criminals made the dumbest decision. This isn't balance or 'the other side of the story.' This is simply letting Russian propaganda mislead the audience,' Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Georgy Tikhy wrote on X on Saturday. Heitmann, who said she was at times escorted by the Chechnya-based Akhmat unit, took photos of Russian soldiers patrolling the destroyed villages, clearing mines, and helping to evacuate civilians. She spoke to locals whose homes were damaged by the fighting, and visited a shelter for evacuated civilians. The journalist said she observed the bodies of civilians and soldiers, claiming that 'the uniforms visible among the fallen were mostly Russian.' 'Amid shattered homes, other bodies had lain decomposing for months, seemingly untouched, the circumstances of their deaths unknown,' Heitmann wrote. She reported that some locals criticized the government for not evacuating everyone in time, but mentioned that Russian officials denied these claims and said more than 150,000 people were evacuated from the region. Ukrainian troops allowed multiple Western news crews, including CNN, France 24, El Mundo and Deutsche Welle, to accompany them during the incursion and to report from occupied Sudzha. Moscow subsequently charged several foreign journalists with border violations. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused the Western media of propaganda on Kiev's behalf and of covering up atrocities. According to Russia, Ukrainian troops massacred civilians in several villages, including Russkoye Porechnoye and Nikolayevo-Daryino.
