Law, Policy & Regulation

Techdirt Jun 3, 22:41

Todd Blanche Pinky Swears The $1.8 Billion J6 Slush Fund Is Dead, But Won’t Sign Anything Saying That

There were some rumors earlier this week that, as it was facing a lot of pushback in court, in the media, and even among (a few) fellow Republicans in Congress, Donald Trump was going to drop his blatantly unconstitutional, illegal, and corrupt $1.776 billion slush fund for MAGA insurrectionists. And now it’s… sorta officially dead… […]

More: “We are not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche said. Grace Meng asks for Blanche to put it into writing that the fund is not moving forward, Blanche declines to do so. It was done by Blanche and the DOJ.

TL;DR: There were some rumors earlier this week that, as it was facing a lot of pushback in court, in the media, and even among (a few) fellow Republicans in Congress, Donald Trump was going to drop his blatantly unconstitutional, illegal, and corrupt $1.776 billion slush fund for MAGA insurrectionists.

Read original at Techdirt →

Techdirt Jun 3, 16:28

The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Have One Consistent Rule: Black Votes Shouldn’t Count

The Supreme Court’s conservatives have spent years systematically dismantling the Voting Rights Act, but the last seven months have been something else — a rapid-fire series of emergency docket rulings, procedural maneuvers, and carefully worded opinions that, taken together, make it effectively impossible to challenge racial gerrymandering. Not difficult. Impossible. And Justice Alito, in particular, […]

More: None of the conservatives were willing to put their name on it. This was just the moment it became undeniable that the rule is: if it disenfranchises Black voters, we’ll allow it, if it empowers Black voters, we’ll block it.

TL;DR: The Supreme Court’s conservatives have spent years systematically dismantling the Voting Rights Act, but the last seven months have been something else — a rapid-fire series of emergency docket rulings, procedural maneuvers, and carefully worded opinions that, taken together, make it effectively impossible to challenge racial gerrymandering.

Read original at Techdirt →

Techdirt Jun 3, 12:26

Whoops: Hackers Simply Had To Ask Meta ‘AI’ For Access To High Profile Instagram Accounts

404 Media reports that hackers were simply able to ask Meta AI for access to high-profile Instagram accounts, and the AI agent simply… well… obliged: “Hackers say that they used Meta’s AI support chatbot to break into a host of high-profile Instagram profiles by asking the support bot to change the email address associated with […]

More: The claims coincide with a series of high-profile Instagram account takeovers, including the Barack Obama White House account , the Chief Master Sergeant of Space Force’s account , and Sephora’s account.” Last March Meta announced that it would be providing AI customer support to all accounts across Facebook and Instagram.

TL;DR: 404 Media reports that hackers were simply able to ask Meta AI for access to high-profile Instagram accounts, and the AI agent simply… well… obliged: “Hackers say that they used Meta’s AI support chatbot to break into a host of high-profile Instagram profiles by asking the support bot to change the email address associated with […]

Read original at Techdirt →

Techdirt Jun 2, 22:23

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: CA’s AB 1856 Exempts Open Source But Expands Age-Gating

After public outrage, California lawmakers are moving closer to exempting open-source operating systems from the sweeping age-bracketing regime mandated by last year’s Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043). Nonetheless, the current bill still jeopardizes internet users’ speech, privacy, and security. While the open source exemption, if passed, would improve the law, the remaining amendments proposed […]

More: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: CA’s AB 1856 Exempts Open Source But Expands Age-Gating. Nonetheless, the current bill still jeopardizes internet users’ speech, privacy, and security. While the open source exemption, if passed, would improve the law, the remaining amendments proposed […]

TL;DR: After public outrage, California lawmakers are moving closer to exempting open-source operating systems from the sweeping age-bracketing regime mandated by last year’s Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043).

Read original at Techdirt →

Techdirt Jun 2, 18:07

School Phone Bans: Great Politics, Mediocre Education Policy

Before the current wave of laws banning mobile phones in schools, we had published a piece from some researchers who had looked at how similar bans had worked in Australia, with the conclusion that… they didn’t. At best, the research showed the evidence on school phone bans to be “weak and inconclusive.” Those authors suggested […]

More: Before the current wave of laws banning mobile phones in schools, we had published a piece from some researchers who had looked at how similar bans had worked in Australia, with the conclusion that… they didn’t. At best, the research showed the evidence on school phone bans to be “weak and inconclusive.” Those authors suggested […]

TL;DR: Before the current wave of laws banning mobile phones in schools, we had published a piece from some researchers who had looked at how similar bans had worked in Australia, with the conclusion that… they didn’t.

Read original at Techdirt →

Eff Jun 2, 16:41

We're Fighting Mass Surveillance Tech—and Winning

EFF is on the front lines of the fight against tech-enabled tyranny, but we aren't alone. Our team depends on your help to fight back against the surveillance state. JOIN EFF People around the world are pushing back against the mass surveillance that undermines privacy and free expression for everyone. You can help during EFF's spring membership drive. One of the people who joined the fight for digital rights is EFF client Will Freeman. Will created the website DeFlock.me to reveal the dangers of automated license plate readers ( ALPRs )—cameras that collect location data on every vehicle they see and upload that to a massive nationwide police database. Deflock.me turns the tables by enlisting ordinary people to track the locations of tens of thousands of ALPR cameras. But when the police spy-tech company Flock Safety went after Will's website with legal threats citing trademark law, he saw it for what it was: an attempt to silence critics and dim the light on mass surveillance. The company will try everything it can to downplay the criticism, but EFF will be right there demanding accountability. "I was totally unprepared to receive a cease & desist letter. I can see how most people would be bullied into submission by a threat like that. That's when I remembered Dave Maass from the EFF introduced himself via email several weeks before, so I reached out for help," Freeman says. And that's when EFF stepped in. Recognizing DeFlock.me as a quintessential expression of grassroots advocacy and a form of criticism protected by the U.S. First Amendment, EFF's lawyers helped Will fight back. And the Big Surveillance Tech flinched. But these battles against Flock's Spying tools rage on. In cities around the country, privacy advocates are pressuring officials to block or end contracts for ALPRs—and winning. The company will try everything it can to downplay the criticism, but EFF will be right there demanding accountability. Get the new Claw Back member t-shirt featuring a fierce feline swatting at community surveillance. You might empathize with him, but there’s a better way. Let’s end the law enforcement contracts, harmful practices, and twisted logic that enable mass spying in the first place. "I'm really grateful the EFF was able to step in and help. Without them, free speech would be only for those wealthy enough to defend themselves against billion dollar companies. We've grown a lot since then and are expanding our efforts to expose and push back against mass surveillance on our streets," Freeman says. Support the movement stop mass surveillance tech today when you join EFF ____________________ EFF is a member-supported U.S. 501(c)(3) organization. We've received top rati ngs from the nonprofit watchdog Charity Navigator since 2013! Your donation is tax-deductible as allowed by law.

More: Our team depends on your help to fight back against the surveillance state. One of the people who joined the fight for digital rights is EFF client Will Freeman. The company will try everything it can to downplay the criticism, but EFF will be right there demanding accountability.

TL;DR: Support the movement stop mass surveillance tech today when you join EFF ____________________ EFF is a member-supported U.S.

Read original at Eff →

Techdirt Jun 1, 22:22

Prosecutor Nopes Out Of The DOJ After Being Handed The James Comey ‘8647’ Case

The DOJ has gone past bleeding talent. Now, it’s just bleeding whatever. It’s one thing to do a bit of MAGA swagger before a captive audience and walk out with a criminal indictment that contains no evidence of criminal activity. It’s quite another thing to present that case to a court, where you’ll have to […]

More: Prosecutor Nopes Out Of The DOJ After Being Handed The James Comey ‘8647’ Case. It’s one thing to do a bit of MAGA swagger before a captive audience and walk out with a criminal indictment that contains no evidence of criminal activity. It’s quite another thing to present that case to a court, where you’ll have to […]

TL;DR: The DOJ has gone past bleeding talent.

Read original at Techdirt →

Techdirt Jun 1, 18:09

Judge Reopens Trump’s IRS Case, Wants To Know If The Court Was Defrauded

Most legal experts seemed pretty skeptical about the tactic of 35 former federal judges asking federal judge Kathleen Williams to reopen the case where Trump sued his own IRS demanding $10 billion. Turns out they were wrong — on Friday, Judge Williams reopened the case, not going so far as to investigate whether fraud had […]

More: Most legal experts seemed pretty skeptical about the tactic of 35 former federal judges asking federal judge Kathleen Williams to reopen the case where Trump sued his own IRS demanding $10 billion. Turns out they were wrong — on Friday, Judge Williams reopened the case, not going so far as to investigate whether fraud had […]

TL;DR: Most legal experts seemed pretty skeptical about the tactic of 35 former federal judges asking federal judge Kathleen Williams to reopen the case where Trump sued his own IRS demanding $10 billion.

Read original at Techdirt →

Techdirt Jun 1, 18:04

Daily Deal: uTalk Language Education

We have all wanted to learn a language at some point but it’s hard to get started. Some language learning tools can be complicated and very time-consuming. But with uTalk, you’ll be speaking keywords and phrases in no time, and will start to see the results straight away. It helps you overcome the language barrier […]

More: Daily Deal: uTalk Language Education. Some language learning tools can be complicated and very time-consuming. It helps you overcome the language barrier […]

TL;DR: We have all wanted to learn a language at some point but it’s hard to get started.

Read original at Techdirt →

Eff Jun 1, 14:25

Welcome New EFF Executive Director Nicole Ozer

EFF welcomes our new Executive Director Nicole Ozer today! Nicole is a legal expert on privacy and surveillance, artificial intelligence, and digital speech who previously served as the inaugural executive director of the Center for Constitutional Democracy at UC Law San Francisco. From 2004-2025, she was founding director of the Technology and Civil Liberties Program at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California . Nicole has long been a partner of EFF’s in the fight to defend civil liberties in the digital world. Many of us already know her, and she’s basically as close to EFF “family” as someone can be without actually having worked here. Over her more than two decades leading public interest technology work, Nicole has: spearheaded passage of the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act – working with EFF to enact the nation’s strongest electronic surveillance law, requiring a warrant for government access to electronic information; modernized California law to protect reading records in the digital age by helping, along with EFF , to craft the Reader Privacy Act, requiring a “super warrant” for government access; created a groundbreaking model law for local democratic oversight of surveillance systems which inspired 25 laws across the country that help safeguard the rights and safety of more than 17 million people; litigated civil liberties cases, including work with EFF on the NSA cases , and drafted influential amicus briefs on technology issues at all levels of state and federal court, including the U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court; and developed multi-year campaigns to strengthen the anti-surveillance policies related to social media surveillance and face recognition of major technology companies and foster stronger privacy and free expression protection for billions of people worldwide. And that's just the TL;DR! You can read more about her bona fides here . EFF’s work to ensure technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation is more urgent than ever. And with Nicole’s decades of leadership in public interest technology work, EFF is poised to be stronger than ever to meet this moment and build for the fights ahead. Nicole succeeds Cindy Cohn , who has been with EFF for more than 25 years and served as executive director since 2015. Cindy is leaving EFF later this month – not to retire, but to find a role that puts her back in the courtroom doing what she does best: suing the government! She’ll still be part of the EFF community. We are living digital lives, using technology to connect, communicate, and mobilize for change. And we need you in these critical fights to defend and advance rights in the digital world – so join EFF today, and sign up for our EFFector newsletter to make sure you’re updated on the latest EFF news including upcoming events to help you get to know Nicole. Welcome Nicole!

More: Nicole is a legal expert on privacy and surveillance, artificial intelligence, and digital speech who previously served as the inaugural executive director of the Center for Constitutional Democracy at UC Law San Francisco. From 2004-2025, she was founding director of the Technology and Civil Liberties Program at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California .

TL;DR: EFF welcomes our new Executive Director Nicole Ozer today!

Read original at Eff →

Techdirt Jun 1, 12:29

AT&T Sues California Regulators For Trying To Make Broadband Affordable

Five years years ago AT&T effectively stopped selling DSL and started hanging up on DSL and copper phone line customers. While killing landlines and DSL is understandable given the limitations of the dated copper-based tech, the problem is that thanks to concentrated telecom monopolization, many of these customers were left without any replacement options due […]

More: Five years years ago AT&T effectively stopped selling DSL and started hanging up on DSL and copper phone line customers. While killing landlines and DSL is understandable given the limitations of the dated copper-based tech, the problem is that thanks to concentrated telecom monopolization, many of these customers were left without any replacement options due […]

TL;DR: Five years years ago AT&T effectively stopped selling DSL and started hanging up on DSL and copper phone line customers.

Read original at Techdirt →

Theverge Jun 1, 09:23

Microsoft could be the next Big Tech antitrust target

Over the past several years, Microsoft has largely managed to withstand populist calls to break up Big Tech while peers faced sweeping lawsuits. But a probe by the Federal Trade Commission suggests that grace period could be nearing an end. Earlier this year, Bloomberg outlined the contents of civil investigative demands (CIDs) - similar to […]

More: Microsoft could be the next Big Tech antitrust target. But a probe by the Federal Trade Commission suggests that grace period could be nearing an end. Earlier this year, Bloomberg outlined the contents of civil investigative demands (CIDs) - similar to […]

TL;DR: Over the past several years, Microsoft has largely managed to withstand populist calls to break up Big Tech while peers faced sweeping lawsuits.

Read original at Theverge →

Techdirt May 31, 19:00

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

We’ve got a double-winner this week, but also a very very slow week overall on the funny side, so this will be a somewhat truncated post. On the insightful side, both top comments are similar thoughts in response to the judge dismissing charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, starting with this first-place winning comment from Huntly: […]

More: We’ve got a double-winner this week, but also a very very slow week overall on the funny side, so this will be a somewhat truncated post. On the insightful side, both top comments are similar thoughts in response to the judge dismissing charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, starting with this first-place winning comment from Huntly: […]

TL;DR: We’ve got a double-winner this week, but also a very very slow week overall on the funny side, so this will be a somewhat truncated post.

Read original at Techdirt →

Techdirt May 30, 19:00

This Week In Techdirt History: May 24th – 30th

This Week in 2016 This Week in 2011 This Week in 2006

TL;DR: This Week in 2016 This Week in 2011 This Week in 2006

Read original at Techdirt →

Techdirt May 30, 02:39

Knox County, TN Rolls Back ‘Roots’ Book Ban After Backlash

It was just a week or so ago that we were talking about the absurd situation in Knox County, Tennessee, where local government used Tennessee’s book-banning laws to remove the book Roots from school libraries. Yes, this is the book by Alex Haley that spawned the 1970s miniseries of the same name and served as […]

More: Knox County, TN Rolls Back ‘Roots’ Book Ban After Backlash. It was just a week or so ago that we were talking about the absurd situation in Knox County, Tennessee, where local government used Tennessee’s book-banning laws to remove the book Roots from school libraries. Yes, this is the book by Alex Haley that spawned the 1970s miniseries of the same name and served as […]

TL;DR: It was just a week or so ago that we were talking about the absurd situation in Knox County, Tennessee, where local government used Tennessee’s book-banning laws to remove the book Roots from school libraries.

Read original at Techdirt →

Techdirt May 29, 22:24

How AI Can Lead To False Arrests & Wrongful Convictions

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. In Baltimore County, Maryland on Oct. 20, 2025, a 17-year-old student named Taki Allen was sitting outside his high school after football practice when an artificial intelligence-enhanced surveillance camera falsely identified the Doritos bag in his pocket as a gun. Within moments police […]

More: How AI Can Lead To False Arrests & Wrongful Convictions. 20, 2025, a 17-year-old student named Taki Allen was sitting outside his high school after football practice when an artificial intelligence-enhanced surveillance camera falsely identified the Doritos bag in his pocket as a gun. Within moments police […]

TL;DR: This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Read original at Techdirt →

Eff May 29, 20:15

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: CA's AB 1856 Exempts Open Source But Expands Age-Gating

After public outrage, California lawmakers are moving closer to exempting open source operating systems from the sweeping age-bracketing regime mandated by last year’s Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043). Nonetheless, the current bill still jeopardizes internet users’ speech, privacy, and security. While the open source exemption, if passed, would improve the law, the remaining amendments proposed by AB 1856 would require all web browsers and websites to request and collect users’ ages. This is an expansion of last year's AB 1043's age-bracketing system that compounds its constitutional harms to users’ speech, privacy, and security. As AB 1856 moves on to the Senate, EFF will continue fighting for amendments that reduce those harms. AB 1856 Extends AB 1043’s Age-Gating Regime Last year, California passed AB 1043 , which requires all operating systems and app stores to create age-bracketing systems that segment users based on their ages. As we’ve written , that regime is a recipe for censorship: it creates unnecessary and unconstitutional barriers to accessing lawful online speech, threatens our right to anonymity, and pressures online services to collect troves of valuable and sensitive user data. On top of that, A.B. 1043’s wide-sweeping compliance burdens impose disproportionate harms on the open source ecosystem that underpins much of the modern web. Given these flaws, lawmakers introduced AB 1856 this year as a supposed “clean-up” bill for AB 1043. But instead of sticking to fixing AB 1043’s unique and serious harms (like its impact on open source operating systems), AB 1856 also expanded the regime even further—extending its age-bracketing requirements beyond operating systems and app stores to browsers and websites. EFF opposes AB 1856 on two grounds, which we explained in our opposition letter to the Assembly: The harms that age-gating regimes pose to users’ speech, privacy, and anonymity; and The disproportionate harms that this particular regime imposes on open source developers. Open Source Concerns Somewhat Alleviated By Amendment On May 28th, AB 1856 passed the Assembly in a nearly unanimous vote (68-1). Before that vote, however, AB 1856 was amended to exempt open source operating systems from liability for compliance with AB 1043. This is a meaningful improvement and a welcome relief for open-source developers, who have been loud and clear about how much of an existential threat A.B. 1043’s age-gating mandate would pose. The new exception reads: “ Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software. ” EFF understands this amendment to exempt open-source operating systems from the requirement to collect and transmit users’ age-bracket data. That is a definite win for open source developers. The bill is narrower now than it was before, and lawmakers clearly responded to concerns raised by EFF and the broader open source community. Some important questions still remain—for example, it is unclear how the law would apply when an open source operating system is incorporated into a commercial product or service. And, given the structure of where the exemption is placed under the “operating system provider” definition, lawmakers could stand to clarify that the exemption applies to open source operating systems and applications. Nonetheless, that ambiguity aside, this amendment does substantially reduce the threat that AB 1043 could have on many open source developers. AB 1856 Still Expands the Problematic Age-Bracketing Regime Don’t get us wrong—if this bill passes, we will be very happy that AB 1043 does not pose nearly the amount of harm to our friends behind open source operating systems. But even after these amendments, EFF remains opposed to AB 1856 because it ultimately expands California’s sweeping age-bracketing framework far beyond the original scope of AB 1043. In AB 1856 and its amendments, the Assembly failed to address the core problem with AB 1043’s age-bracketing regime: mandated age-gating systems threaten users’ speech, privacy, anonymity, and security. Even after these amendments, EFF remains opposed to AB 1856 because it ultimately expands California’s sweeping age-bracketing framework far beyond the original scope of AB 1043. Even though AB 1043 does not explicitly require companies to perform age verification, it nonetheless imposes a liability structure that strongly pressures companies to verify users’ ages anyway . In practice, that could lead to more ID checks, more biometric scanning, more invasive data collection and risk of breach, and more barriers to adults’ and young people’s lawful speech. In fact, instead of narrowing AB 1043’s wide net, AB 1856 expanded it to add browser providers and website operators to the list of entities that must comply with its age-bracketing requirements. This dramatically broaden...

More: Nonetheless, the current bill still jeopardizes internet users’ speech, privacy, and security. This is an expansion of last year's AB 1043's age-bracketing system that compounds its constitutional harms to users’ speech, privacy, and security. As AB 1856 moves on to the Senate, EFF will continue fighting for amendments that reduce those harms.

TL;DR: Nonetheless, the current bill still jeopardizes internet users’ speech, privacy, and security.

Read original at Eff →

Techdirt May 29, 20:09

Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Deus vs. Machina

Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw. Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed. To get extended episodes with additional coverage, support us on […]

More: Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Deus vs. Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed. To get extended episodes with additional coverage, support us on […]

TL;DR: Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.

Read original at Techdirt →

Techdirt May 29, 18:15

Court Temporarily Freezes Trump’s $1.776 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization’ Slush Fund To Figure Out WTF Is Going On

It’s been less than two weeks since the Justice Department created the obviously illegal and unconstitutional $1.776 billion slush fund to pay off MAGA loyalists and January 6th insurrectionists. There are a variety of lawsuits looking to put a stop to it, and we just wrote about dozens of former federal judges asking the original […]

More: It’s been less than two weeks since the Justice Department created the obviously illegal and unconstitutional $1.776 billion slush fund to pay off MAGA loyalists and January 6th insurrectionists. There are a variety of lawsuits looking to put a stop to it, and we just wrote about dozens of former federal judges asking the original […]

TL;DR: It’s been less than two weeks since the Justice Department created the obviously illegal and unconstitutional $1.776 billion slush fund to pay off MAGA loyalists and January 6th insurrectionists.

Read original at Techdirt →

Techdirt May 29, 18:10

Daily Deal: MasterBundle For Web Designers

A unique opportunity to get all that you need for your website in one single bundle. MasterBundle gives you over 1,300 essentials for setting your page to success. Get 20+ plugins, 100+ themes, 100+ templates, 200+ logos, and 800+ images great for creating a stunning, visit-worthy page. Not only that, this bundle also gives you […]

More: Daily Deal: MasterBundle For Web Designers. MasterBundle gives you over 1,300 essentials for setting your page to success. Get 20+ plugins, 100+ themes, 100+ templates, 200+ logos, and 800+ images great for creating a stunning, visit-worthy page.

TL;DR: A unique opportunity to get all that you need for your website in one single bundle.

Read original at Techdirt →

Theverge May 29, 17:48

SpaceX gets $4 billion contract to build missile-tracking ‘Golden Dome’ satellites

The Pentagon awarded SpaceX a $4.16 billion contract to build missile-tracking satellites for President Donald Trump's planned "Golden Dome" defense system, as reported earlier by Bloomberg. In an announcement on Friday, the US Space Force says the sensor-equipped satellites will allow it to detect and track targets from space. The Elon Musk-owned SpaceX - which […]

More: The Pentagon awarded SpaceX a $4.16 billion contract to build missile-tracking satellites for President Donald Trump's planned "Golden Dome" defense system, as reported earlier by Bloomberg. In an announcement on Friday, the US Space Force says the sensor-equipped satellites will allow it to detect and track targets from space. The Elon Musk-owned SpaceX - which […]

TL;DR: The Pentagon awarded SpaceX a $4.16 billion contract to build missile-tracking satellites for President Donald Trump's planned "Golden Dome" defense system, as reported earlier by Bloomberg.

Read original at Theverge →

Techdirt May 29, 16:21

City Lawmaker Responds To Flock Camera Ban By Demanding A Cell Phone Ban

Flock Safety has made its bed. It has courted homeowners associations and gated communities since it first arrived on the market, apparently hoping to convert inherent racism into perpetual revenue streams. Then it went to where the real bias has always existed: US law enforcement agencies. It promised to tie their systems in with those […]

More: City Lawmaker Responds To Flock Camera Ban By Demanding A Cell Phone Ban. It has courted homeowners associations and gated communities since it first arrived on the market, apparently hoping to convert inherent racism into perpetual revenue streams. Then it went to where the real bias has always existed: US law enforcement agencies.

TL;DR: Flock Safety has made its bed.

Read original at Techdirt →

Techdirt May 29, 12:22

Trump FCC Proposes Vile New Trans Panic TV Warnings

Last month the FCC quietly issued a public notice saying the Brendan Carr run agency was demanding that the TV Oversight Management Board (TVOMB) create new TV ratings to alert viewers to “transgender and gender non-binary programming” and “the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes” included in children’s programming. You are to ignore that […]

TL;DR: Last month the FCC quietly issued a public notice saying the Brendan Carr run agency was demanding that the TV Oversight Management Board (TVOMB) create new TV ratings to alert viewers to “transgender and gender non-binary programming” and “the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes” included in children’s programming.

Read original at Techdirt →

Theverge May 29, 11:00

Trump’s mass deportations are impossible without racial profiling

Border security czar Tom Homan keeps threatening to "flood" New York City with ICE agents. But a new investigation shows that ICE has been quietly ramping up arrests in the New York area already - and disproportionately targeting Latino neighborhoods. The City, a local nonprofit news organization, found 430 street arrests in the metropolitan area […]

More: Trump’s mass deportations are impossible without racial profiling. Border security czar Tom Homan keeps threatening to "flood" New York City with ICE agents. The City, a local nonprofit news organization, found 430 street arrests in the metropolitan area […]

TL;DR: Border security czar Tom Homan keeps threatening to "flood" New York City with ICE agents.

Read original at Theverge →

Theverge May 29, 08:30

Trump Mobile’s website still says the T1 Phone is ‘American-made’

Where's the Trump phone? We're going to keep talking about it every week. We've reached out, as usual, to ask about the Trump phone's whereabouts. As the phone's supposed launch continues, we noticed its website may be violating FTC rules. When the Trump phone was first announced last June, it was proudly promised to be […]

More: Trump Mobile’s website still says the T1 Phone is ‘American-made’. Where's the Trump phone? When the Trump phone was first announced last June, it was proudly promised to be […]

TL;DR: Where's the Trump phone?

Read original at Theverge →

Techdirt May 29, 02:53

Stop Killing Games Gets Its First American Legislative Effort Out Of Committee in California

I’ve written quite a bit about the Stop Killing Games movement, in no small part because I think it’s way more important than most people think. Preserving cultural output is both important and, frankly, a key part of the bargain that is supposed to be copyright law. The fact that we offer video game publishers […]

More: Stop Killing Games Gets Its First American Legislative Effort Out Of Committee in California. Preserving cultural output is both important and, frankly, a key part of the bargain that is supposed to be copyright law. The fact that we offer video game publishers […]

TL;DR: I’ve written quite a bit about the Stop Killing Games movement, in no small part because I think it’s way more important than most people think.

Read original at Techdirt →

Eff May 28, 16:37

Age Verification is a Privacy Nightmare

In the rush to block young people from certain parts of the internet, lawmakers are creating a privacy and security nightmare for everyone. This scenario is already playing out globally. Help us stop it and keep the web open and accessible for all. JOIN EFF Protect the web for everyone Even with the best intentions, every online age verification scheme has the same result: users are forced to reveal sensitive personal information to third parties simply to access the web. Once that valuable data is centralized, it becomes an immediate target for leaks, hacks, and misuse. This isn’t hypothetical: it has already happened several times . By age gating the web, we serve up a honeypot of private info ripe for bad actors. But you can help us stop this when you join EFF. Support digital rights in EFF's new Claw Back member t-shirt and Privacy Badger Crewneck. Thanks to our members, EFF is on the front lines fighting against online age gating and identity verification online. We’re working with lawmakers to pass better policies, educating the public, and fighting the wildfire of age verification proposals around the world. Now all we need is you. 🐝 No, It’s Not a Bug We all want young people to be safe online, but we don’t need to trade everyone's digital rights to achieve it. These new restrictive mandates are used to justify government-led censorship and expanded surveillance. That's no accident. Whether you trust today’s lawmakers or not, handing anyone keys to new forms of censorship and surveillance is a serious risk. Because history shows us that these powers are always abused. It’s time to demand better. Join EFF today Help us claw back your privacy ____________________ EFF is a member-supported U.S. 501(c)(3) organization. We've received top rati ngs from the nonprofit watchdog Charity Navigator since 2013! Your donation is tax-deductible as allowed by law.

More: Age Verification is a Privacy Nightmare. Thanks to our members, EFF is on the front lines fighting against online age gating and identity verification online. Join EFF today Help us claw back your privacy ____________________ EFF is a member-supported U.S.

TL;DR: Join EFF today Help us claw back your privacy ____________________ EFF is a member-supported U.S.

Read original at Eff →

Theverge May 28, 10:08

CNN sues Perplexity over ‘verbatim’ copycat articles

CNN has filed a lawsuit against Perplexity, claiming that the startup's AI tools generate "verbatim" copies of its work, as reported earlier by CNN. The lawsuit, filed in a New York court on Thursday, also alleges that Perplexity provides users with information locked behind CNN's subscription. Perplexity, which offers an AI "answer" engine along with […]

More: CNN has filed a lawsuit against Perplexity, claiming that the startup's AI tools generate "verbatim" copies of its work, as reported earlier by CNN. The lawsuit, filed in a New York court on Thursday, also alleges that Perplexity provides users with information locked behind CNN's subscription. Perplexity, which offers an AI "answer" engine along with […]

TL;DR: CNN has filed a lawsuit against Perplexity, claiming that the startup's AI tools generate "verbatim" copies of its work, as reported earlier by CNN.

Read original at Theverge →

Theverge May 28, 07:47

Temu fined more than $230 million by EU over illegal product sales

Temu has been fined €200 million (about $232 million) by the European Commission after it found that consumers are "very likely to encounter illegal items" on the popular Chinese e-commerce platform. According to the commission, Temu breached Digital Service Act (DSA) rules by failing to identify and assess the systemic risks of illegal products being […]

More: Temu has been fined €200 million (about $232 million) by the European Commission after it found that consumers are "very likely to encounter illegal items" on the popular Chinese e-commerce platform. According to the commission, Temu breached Digital Service Act (DSA) rules by failing to identify and assess the systemic risks of illegal products being […]

TL;DR: Temu has been fined €200 million (about $232 million) by the European Commission after it found that consumers are "very likely to encounter illegal items" on the popular Chinese e-commerce platform.

Read original at Theverge →

Theverge May 27, 18:30

A Google employee allegedly used inside information to win $1.2 million on Polymarket

Federal prosecutors charged a Google employee with fraud after he allegedly made $1.2 million on Polymarket bets related to Search-related trends in 2025, as reported earlier by ABC News. In their now-unsealed complaint, prosecutors allege that Michele Spagnuolo "knew the outcome of these wagers before the trading public did because he had accessed Google's confidential, […]

More: Federal prosecutors charged a Google employee with fraud after he allegedly made $1.2 million on Polymarket bets related to Search-related trends in 2025, as reported earlier by ABC News. In their now-unsealed complaint, prosecutors allege that Michele Spagnuolo "knew the outcome of these wagers before the trading public did because he had accessed Google's confidential, […]

TL;DR: Federal prosecutors charged a Google employee with fraud after he allegedly made $1.2 million on Polymarket bets related to Search-related trends in 2025, as reported earlier by ABC News.

Read original at Theverge →

Theverge May 27, 11:40

AI tried to bury this politician — now people have actually heard of him

By the time that the Democratic primary for New York's 12th congressional district wraps up in June, Anthropic and OpenAI will have spent millions on their battle over the political future of AI: who gets to regulate it, or who will be punished for trying to regulate it. But the real winner of their feud […]

More: When all is said and done, Anthropic and OpenAI will have spent millions in their political proxy war. But the real winner may be the guy they’re currently fighting over. Instead, Bores is now a front-runner in the eight-person race to become the “face of Manhattan,” as New York Magazine recently put it in a cover feature .

TL;DR: By the time that the Democratic primary for New York's 12th congressional district wraps up in June, Anthropic and OpenAI will have spent millions on their battle over the political future of AI: who gets to regulate it, or who will be punished for trying to regulate it.

Read original at Theverge →

Eff May 26, 21:23

AI warfare is already here

The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, an international forum that focuses on lethal autonomous systems, is hosted twice a year at the United Nations in Geneva. When Branka Marijan attended in November 2017, she thought the five-day sessions - which dealt largely in hypotheticals, speculating on a world where warfare was fought with killer robots […]

More: The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, an international forum that focuses on lethal autonomous systems, is hosted twice a year at the United Nations in Geneva. When Branka Marijan attended in November 2017, she thought the five-day sessions - which dealt largely in hypotheticals, speculating on a world where warfare was fought with killer robots […]

TL;DR: The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, an international forum that focuses on lethal autonomous systems, is hosted twice a year at the United Nations in Geneva.

Read original at Theverge →

Theverge May 25, 14:28

Cox Media fined after bragging it spied on users through their phones

An exceptionally weird controversy has come back to haunt Cox Media and a pair of marketing firms, which claimed they were secretly listening to users via phones and smart devices - despite little evidence they actually could. On Thursday the Federal Trade Commission announced that Cox, MindSift, and 1010 Digital Works would pay a total […]

More: Cox Media fined after bragging it spied on users through their phones. An exceptionally weird controversy has come back to haunt Cox Media and a pair of marketing firms, which claimed they were secretly listening to users via phones and smart devices - despite little evidence they actually could.

TL;DR: On Thursday the Federal Trade Commission announced that Cox, MindSift, and 1010 Digital Works would pay a total […]

Read original at Theverge →

Theverge May 25, 11:05

Pope Leo calls for being ‘profoundly human’ in the age of AI

Pope Leo XIV warned of the risks of AI and unconstrained technological power in his first major papal document released on Monday. Magnifica Humanitas is the pope's manifesto on "safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence," in which he discusses the dangers of AI-powered warfare, the effects of AI on labor, and […]

More: Pope Leo XIV warned of the risks of AI and unconstrained technological power in his first major papal document released on Monday. Magnifica Humanitas is the pope's manifesto on "safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence," in which he discusses the dangers of AI-powered warfare, the effects of AI on labor, and […]

TL;DR: Pope Leo XIV warned of the risks of AI and unconstrained technological power in his first major papal document released on Monday.

Read original at Theverge →

Holland & Knight May 22, 13:59

Can Congress Fill the Cox v. Sony -Sized Hole in Copyright Law? - Holland & Knight

Can Congress Fill the Cox v. Sony -Sized Hole in Copyright Law? Holland & Knight

TL;DR: Can Congress Fill the Cox v.

Read original at Holland & Knight →

Theverge May 22, 12:28

Google appeals search monopoly ruling, says it won business ‘fair and square’

Google officially filed its appeal of the federal ruling deeming it an illegal search monopolist, arguing the decision "crashed" through legal guardrails. "Google just prevailed in the marketplace fair and square," it writes in its legal filing. Google had already said it would appeal the ruling, which includes both the August 2024 decision about its […]

More: Google appeals search monopoly ruling, says it won business ‘fair and square’. Google officially filed its appeal of the federal ruling deeming it an illegal search monopolist, arguing the decision "crashed" through legal guardrails. Google had already said it would appeal the ruling, which includes both the August 2024 decision about its […]

TL;DR: Google officially filed its appeal of the federal ruling deeming it an illegal search monopolist, arguing the decision "crashed" through legal guardrails.

Read original at Theverge →

Theverge May 22, 10:46

The Trump phone is not here

Where's the Trump phone? We're going to keep talking about it every week. We've reached out, as usual, to ask about the Trump phone's whereabouts. It's now been more than a week since Trump Mobile announced that phones would "start shipping this week." Last week Trump Mobile announced that the T1 Phone was ready to […]

More: Where's the Trump phone? We're going to keep talking about it every week. We've reached out, as usual, to ask about the Trump phone's whereabouts. It's now been more than a week since Trump Mobile announced that phones would "start shipping this week." Last week Trump Mobile announced that the T1 Phone was ready to […]

TL;DR: It's now been more than a week since Trump Mobile announced that phones would "start shipping this week." Last week Trump Mobile announced that the T1 Phone was ready to […]

Read original at Theverge →

Theverge May 21, 18:27

States ask judge to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster

A federal judge is officially being tasked with deciding whether to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster. More than 30 states are asking Judge Arun Subramanian to order a sale of the ticketing giant, a "sufficient number" of large amphitheaters, and limit its ability to tie access to its remaining amps to the use of its promotions […]

More: States ask judge to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster. A federal judge is officially being tasked with deciding whether to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster. More than 30 states are asking Judge Arun Subramanian to order a sale of the ticketing giant, a "sufficient number" of large amphitheaters, and limit its ability to tie access to its remaining amps to the use of its promo…

TL;DR: A federal judge is officially being tasked with deciding whether to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster.

Read original at Theverge →

Britannica May 21, 07:00

Cryptocurrency regulation: U.S. laws and global developments - Britannica

Cryptocurrency regulation: U.S. laws and global developments Britannica

TL;DR: laws and global developments Britannica

Read original at Britannica →

Eff May 20, 15:03

🔒 A Win for Encrypted Messaging | EFFector 38.10

When it comes to keeping our texts, chats, and other digital messages safe from prying eyes, we have a powerful tool: end-to-end encryption. Used correctly, end-to-end encryption turns our conversations online into secret messages that can only be decoded by their intended recipients. In our latest EFFector newsletter , we're covering new developments in this tool, and how you can use it to prevent tech companies, governments, and other eavesdroppers from listening in. JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER For over 35 years, EFFector has been your guide to understanding the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and the law. This latest issue covers the shaky science backing social media bans , Canada's surveillance nightmare bill , and a victory for keeping private messages private . Prefer to listen in? EFFector is now available on all major podcast platforms. This time, we're chatting with EFF Senior Security and Privacy Activist Thorin Klosowski on an important step forward for encrypted messaging—as well as a notable disappointment. You can find the episode and subscribe on your podcast platform of choice : %3Ciframe%20height%3D%22200px%22%20width%3D%22100%25%22%20frameborder%3D%22no%22%20scrolling%3D%22no%22%20seamless%3D%22%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fplayer.simplecast.com%2Fcb903071-798d-429d-91dc-52ae77015a7d%3Fdark%3Dfalse%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from simplecast.com Want to protect your private conversations? Sign up for EFF's EFFector newsletter for updates, ways to take action, and new merch drops. You can also fuel the fight for privacy and free speech online when you support EFF today !

More: JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER For over 35 years, EFFector has been your guide to understanding the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and the law. This time, we're chatting with EFF Senior Security and Privacy Activist Thorin Klosowski on an important step forward for encrypted messaging—as well as a notable disappointment.

TL;DR: You can also fuel the fight for privacy and free speech online when you support EFF today !

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 19, 21:03

Microsoft Took a Step Toward Human Rights Accountability. Google and Amazon (and Others) Should Pay Attention!

For years, civil society organizations, workers, journalists, and human rights experts have warned that major technology companies risk enabling grave human rights abuses when they provide cloud computing, AI, and surveillance infrastructure to governments implicated in violations of international and humanitarian law. While many companies pay lip service to evaluating customers and contracts for human rights implications (lip service Exhibit A: Palantir !), too often those processes fail to provide any meaningful accountability when their standards are not met or are simply ignored. But recent developments at Microsoft suggest that accountability for failing to uphold the human rights standards that a company itself sets, even if incomplete, is possible. According to recent reporting , Microsoft’s Israel chief has departed amid an escalating ethical controversy surrounding the company’s business relationships with the Israeli Ministry of Defense. The move follows months of scrutiny, internal dissent, and sustained pressure from inside the organization along with press and civil society, especially after a report by The Guardian revealed that Microsoft technologies were used in systems connected to mass surveillance and military targeting operations in Gaza in ways that appeared to violate Microsoft’s own standards. This did not happen overnight. In September 2025, Microsoft reportedly suspended certain services after initial investigations raised serious concerns about how its cloud and AI infrastructure may have been used. That alone distinguished Microsoft from many of its peers. Rather than simply dismissing mounting concerns or hiding behind vague claims of neutrality, Microsoft appeared to recognize that providing technology in conflict settings creates real human rights responsibilities. Now, after additional investigation and continued public scrutiny, it appears the company has taken another step, one that should send a strong signal to others that violating Microsoft’s human rights commitments could cost you your job. This is important. There is still much more Microsoft should do, of course. The company has yet to fully disclose the scope of its findings, explain exactly which services were suspended, or clarify what safeguards remain in place to prevent its technologies from contributing to human rights abuses in the future. We shouldn’t have to infer the connection between this employment action and the company’s investigation. Just prior to reports that Microsoft had fired its Israel Country General Manager, EFF joined Access Now, Amnesty International, Fight for the Future, and 7amleh in a joint May 7, 2026 letter to Microsoft leadership calling on the company to publicly release the findings of its investigation, suspend business relationships tied to serious human rights abuses, and implement meaningful safeguards to prevent its technologies from contributing to further harm. The letter detailed allegations regarding Microsoft’s reported provision of Azure cloud and AI services to Israeli military and intelligence units involved in surveillance and targeting operations, while also pressing the company to take concrete human rights due diligence measures going forward. Those demands remain urgent, even as Microsoft appears to be taking some of the steps we urged. But even as we push for more, it is important to recognize when a company takes steps in the right direction. Because this is what it means to put human rights commitments into practice. It means acknowledging that human rights policies are not just branding exercises or transparency reports. It means accepting that companies providing cloud infrastructure and AI services have responsibilities when credible evidence emerges that their technologies may be enabling violations of international law. And it means taking concrete action when those risks become known. The allegations facing Microsoft are serious. Human rights organizations and investigative reporting have documented claims that Microsoft Azure services were used by Israeli military and intelligence units to process large-scale surveillance data, support AI-assisted targeting systems, and sustain military cloud infrastructure during the war in Gaza. The concerns raised extend beyond ordinary business risk; they implicate potential complicity in violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. Faced with these allegations, Microsoft could have chosen the path many tech companies take: deny everything, attack critics, suppress worker dissent, and continue business as usual. Instead, the company appears to have begun responding to the evidence. Technology companies are not powerless bystanders. Cloud providers and AI companies make choices every day about who gets access to their infrastructure, under what conditions, and with what oversight. When companies claim to uphold human rights principles, those commitments should have operational consequences. Too ...

More: Because this is what it means to put human rights commitments into practice. The allegations facing Microsoft are serious. When companies claim to uphold human rights principles, those commitments should have operational consequences.

TL;DR: For years, civil society organizations, workers, journalists, and human rights experts have warned that major technology companies risk enabling grave human rights abuses when they provide cloud computing, AI, and surveillance infrastructure to governments implicated in violations of international and humanitarian law.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 19, 15:06

Your Privacy Shouldn't Be A Corporate Decision

“ We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns. ”-Meta Internal Document on face recognition software for smart glasses, 2025 It’s unsurprising that a company would plan to release yet another privacy-invasive product. What is surprising is that they think we aren’t watching. You can help us keep them in check. JOIN EFF Meta isn't the only company actively eroding your privacy . We found that Google has broken its promise to some users to inform them about government surveillance. And Palantir is completely failing to live up to its purported human rights commitments. Corporations bear responsibility for violating user trust and human rights, and EFF is holding them accountable with your support . Watching the Watchers We're suing DHS and ICE to reveal their efforts to unmask online critics , creating privacy-enhancing free software , and pushing for stronger privacy laws for everyone. This is all thanks to over 30,000 EFF members— a community you can join today . Claw back your privacy with EFF's new member t-shirt! We’ve seen collective action rein in companies and bring them back on track to protect users. With you by our side, we can do it again. Join EFF today and be part of the community making this work possible. ____________________ EFF is a member-supported U.S. 501(c)(3) organization. We've received top rati ngs from the nonprofit watchdog Charity Navigator since 2013! Your donation is tax-deductible as allowed by law.

More: Your Privacy Shouldn't Be A Corporate Decision. JOIN EFF Meta isn't the only company actively eroding your privacy . This is all thanks to over 30,000 EFF members— a community you can join today .

TL;DR: JOIN EFF Meta isn't the only company actively eroding your privacy .

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 18, 18:03

We Updated Our Privacy Policy. Here's What Changed and Why.

We recently updated our privacy policy for the first time since 2022. Most of the changes are clarifications, reorganizations, and improvements in transparency, particularly around how third-party tools that run parts of our site operate. But one change is substantive enough that we want to address it directly. The Change You Should Know About: Opt-In Email Tracking We want to know how we’re doing with our advocacy: which campaigns get your attention and which do not, which topics you are very interested in, which less so, and which not at all. It helps us to do our work better and to prioritize or rethink our strategies as we push to build support for freedom, justice and innovation around the world. So, to give us a rough picture of how we’re doing, we are introducing the option for you to provide explicit, opt-in consent for us to see how you interact with the emails we send you. That includes whether you open emails, and whether you click on the links inside them. We know what you’re thinking: Doesn’t EFF strongly oppose nonconsensual tracking? You bet we do. Sneaky email tracking is ubiquitous on the web and EFF’s opposition to it remains unchanged. We have never used email tracking pixels and we’re not changing that. We’re not building profiles and we’re not sharing the data and we’re definitely not selling it. But we do want to give you the option of allowing us to learn about how our communications are landing with you. Here’s how consent will work. We will ask, and if you say yes, we’ll be able to see whether you opened an email or not, and whether you clicked on any links. That's it. If you say no, or ignore the ask entirely, nothing will change and we’ll do no tracking. If you say yes, you can change your mind and opt out at any time by clicking an opt-out link in any future email or by contacting [email protected] . We have heard many EFF members say that EFF is one of the only organizations that they trust with consent to track their emails. That trust is important, and we do not take it lightly. But it led us to think that if we ask, enough of you would agree that we could have a better picture of how our campaigns and other emails to you are landing and that, in turn, could help us decide what to double down on and what to change. By giving you a real ability to consent, EFF is taking a very different path than most of the web. Asking isn’t the norm; it’s more or less never an option to say no and dark patterns often make it hard even if it looks like you can. Unfortunately, estimates have shown that 2/3s of emails received by users contain tracking, regardless of whether the senders received explicit consent at the time when a recipient signs up to receive their mailings. Automatic, nonconsensual tracking doesn’t have to be the default, and it shouldn’t be. We hope our approach works and it inspires others. It shouldn’t be an abnormality that users are not tracked by default, and that only users who feel comfortable doing so choose to consent to tracking. We hope that our example will show mailing platforms, organizations, and users that a privacy-protective approach is better and worth doing and can still give an email sender a solid understanding what campaigns and other messages resonate with recipients. We weighed this decision carefully. We know that email tracking is something we've criticized when used covertly or without meaningful consent and that many people don’t like at all. For EFF, an opt-in requirement isn't a formality. It's the key distinction between a sneaky strategy and an aboveboard relationship with you. And to us, it’s just a common sense approach based on respect. It’s also consistent with our advocacy and approach to technology. We have said for many years that strong consumer privacy laws must require real opt-in consent before data is collected. And we have walked our talk in other ways as well, including in pushing for Do Not Track policies and in Privacy Badger, which protects you from ads and trackers that violate the principle of user consent. Again, this behavior has been our suggestion for privacy policies, and privacy laws. In 2022 we released a guide for nonprofits that recommended the following: Not tracking email open rates can, unfortunately, sometimes cause list “hygiene” problems, because it becomes difficult to know whether email subscribers on your list are still interested. You can send occasional emails to ensure subscribers want to receive emails, either using open or click tracking, and informing people that the purpose of that specific email is to determine active subscribers. The essential point is to let users know when you are using tracking, and to do it in a limited way when possible.... The Internet Archive found that while they preferred to use no open tracking in their emails to subscribers, too many unreachable email addresses had been added to their list over the years, and some email addresses had even become spam traps. To contin...

More: We Updated Our Privacy Policy. We have heard many EFF members say that EFF is one of the only organizations that they trust with consent to track their emails. Again, this behavior has been our suggestion for privacy policies, and privacy laws.

TL;DR: We have heard many EFF members say that EFF is one of the only organizations that they trust with consent to track their emails.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 18, 17:15

We Must Not Normalize Digital Surveillance Abuses. EFF’s New Guide Underlines Concrete Steps to Fight Back.

Poor accountability, feeble control mechanisms, and insufficient legal frameworks have led to systematic human rights violations in the Americas, with no consistent remedy or reparation to victims. What's needed is to materialize essential guarantees and measures to combat repeated surveillance abuses in the region. To help build a path for solutions, EFF launches the guide Tackling Arbitrary Digital Surveillance in the Americas , adding to our extensive work leveraging human rights norms to confront state privacy violations. The document compiles privacy, data protection, and access to information guarantees established within the Inter-American Human Rights System to provide concrete, actionable guidance to governments in the Americas to curb the vicious cycle of state digital surveillance abuses. It outlines the safeguards and institutional measures necessary to protect individuals and details rules, parameters, and standards to overcome current pernicious practices and trends. As concerns over national and public security intensify, countries in the region seem to increasingly normalize the pervasiveness of digital surveillance technologies and their arbitrary use by security forces as a distorted form of protection. However, no actual protection can arise from arbitrary surveillance. When public security, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies neglect or harm settled rights in the name of national security or public order, they too become a threat. Tolerating rights violations creates the dire situation that the Freedom of Expression Special Rapporteur of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights thoroughly analyzed in his report about the serious impacts of digital surveillance on freedom of expression in the Americas. The great majority of states in Latin America have ratified the American Convention on Human Rights. As such, the parameters and rules our new guide describes stem directly from their obligations before international human rights law. State agents and institutions must take the necessary measures to make them a reality. As EFF’s guide points out, states must implement clear and precise legal frameworks that: define surveillance powers and limitations; ensure all surveillance measures pursue legitimate aims without discriminatory ends; subject interference with privacy to rigorous necessity and proportionality analysis; require prior judicial authorization for digital surveillance measures; maintain detailed records of surveillance operations; establish independent civilian oversight institutions with technical expertise and enforcement powers; guarantee individuals' right to informational self-determination and proper notification; and provide effective remedies and reparation for victims of surveillance abuses. States must also put in place the institutional processes and structures to give effect to these legal guarantees. As we stress in the document , States that embrace the guide’s recommendations will not only comply with their international obligations, but will also build more resilient, rights-respecting security architectures capable of addressing genuine threats without sacrificing the freedoms they exist to protect. Civil society leaders, activists, legal experts, public defenders, oversight institutions, and state officials committed to human rights must gather and ramp up the fight against the normalization of digital surveillance abuses in the Americas. We hope that EFF’s new guide can serve as a crucial tool in strengthening this fight, one that we have joined since our early days.

More: Poor accountability, feeble control mechanisms, and insufficient legal frameworks have led to systematic human rights violations in the Americas, with no consistent remedy or reparation to victims. What's needed is to materialize essential guarantees and measures to combat repeated surveillance abuses in the region.

TL;DR: To help build a path for solutions, EFF launches the guide Tackling Arbitrary Digital Surveillance in the Americas , adding to our extensive work leveraging human rights norms to confront state privacy violations.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 13, 17:10

Help EFF Solve an Issue That's Bigger than Creepy Ads

Millions of people around the world use EFF's Privacy Badger . This browser extension blocks the hidden trackers that twist your web browsing into a commodity for Big Tech, advertisers, scammers, and data brokers. But did you know that we’re trying to solve an issue that’s even bigger than creepy ads and user profiling? You can help. JOIN EFF Online tracking isn't just creepy and unethical. It also enables government surveillance. Widespread commercial surveillance and weak privacy laws allow data brokers to harvest your data and sell it to law enforcement agencies including the FBI, CBP, and ICE. The government exploits this system to buy sensitive information about you that they would ordinarily need a warrant to collect, like your location over time . With your help, EFF is fighting back. Our team is working to enact stronger laws to uphold your privacy. We’re advocating for consumer rights in the courts. We’re investigating how these technologies affect our communities . And we’re cutting off surveillance advertising at the source with tools like Privacy Badger for everyone. You can support this work as an EFF member. End Mass Surveillance Privacy is a human right because it gives you a fundamental measure of security and freedom. That is why we at EFF focus on your ability to have private conversations and interact with the world using technologies that you choose. But when tools that many of us must rely on serve corporate surveillance, they also feed government surveillance. We owe it to ourselves to fight the mass spying used to control and intimidate people. Let’s do this. For a limited time, you can join EFF as a monthly or one-time donor and pick up a new Privacy Badger Crewneck sweatshirt . The embroidered Privacy Badger mascot appears above Traditional Chinese for " privacy ” because human rights are universal. You can also get a set of puffy stickers as a token of thanks. Our little Ghostie protects privacy in Arabic, English, Japanese, Persian, Russian, and Spanish. Claw Back! This year’s member t-shirt is hot off the press featuring an orange cat swatting at the street-level surveillance equipment multiplying in our communities. You might empathize with him, but there’s a better way. Let’s end the law enforcement contracts, harmful practices, and twisted logic that enable mass spying in the first place. You can support our mission for technology in the public interest today. Join the movement and become an EFF member. ____________________ EFF is a member-supported U.S. 501(c)(3) organization. We've received top rati ngs from the nonprofit watchdog Charity Navigator since 2013! Your donation is tax-deductible as allowed by law.

More: Help EFF Solve an Issue That's Bigger than Creepy Ads. You can support this work as an EFF member. The embroidered Privacy Badger mascot appears above Traditional Chinese for " privacy ” because human rights are universal.

TL;DR: You can support this work as an EFF member.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 13, 16:48

The Science is Not Settled: How Weak Evidence is Fueling a National Push to Ban Social Media for Youth

As statehouses ramp up for 2026, we’re seeing a familiar and concerning trend of lawmakers rushing to regulate the internet based on shockingly shaky science. From the California State Assembly to the Massachusetts and Minnesota legislatures , a wave of bills is crashing against the digital lives of young people, with proponents of these measures framing social media access as a "public health epidemic," or a "mental health crisis," even though we have yet to see any of the settled science that those labels usually invoke. As a digital rights organization dedicated to the civil liberties of all users, EFF’s expertise lies in reminding lawmakers that young people enjoy largely the same free speech and privacy rights as adults. EFF is not a social science research shop, but we can read the emerging research. What that research shows is much more nuanced than what is claimed by those proposing to ban young people from social media, and it is clear that research and theories used to justify these sweeping bans is far from settled. The rush to ban access to digital platforms is being fueled by "pop psychology" narratives and a collection of statistically flawed studies that do not meet the rigorous standards required for such a massive infringement on youth autonomy and constitutional rights. The Lie of A "Settled" Consensus The current legislative push relies heavily on a specific, media-friendly narrative that the "great rewiring" of the adolescent brain is a proven fact. This theory suggests that smartphones and social media are the primary, if not sole, drivers of a global uptick in teen anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self harm, etc. While this narrative makes for a compelling airport-bookstore read, it quickly collapses under the scrutiny of the broader scientific community. Independent researchers, including developmental psychologists from institutions like the University of California, Irvine , and Brown University , have repeatedly found that the evidence for such claims is mixed , blurry , and often contradictory . Large-scale meta-analyses covering dozens of countries have failed to show a consistent, measurable association between the rollout of social media and a decline in global well-being. In reality, we are seeing a classic case of what many of our middle school science teachers warned us about: "correlation" being sold as “causation." Additionally, the studies used to support these measures often fail to account for or exclude significant alternative explanations for rising teen anxiety and depression, such as the lasting impact of pandemic-era isolation, the persistent threat of school gun violence, and mounting economic or climate-related stress. By focusing narrowly on social media, these findings frequently overlook the broader societal factors that also impact youth mental health. The Cult of the "Anxious" Expert The current push for blanket social media bans relies almost exclusively on the work of Jonathan Haidt, particularly his book The Anxious Generation . While Haidt is an amiable and brilliant storyteller, he is not a clinical psychologist or a specialist in child development. He is a social psychologist who writes about moral psychology at a business school. Nonetheless, the book has made it to every Best Seller list , and with Haidt revered as an expert on podcasts with massive reach, like Oprah , Joe Rogan , Michelle Obama , and Trevor Noah —his message has been heard by a large subset of society, which primarily relies on: no smartphones or social media before age 16, phone-free schools, and more “unsupervised, real-world independence.” To highlight Haidt’s reach when it comes to legislation banning social media: the California committee analysis for the proposed California social media ban mentions Haidt 20 times; the Governor of Utah promoted the book as a “must-read” months before signing the nation’s first social media ban ; Haidt is cited in bill analysis for the bill banning social media in Florida; his work is mentioned in a federal bill aiming to ban phones in schools; and he provided formal testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Technology, Privacy, and the Law) in May 2022. While Haidt’s research has been paramount to legislation stripping millions of young people of their rights to expression and connection, his conclusions are not without challenge, and many experts in the field argue that the evidence is less than ironclad. The “Bad Science” Fueling Social Media Bans While we can admit that Jonathan Haidt’s "great rewiring" theory makes for a gripping narrative, we cannot ignore that independent researchers and statisticians have identified significant flaws in the data used to justify it . Which means we are currently watching policymakers legislate blanket bans based on evidence that would be rejected in almost any other field of public health. The reality is that research has consistently disproven the oft-assumed lin...

More: As statehouses ramp up for 2026, we’re seeing a familiar and concerning trend of lawmakers rushing to regulate the internet based on shockingly shaky science. From the California State Assembly to the Massachusetts and Minnesota legislatures , a wave of bills is crashing against the digital lives of young people, with proponents of these measures framing social media access as…

TL;DR: As a digital rights organization dedicated to the civil liberties of all users, EFF’s expertise lies in reminding lawmakers that young people enjoy largely the same free speech and privacy rights as adults.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 12, 22:11

Broken Promises: RIP Instagram’s End-to-End Encrypted DMs

Last week, Instagram ended its opt-in, and therefore rarely used, end-to-end encryption feature . Years after publicly promising to provide the privacy protections of end-to-end encryption across its platforms by default, it instead gave up on that technical challenge. Now, we've all lost an option for safer conversations on one of the biggest social media platforms in the world. In an announcement in 2023, Meta bragged about how it had successfully encrypted Messenger, and teased that Instagram was in progress. Even before then, they’d talked about how important encryption was in Messenger and Instagram in a white paper published in 2022, stating: We want people to have a trusted private space that’s safe and secure, which is why we’re taking our time to thoughtfully build and implement e2ee by default across Messenger and Instagram DMs. So where did the reversal come from? In a statement , Meta claimed that, “Very few people were opting in to end-to-end encrypted messaging in DMs.” This isn’t all that surprising, as turning it on was an optional four-step process that few people knew about. Defaults matter, and Meta’s choice to blame people for failing to opt into this feature is proof of how much. In that same statement, the company pointed people to WhatsApp for access to encrypted messaging. Yet if Meta truly wanted people to have a trusted private space to communicate, it would meet them everywhere they are: on WhatsApp, on Messenger, and on Instagram. But at least Meta was straightforward about the fact that it will not continue to support or work on this feature. That's rare. Most tech company promises aren’t broken explicitly, they just remain undelivered long enough to be forgotten. This is particularly disappointing as other companies take even bigger swings, like Google and Apple working together to implement end-to-end encryption over Rich Communication Services (RCS), and Signal’s continued work to make its app simpler and easier to use for everyone. Meta abandoning this principle is disheartening, especially as we are still waiting for other promised features from the company, like end-to-end encryption in Facebook Messenger group messages . Instead of blaming users for not using these sorts of features and then abandoning the promise of delivery, Meta—and other tech companies—should start by enabling strong privacy protective features by default.

More: Years after publicly promising to provide the privacy protections of end-to-end encryption across its platforms by default, it instead gave up on that technical challenge. In that same statement, the company pointed people to WhatsApp for access to encrypted messaging.

TL;DR: Instead of blaming users for not using these sorts of features and then abandoning the promise of delivery, Meta—and other tech companies—should start by enabling strong privacy protective features by default.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 12, 16:48

Victory! End-to-End Encrypted RCS Comes to Apple and Android Chats

This week, Apple released iOS 26.5 , an update that supports end-to-end encryption for Rich Communication Services (RCS), meaning conversations between Android and iPhone will soon be encrypted in the default chat apps. This has been a long time coming, and is a welcome delivery on a promise both Google and Apple made . With this update, conversations that take place between Apple’s Messages app and Google Messages on Android will be end-to-end encrypted by default, as long as the carrier supports both RCS and encrypted messages (you can find a list of carriers here ). RCS messages are a replacement for SMS , and in 2024 Apple started supporting it, making for a marked improvement in the quality of images and other media shared between Android and iPhones. Now, those conversations can also benefit from the increased privacy and security that end-to-end encryption offers, making it so neither Google, Apple, nor the cellular carriers have access to the contents of messages. This feature comes courtesy of both Apple and Google supporting the GSMA RCS Universal Profile 3.0 , which implements the Messaging Layer Security protocol for encryption. Metadata will likely still be collected and stored for these conversations, making alternatives like Signal still a better option for many conversations. Likewise, if you back up those conversations to the cloud, they may be stored unencrypted unless you enable Advanced Data Protection on iOS ( Google Messages end-to-end encrypts the text of messages in backups, but not the media, so we’d like to see a similar offering as ADP on Android ). Still, this is a significant step forward for the privacy of millions of conversations worldwide. End-to-end encrypted RCS messaging is still marked as beta on Apple devices, likely because the rollout is dependent on carriers as well as the Android phone running the most recent version of Google Messages. It might take some time before you get this feature in your chats and until you do, remember that the conversations are not protected with end-to-end encryption. But once everyone in the conversation is on the right software version and the carrier support is implemented, you will see a lock icon and the text, “Encrypted” at the top of the conversation for any chats you have over RCS, as seen here: We applaud Apple and Google for getting this across the finish line and Encrypting It Already ! More companies should take these sorts of difficult but necessary steps to protect the privacy of our conversations and our data.

More: End-to-End Encrypted RCS Comes to Apple and Android Chats. Still, this is a significant step forward for the privacy of millions of conversations worldwide. More companies should take these sorts of difficult but necessary steps to protect the privacy of our conversations and our data.

TL;DR: More companies should take these sorts of difficult but necessary steps to protect the privacy of our conversations and our data.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 12, 16:41

EFF Launches New Offline Campaign for Saudi Wikipedian Osama Khalid

Osama Khalid was just twelve years old when he began contributing to Wikipedia Arabic. In the height of the blogging era, he became a prolific blogger, publishing writings on his home country of Saudi Arabia, meetups he attended, and his opinions and observations about open source technology and freedom of expression. He advocated for internet freedom, contributed time and translations to various projects—including EFF’s HTTPS Everywhere —and was a thoughtful presence at the conferences he attended around the world…all while training to become a pediatrician. In July of 2020, he was detained amid a wave of arbitrary arrests carried out by the Saudi authorities during the Covid-19 lockdown and initially given a five-year prison sentence. That sentence was later increased on appeal to 32 years, then reduced in 2023 to 25 years, and again to 14 years this past September. In a joint letter that we signed on to in April, the Saudi human rights organization ALQST , which has been leading the campaign for Osama’s release, wrote: “The huge discrepancy between sentences handed down at different stages in the case underscores the arbitrary manner in which sentencing is carried out in the Saudi judicial system.” So, what was his “crime”? Sharing information online that conflicted with official narratives. Osama’s Wikipedia contributions included pages on critical human rights issues in Saudi Arabia, including the treatment of women’s rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul (herself an EFF client) and Saudi Arabia’s infamous al-Ha’ir prison . His blog, which has since been taken offline, included articles such as one criticizing government plans for the surveillance of encrypted platforms. Over the years, we’ve campaigned for the release of a number of individuals imprisoned for their speech. Our contributions to the campaigns of Ola Bini , the Swedish software developer who has been targeted by the government of Ecuador for the past seven years, and Alaa Abd El Fattah , have had real impact. These cases are reminders that attacks on free expression are rarely confined to borders: governments around the world continue to use vague cybercrime laws, national security claims, and politically motivated prosecutions to silence critics, technologists, journalists, and activists. Supporting these two—and others we’ve highlighted in our Offline project—has never been about defending only individuals. It has also been about defending the principle that writing code, sharing ideas, criticizing governments, and organizing online should not be treated as crimes. Public pressure, international solidarity, legal advocacy, and sustained campaigning can shift the political cost of repression—and, in some cases, help secure meaningful protections for those targeted. That’s why we’re highlighting Osama’s case and will continue to work with partners including ALQST to advocate for his release. Osama Khalid, like so many human rights defenders, journalists, and internet users detained by the Saudi government, deserves to be free.

More: EFF Launches New Offline Campaign for Saudi Wikipedian Osama Khalid. Osama’s Wikipedia contributions included pages on critical human rights issues in Saudi Arabia, including the treatment of women’s rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul (herself an EFF client) and Saudi Arabia’s infamous al-Ha’ir prison .

TL;DR: Osama Khalid, like so many human rights defenders, journalists, and internet users detained by the Saudi government, deserves to be free.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 12, 15:45

A Hackers Guide to Circumventing Internet Shutdowns

Internet shutdowns are devastating for human rights . When people are disconnected from the internet and digital services, it impacts all aspects of their life—from accessing essential information, to seeking medical care, or communicating with loved ones, both in that country and externally. But on January 8th, 2026, the government of Iran shut down internet communications for the entire country as a rebellion threatened to topple the authoritarian government. The government then proceeded to execute as many as 656 dissidents over the next 3 months , though the actual number could be much higher. Which is part of the point: shutdowns often precede government acts of violence. Iran’s shutdown was hardly an isolated incident. Earlier this month, the U.S. military invaded Venezuela and kidnapped the Venezuelan president shortly after US cyber forces shut down all internet access and power grids for the capital city of Caracas. India routinely shuts off internet access in the Kashmir region , and Syria shut down internet communications as many as 73 times, most recently in 2025. Even the UK recently had a localized temporary internet shutdown . At the time of this writing there are 14 ongoing internet shutdowns worldwide. Government shutdowns aren’t the only reason an entire region or country might lose internet access. Hurricanes, earthquakes, and wildfires can take out internet connections in many regions of the world, and will only increase as climate change ramps up. They can completely disable the communications infrastructure relied upon by victims, their families, first responders, and disaster relief efforts. Having an alternate way to communicate in such times can save lives. One way to limit the impact of such shutdowns is to prepare in advance by setting up systems and structure for circumvention and resiliency. To keep people connected during internet shutdowns and blackouts, communication networks must be operational before and after the disaster or shutdown. To be effective, they must be widespread so that people can get access to them reliably, and they must be usable by a majority of the community. And any viable solution must be accessible and sustainable on a community level, not just to people with vast financial resources or technical knowledge. You shouldn’t have to be a tech wizard to be able to communicate with your neighbors! Radios There are many ways for a community to build their own disaster resilient communications. Radios, for example, are cheap, decentralized, and resilient. Many people with moderate technical skill have set up Meshtastic repeaters. Meshtastic is a way to use a common unlicensed radio spectrum and a t echnology called LoRA to have peer-to-peer decentralized communications with people in your neighborhood or city. When you buy a Meshtastic device (cheap ones cost around $20) you can link it to your phone and send text messages to people in your area without ever touching the telephone network or the internet. Messages are delivered directly from person to person over public radio waves. There is also amateur radio, also known as ham radio, which has been used in disaster communications for decades. Ham radio requires a license, but allows you to communicate farther than Meshtastic, using repeaters or even bouncing signals off the stratosphere to talk to people on the other side of the planet or even on the International Space Station. It is even possible to access the internet over ham radio. Peer-to-peer messaging apps Another option for internet communication during a shutdown is peer-to-peer messaging apps. One such project,called Briar , uses the Bluetooth functionality on phones to route messages from device to device until they reach their destination, even in instances where there is no internet. However, Briar faces the same problems many mesh projects do: almost nobody has the app installed and it’s difficult to use. If a mesh chat app isn’t already widely installed before an internet shutdown, it’s going to be even harder to get people to install it en masse once the shutdown starts. A similar effort called bitchat has recently gained some attention . Bitchat is a peer-to-peer chat system that routes over Nostr , Tor , and Bluetooth. It is unfortunately tainted in many people’s eyes by being a project by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, but it is open source and runs on both Android and iOS. It was used with some success in Iran during the latest internet shutdown . Another option is Delta Chat , which uses PGP for encryption and email for routing, while still being much simpler to use than either technology. Delta Chat is highly regarded in Iran for its ability to route a message through even the tiniest sliver of email access. Satellite internet Satellite internet is an internet connection that uses a connection to a satellite dish to reach the internet, such as Starlink. Since there are no wires and no physical connection to infrastructur...

More: A Hackers Guide to Circumventing Internet Shutdowns . Internet shutdowns are devastating for human rights . Satellite internet Satellite internet is an internet connection that uses a connection to a satellite dish to reach the internet, such as Starlink.

TL;DR: Internet shutdowns are devastating for human rights .

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 11, 20:18

Canada’s Bill C-22 Is a Repackaged Version of Last Year’s Surveillance Nightmare

Last year, the Canadian government pushed Bill C-2 , which would erode Canadian digital rights in the name of “border security.” The bill was so bad it didn’t even make it to committee because of the backlash from the privacy community. Now, the spring’s worst sequel, Bill C-22 , aka The Lawful Access Act, is trying it again. As with most sequels, Bill C-22 makes some tweaks to problematic elements, but largely retains the same problems. The bill forces digital services, which could include telecoms, messaging apps, and more, to record and retain metadata for a full year, and expands information sharing with foreign governments, including the United States. Metadata can reveal a lot about who you communicate with, where you go, and when you do so. Expanding the collection of metadata would require companies to store even more information about their users than they already do, providing an incentive for bad actors to access that information. Worst of all, Bill C-22 erodes the privacy of millions by providing a mechanism for the Minister of Public Safety to demand companies create a backdoor to their services to provide law enforcement access to data, as long as these mandates don’t introduce a “systemic vulnerability.” These widespread surveillance backdoors would likely facilitate even more data breaches than we see already. The bill also bans companies from even revealing the existence of these orders publicly. The definitions of both “systemic vulnerabilities” and “encryption” are not clear enough in C-22, leaving wiggle room for the government to demand that companies circumvent encryption. And the overbroad definitions in the bill can include apps as well as operating systems. Canadian officials have made it clear they believe it’s possible to add surveillance without introducing systemic vulnerabilities, which is just not true. Surveillance of encrypted communications is fundamentally a systemic vulnerability. This resembles what happened in the UK last year, when the government demanded that Apple implement this type of backdoor into its optional Advanced Data Protection feature, which then forced Apple to revoke the feature for its UK users instead of complying with the request. To this day, UK users still do not have access to this powerful, privacy-protective feature that provides stronger protections for data stored in iCloud. Both Meta and Apple are concerned that C-22 would give the Canadian governments similar powers, and both companies have come out against the bill . The U.S. House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees also sent a joint letter to Canada’s Minister of Public Safety highlighting the concern around backdoors into encrypted systems. The dangers of these sorts of backdoors are not theoretical. In 2024, the Salt Typhoon hack took advantage of a system built by Internet Service Providers to give law enforcement access to user data. When you build these systems, hackers will come. Canadians deserve strong privacy protections, transparency into how companies handle user data, and clear safeguards around encrypted data. Bill C-22 provides none of that, instead reaching further into the digital pockets of tech companies to build broad lawful access mechanisms. Further reading Full text of C-22 Canadian Civil Liberties Association statement and letter Open Media blog on C-22 EFF’s blog on bill C-2

More: Now, the spring’s worst sequel, Bill C-22 , aka The Lawful Access Act, is trying it again. Both Meta and Apple are concerned that C-22 would give the Canadian governments similar powers, and both companies have come out against the bill . Bill C-22 provides none of that, instead reaching further into the digital pockets of tech companies to build broad lawful access mechanisms.

TL;DR: Last year, the Canadian government pushed Bill C-2 , which would erode Canadian digital rights in the name of “border security.” The bill was so bad it didn’t even make it to committee because of the backlash from the privacy community.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 11, 20:12

EFF to Fourth Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

EFF, along with the national ACLU, the ACLU affiliates in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit urging the court to require a warrant for border searches of electronic devices under the Fourth Amendment, an argument EFF has been making in the courts and Congress for nearly a decade. The Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments on May 8. The Knight Institute at Columbia University and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press also filed a helpful brief focusing on the First Amendment implications of border searches of electronic devices. The case, U.S. v. Belmonte Cardozo , involves a U.S. citizen whose cell phone was manually searched after he arrived at Dulles airport near Washington, D.C., following a trip to Bolivia. He had been on the government’s radar prior to his international trip and had been flagged for secondary inspection. Border officers found child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on his phone, and he was later arrested and criminally charged. The district court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the images and other data obtained from the warrantless search of his cell phone. He was ultimately convicted of child pornography and sexual exploitation of minors because he had used social media to entice minors to send him sexually explicit photos of themselves. The number of warrantless device searches at the border and the significant invasion of privacy they represent is only increasing. In Fiscal Year 2025, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) conducted 55,318 device searches , both manual (“basic”) and forensic (“advanced”). A manual search involves a border officer tapping or mousing around a device. A forensic search involves connecting another device to the traveler’s device and using software to extract and analyze the data to create a detailed report the device owner’s activities and communications. However, both search methods are highly privacy-invasive, as border officers can access the same data that can reveal the most personal aspects of our lives, including political affiliations, religious beliefs and practices, sexual and romantic affinities, financial status, health conditions, and family and professional associations. In our amicus brief , we argued that the Fourth Circuit should adopt the same legal standard for both manual and forensic searches, and that standard should be a warrant supported by probable cause and issued by a neutral judge. The highly personal nature of the information found on electronic devices is why there should not be different legal standards for different methods of search, and why a judge should determine whether the government has provided credible preliminary evidence that there’s a likelihood that further evidence will be found on the device indicating wrongdoing by the specific traveler. Moreover, we argued that “the process of getting a warrant is not unduly burdensome,” and that “getting a warrant would not impede the efficient processing of travelers. If border officers have probable cause to search a device, they may retain it and let the traveler continue on their way, then get a search warrant. Or, where there is truly no time to go to a judge, the exigent circumstances exception may apply on a case-by-case basis.” The Fourth Circuit in prior cases only considered forensic device searches at the border. In U.S. v. Kolsuz (2018) , the court held that the forensic search of the defendant’s cell phone at the border “must be considered a nonroutine border search, requiring some measure of individualized suspicion” of a transnational offense, but the court declined to decide whether the standard is only reasonable suspicion or instead a probable cause warrant. Then in U.S. v. Aigbekaen (2019) , the court held that a forensic device search at the border in support of a purely domestic law enforcement investigation requires a warrant. The court also reiterated the general Kolsuz rule for a forensic border-related device search: the “Government must have individualized suspicion of an offense that bears some nexus to the border search exception's purposes of protecting national security, collecting duties, blocking the entry of unwanted persons, or disrupting efforts to export or import contraband.” Now, manual searches are before the court. In urging the Fourth Circuit to adopt a warrant standard for both manual and forensic device searches at the border, we argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s balancing test in Riley v. California (2014) should govern the analysis here. In that case, the Court weighed the government’s interests in warrantless and suspicionless access to cell phone data following an arrest, against an arrestee’s privacy interests in the depth and breadth of personal information stored on a cell phone. The Court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest warrant excep...

More: EFF to Fourth Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit urging the court to require a warrant for border searches of electronic devices under the Fourth Amendment, an argument EFF has been making in the courts and Congress for nearly a decade.

TL;DR: The number of warrantless device searches at the border and the significant invasion of privacy they represent is only increasing.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 11, 17:37

EFF Stands in Solidarity With RightsCon and the Global Digital Rights Community

When governments shut down spaces for dialogue, dissent, and collective organizing, the damage extends far beyond a single event. The abrupt cancellation of RightsCon 2026—the world’s largest annual global digital rights conference—is not just a logistical disruption for thousands of researchers, journalists, technologists, and activists—it is part of a growing global pattern of shrinking civic space and increasing hostility toward free expression and independent civil society. Just days before the conference was set to begin and as participants had begun to arrive in Lusaka, organizers announced that RightsCon would no longer proceed in Zambia or online after mounting political pressure and demands that would have excluded vulnerable communities and constrained discussion. The U.N.’s World Press Freedom Day, which was set to take place just prior to the conference, was scaled down in light of the events, and its press freedom prize ceremony postponed to a later date. RightsCon has long served as one of the few truly global convenings where civil society groups, grassroots organizers, technologists, and policymakers can meet on equal footing to confront some of the most urgent human rights challenges of the digital age—from censorship and surveillance to internet shutdowns, platform accountability, and the safety of marginalized communities online. EFF has had a presence at RightsCon since its inception in 2011, and had planned to meet with and learn from international partners and present our work during several sessions in Lusaka. The cancellation is especially devastating because of what RightsCon represents. For many advocates—particularly those from the global majority— it is not merely another conference . It is a rare opportunity to build solidarity across borders, form lasting partnerships, learn from other regions’ experiences, secure funding and support for local work, and ensure that the people most impacted by digital repression have a seat at the table. Holding the event in southern Africa carried particular significance, promising to elevate regional voices and strengthen local digital rights networks. What happened in Zambia sends a chilling message. According to organizers and multiple reports, the pressure surrounding the event included Chinese government demands to exclude Taiwanese participants and moderate discussions around politically sensitive topics. At a moment when governments around the world are increasingly restricting protest, targeting journalists, cutting funds for human rights work, banning young people from online communities, censoring speech, and criminalizing civil society activity, the cancellation of RightsCon reflects the broader erosion of democratic space online and offline. Organizations from the digital rights community have spoken out forcefully against the government’s cancellation of the conference, making clear that these attacks on civic participation will not pass unnoticed. Access Now described the decision as evidence of “the far reach of transnational repression targeting civil society.” Index on Censorship ’s response warned that the move represents a dangerous escalation in attempts to suppress open dialogue, while IFEX rightly described the cancellation as a blow not just to one conference, but to freedom of expression and assembly everywhere. We are also heartened to see statements from members of the international community—including Tabani Moyo , who spoke about the impact on the southern African community, and Taiwanese participant Shin Yang , who emphasized the importance of preserving spaces where marginalized communities can safely organize and speak—underscoring that attempts to silence civil society only reinforce the importance of defending open, global spaces for organizing and debate. Even as this cancellation represents a serious setback, it is important to remember that the digital rights community has always adapted under pressure. Around the world, advocates continue to organize in increasingly difficult environments, finding new ways to connect , collaborate, and resist censorship and repression. Upcoming events like the Global Gathering and FIFAfrica —both of which EFF plans to attend—will bring together members of the community to tackle tough issues. And in the meantime, groups from all over the world are working together to incorporate global perspectives into platform regulations , oppose age verification laws , protect against surveillance , and fight internet shutdowns , among many other efforts. RightsCon itself emerged from a recognition that defending human rights in the digital age requires international solidarity—and that need has not disappeared. The conversations that were supposed to happen in Lusaka will continue elsewhere: in community spaces, online gatherings, encrypted chats, and future convenings yet to come. Governments may close venues, restrict participation, or attempt to narrow the boundaries of acceptable...

More: EFF Stands in Solidarity With RightsCon and the Global Digital Rights Community. Even as this cancellation represents a serious setback, it is important to remember that the digital rights community has always adapted under pressure.

TL;DR: RightsCon itself emerged from a recognition that defending human rights in the digital age requires international solidarity—and that need has not disappeared.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 8, 23:24

Congress Narrowed the GUARD Act, But Serious Problems Remain

Following criticism, lawmakers have narrowed the GUARD Act , a bill aimed at restricting minors’ access to certain AI systems. The earlier version could have applied broadly to nearly every AI-powered chatbot or search tool. The amended bill focuses more narrowly on so-called “AI companions”—conversational systems designed to simulate emotional or interpersonal interactions with users. That change does address some of the broadest concerns raised about the original proposal, though some questions about the bill’s reach remain. Bottom line: the revised bill still creates serious problems for privacy, online speech, and parental choice. TAKE ACTION Tell Congress: oppose the guard act The new GUARD Act still requires companies offering AI companions to implement burdensome age-verification systems tied to users’ real-world identities. Even parents who specifically want their teenagers to use these systems would still face significant hurdles. A family might decide that a conversational AI tool helps an isolated teenager practice social interaction, or engage in harmless creative roleplay. A parent deployed in the military might set up a persistent AI storyteller for a younger child. Under the revised bill, those users could still face mandatory age checks tied to sensitive personal or financial information before they or their children can use these services. The revised bill also leaves important definitions unclear while sharply increasing penalties for developers and companies that get those judgments wrong. Congress narrowed the GUARD Act. But it is still trying to solve a complicated social problem with vague legal standards, heavy liability, and privacy-invasive verification systems. Intrusive Age-Verification Remains In The Bill The revised GUARD Act still requires companies offering AI companions to verify that users are adults through a “reasonable age verification” system. The bill allows a broader set of verification methods than the earlier version, but they are still tied to a user’s real-world identity—such as financial records, or age-verified accounts for a mobile operating system or app store. That approach still raises serious privacy and access concerns. Millions of Americans do not have current government ID, accounts at major banks, or stable access to the kinds of digital identity systems the bill contemplates. Even for those who do, requiring identity-linked verification to access online speech tools creates real risks for privacy, anonymity, and data security. Many people are rightly creeped out by age-verification systems, and may simply forgo using these services rather than compromise their privacy and security. The revised definition of “AI companion” is also narrower than before, but it’s unclear at the margins. The bill now focuses on systems that “engage in interactions involving emotional disclosures” from the user, or present a “persistent identity, persona or character.” EFF appreciates that the authors recognized that the prior definition could reach a variety of AI systems that are not chatbots, including internet search engines. But the narrowed definition could be read to also apply to a variety of chat tools that are not AI companions. For example, many modern online conversational systems increasingly recognize and respond to users’ emotions. Customer service systems, including completely human-powered ones that existed long before AI chatbots, have long been designed to recognize frustration and respond empathetically. As conversational AI becomes more emotionally responsive, a customer service chatbot’s efforts to empathize may sweep it within the bill’s definition. Bigger Penalties, Bigger Incentives To Restrict Access The revised bill also sharply increases penalties. Instead of $100,000 per violation, companies—including small developers—can face fines of up to $250,000 per violation, enforced by both federal and state officials. That kind of liability creates incentives to over-restrict access, especially for minors. Smaller developers, in particular, may decide it is safer to block younger users entirely, disable conversational features, or avoid developing certain tools at all, rather than risk severe penalties under vague standards. The concerns driving this bill are real. Some AI systems have engaged in troubling interactions with vulnerable users, including minors. But the right answer to that is targeted enforcement against bad actors, and privacy laws that protect us all. The revised GUARD Act instead responds with a privacy-invasive system that burdens the right to speak, read, and interact online. Congress did improve this bill, but EFF’s core speech, privacy, and security issues remain. TAKE ACTION Tell Congress: oppose the guard act

More: Bottom line: the revised bill still creates serious problems for privacy, online speech, and parental choice. Even for those who do, requiring identity-linked verification to access online speech tools creates real risks for privacy, anonymity, and data security. Congress did improve this bill, but EFF’s core speech, privacy, and security issues remain.

TL;DR: Congress did improve this bill, but EFF’s core speech, privacy, and security issues remain.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 8, 17:23

Free Signal Guide

EFF friend Guy Kawasaki* has written a book: Everybody Has Something to Hide: Why and How to Use Signal to Preserve Your Privacy, Security, and Well-Being. This guide is now available in Spanish and English as an ebook in the EPUB format that you can download here. Take a look and consider sharing it with anyone who you know who uses (or should use) Signal. And don't forget: EFF has two short guides on using Signal on our Surveillance Self-Defense site. An intro How to Use Signal guide, and a guide on Managing Signal Groups . Everybody Has Something to Hide: Why and How to Use Signal to Preserve Your Privacy, Security, and Well-Being courtesy of Guy Kawasaki. *Guy Kawasaki is an EFF donor.

More: EFF friend Guy Kawasaki* has written a book: Everybody Has Something to Hide: Why and How to Use Signal to Preserve Your Privacy, Security, and Well-Being. This guide is now available in Spanish and English as an ebook in the EPUB format that you can download here. Take a look and consider sharing it with anyone who you know who uses (or should use) Signal.

TL;DR: EFF friend Guy Kawasaki* has written a book: Everybody Has Something to Hide: Why and How to Use Signal to Preserve Your Privacy, Security, and Well-Being.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 6, 22:44

Milestone 1.0.0 Release of APK Downloader `apkeep` Powers Research on Android Apps

Last week, we released apkeep version 1.0.0 , the latest edition of our command-line Android package downloading software. Rather than indicating major changes for the project, this milestone instead signifies arriving at a relatively stable and mature place after gradual iteration on the project over the course of over four years. What’s New in 1.0.0 We do have a few fresh features we’ve packed into this latest release, though—all focused on the Google Play Store: You can now download a dex metadata file associated with an app containing a Cloud Profile , which provides information on app performance based on real usage. You can now provide a token generated by the Aurora Store’s dispenser to log in anonymously for app downloads. Users can specify their own device profiles when downloading apps from Google Play, which the store uses to deliver the app variant which works for your particular device specifications. We’ve also fixed an authentication bug introduced by the Play Store API. In addition to the various Linux, Windows, and Android environments we support, we’re also happy to announce that since the last release in October we’ve been included in Homebrew for macOS users! How Researchers Use apkeep to Understand the Android App Landscape Researchers and users contributed most of the features of this release, including downloading dex metadata containing Google’s Cloud Profiles. This feature helps them use the tool in their own research of highlighting how these Android compilation profiles can be a vital source of information for evaluating dynamic testing. Numerous other projects have cited apkeep usage in their own workflows. For example, Exodus Privacy uses it to power the εxodus tool’s downloads when they monitor the privacy properties of apps. Various research teams have noted their own use of the tool in whitepapers, including one team who used the tool to download 21,154 apps in a widespread study of Android evasive malware. We are proud to provide a reliable tool in the toolbox they use to power their work. What’s in Store fo r apkeep? Our goals with apkeep have remained constant: provide a reliable, fast, and safe way to download apps from multiple app providers, not just the Google Play Store. While we’ve focused on it as the major Android app provider of choice across much of the world, we’ve expanded support to other stores as well, such as F-Droid for downloading open source apps. We’d like to continue broadening apkeep ’s list of supported providers, to make it easy to do comparative analysis of apps provided in different contexts. For this, we’d love your contributions . How You Can Help If you’re using apkeep as part of your own toolbox (whether using it to do malware analysis, auditing apps, or simply using it as an app archiving tool), let us know ! And if you like what we do, please consider donating to EFF to support our work.

More: Milestone 1.0.0 Release of APK Downloader `apkeep` Powers Research on Android Apps. For example, Exodus Privacy uses it to power the εxodus tool’s downloads when they monitor the privacy properties of apps. And if you like what we do, please consider donating to EFF to support our work.

TL;DR: And if you like what we do, please consider donating to EFF to support our work.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 6, 16:11

👎 California's Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Social Media Ban | EFFector 38.9

We'd all like the internet to be a better place—for kids and adults alike. But in the name of online safety, governments around the world are racing to impose a dangerous new system of control. Are age gates the silver bullet to the internet's problems they're being promoted as? Or are we being sold a bill of goods? We're answering this question and more in our latest EFFector newsletter . JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER For over 35 years, EFFector has been your guide to understanding the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and the law. This latest issue covers a n attack on VPNs in Utah , a livestream on how to disenshittify the internet , and California's proposed social media ban that could set a dangerous new precedent for online censorship. Prefer to listen in? EFFector is now available on all major podcast platforms. This time, we're having a conversation with EFF Legislative Analyst Molly Buckley on why social media bans can't sidestep the U.S. constitution . You can find the episode and subscribe on your podcast platform of choice : %3Ciframe%20height%3D%22200px%22%20width%3D%22100%25%22%20frameborder%3D%22no%22%20scrolling%3D%22no%22%20seamless%3D%22%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fplayer.simplecast.com%2F07b61711-d8ff-4483-aee3-21daa5a3ea22%3Fdark%3Dfalse%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from simplecast.com Want to help push back on these misguided regulations? Sign up for EFF's EFFector newsletter for updates, ways to take action, and new merch drops. You can also fuel the fight for privacy and free speech online when you support EFF today !

More: 👎 California's Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Social Media Ban | EFFector 38.9. This time, we're having a conversation with EFF Legislative Analyst Molly Buckley on why social media bans can't sidestep the U.S. You can also fuel the fight for privacy and free speech online when you support EFF today !

TL;DR: You can also fuel the fight for privacy and free speech online when you support EFF today !

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 6, 14:38

The SECURE Data Act is Not a Serious Piece of Privacy Legislation

The federal SECURE Data Act is not a serious consumer privacy bill, and its provisions—if enacted—would be a retreat from already insufficient state protections. Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a draft of the bill late last month without bipartisan support. The bill is weaker than congressional proposals in prior years, as well as most of the 21 state consumer privacy laws already on the books. The bill could wipe out hundreds of state privacy protections. Most troubling for EFF: the bill would preempt dozens, if not hundreds, of state laws that regulate related topics, and it would not allow consumers to sue to protect their own rights (commonly called a private right of action ). And it comes nowhere close to banning online behavioral advertising —a practice that fuels technology companies’ always increasing hunt for personal data. The bill also suffers from many other flaws including weak opt-out defaults, inadequate data minimization requirements, and large definitional loopholes for companies. Key Provisions The bill would give consumers some rights to take action to control their personal data— like access, correction, deletion, and limited portability. These rights have become standard in all data privacy proposals in recent years. The bill would also require companies to obtain your consent before processing your sensitive data, or using any of your personal data for a previously undisclosed purpose. Absent your consent, a company couldn’t do these things. Further, the bill would allow you to opt out of (1) targeted third-party advertising, (2) the sale of your personal data, and (3) profiling of you that has a legal, healthcare, housing, or employment effect. Unfortunately, a company could keep doing these invasive things to you, unless you opted out. The bill would also require data brokers that make at least 50 percent of their profits from the sale of personal data to register in a public database maintained by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Preemption of Too Many State Laws Federal privacy laws should allow states to build ever stronger rights on top of the federal floor. Many federal privacy laws allow this, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Video Privacy Protection Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The SECURE Data Act would not do that. Instead, it would wipe out dozens, if not hundreds, of existing state privacy protections. Section 15 of the bill would preempt any “law, rule, regulation, requirement, standard, or other provision [that] relates to the provisions of this Act.” This would kill the 21 state consumer privacy laws passed in the past few years. These state bills aren’t strong enough, but they are still better than this federal proposal. For example, California maintains a data broker deletion tool and requires companies to comply with automatic opt-out signals —including one that is built into EFF’s Privacy Badger . Because the S ECURE Data Act has provisions that relate to data privacy and security, it could preempt all 50 state data breach laws and many others . It could also preempt state laws related to specific pieces of sensitive data, like bans on the sale of biometric or location information. Some states like California have constitutional provisions that protect an individual’s right to privacy, which can be enforced against companies . That constitutional provision, as well as state privacy torts , could also be in danger if this bill passed. No Private Enforcement, A New Cure Period, and Vague Security Powers Strong consumer privacy laws should allow consumers to take companies to court to defend their own rights. This is essential because regulators do not have the resources to catch every violation, and federal consumer enforcement agencies have been gutted during the current administration. The SECURE Data Act does not have a private right of action. The FTC, along with state attorneys general, have primary enforcement authority. The law also gives companies 45 days to “cure” any violation with no penalty after they are caught. Moreover, Section 8 of the bill creates a vaguely defined self-regulatory scheme in which companies can apply to be audited by an “independent organization” that will apply a “code of conduct.” Following this code of conduct would give companies a presumption that they are complying with the law. This provision is an implicit acknowledgement that the bill does not provide regulators with any new resources to enforce new protections. Section 9 of the bill would give the Secretary of Commerce broad power to “take any action necessary and appropriate to support the international flow of personal data,” including assessing “security interests of the United States.” The scope of this amorphous provision is unclear, but it likely does not belong in a consumer protection bill. Weak Privacy Defaults Your online privacy should not depend on whether you have...

More: The SECURE Data Act is Not a Serious Piece of Privacy Legislation. These rights have become standard in all data privacy proposals in recent years. Weak Privacy Defaults Your online privacy should not depend on whether you have...

TL;DR: Weak Privacy Defaults Your online privacy should not depend on whether you have...

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 5, 10:41

EFF and 18 Organizations Urge UK Policymakers to Prioritize Addressing the Roots of Online Harm

EFF joins 18 organizations in writing a letter to UK policymakers urging them to address the root causes of online harm—rather than undermining the open web through blunt restrictions. The coalition, which includes Mozilla, Tor Project, and Open Rights Group, warns that proposed measures following the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill risk fundamentally reshaping the internet in harmful ways. Chief among these proposals are sweeping age-gating requirements and access restrictions that would apply not only to young people, but effectively to all users. While framed as efforts to protect children online, these policies rely heavily on age assurance technologies that are either inaccurate, privacy-invasive, or both. As the letter notes, mandating such systems across a wide range of services—from social media and video games to VPNs and even basic websites—would force users to verify their identity simply to access the web. This creates serious risks, including expanded surveillance, data breaches, and the erosion of anonymity. Beyond privacy concerns, the signatories argue that these measures threaten the core architecture of the open internet. Age-gating at scale could fragment the web into a patchwork of restricted jurisdictions, limit access to information, and entrench the dominance of powerful gatekeepers like app stores and platform ecosystems. In doing so, policymakers risk weakening the very qualities—interoperability, accessibility, and openness—that have made the internet a global public resource. The letter also emphasizes what’s missing from the current policy approach: meaningful efforts to address the underlying drivers of online harm. Many digital platforms are designed to maximize engagement and profit through pervasive data collection and targeted advertising, often at the expense of user safety and autonomy. Rather than imposing access bans, the coalition calls on UK policymakers to hold companies accountable for these systemic practices and to prioritize user rights by design. Importantly, the signatories highlight that the internet remains a vital space for young people: offering access to information, support networks, and opportunities for expression that may not exist offline. Policies that restrict access risk cutting off these lifelines without meaningfully reducing harm. The message is clear: protecting users online requires more than heavy-handed restrictions. It demands thoughtful, rights-respecting policies that tackle the business models and design choices driving harm, while preserving the open, global nature of the web.

More: EFF and 18 Organizations Urge UK Policymakers to Prioritize Addressing the Roots of Online Harm. EFF joins 18 organizations in writing a letter to UK policymakers urging them to address the root causes of online harm—rather than undermining the open web through blunt restrictions.

TL;DR: Beyond privacy concerns, the signatories argue that these measures threaten the core architecture of the open internet.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 5, 07:11

Shut Down Turnkey Totalitarianism

William Binney, the NSA surveillance architect-turned-whistleblower, called it the " turnkey totalitarian state ." Whoever sits in power gains access to a boundless surveillance empire that scorns privacy and crushes dissent. Politicians will come and go, but you can help us claw the tools of oppression out of government hands. JOIN EFF Become a Monthly Sustaining Donor We must stand strong to uphold your privacy and free expression as democratic principles. With members around the world, EFF is empowered to use its trusted voice and formidable advocacy to protect your rights online. Whether giving monthly or one-time donations , members have helped EFF: Sue to stop warrantless searches of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) records , which reveal millions of drivers’ private habits, movements, and associations. Launch Rayhunter , an open source tool that empowers you to help search out cell-site simulators capable of tracking the movements of protestors, journalists, and more. Help journalists see through the spin of "copaganda" by breaking down how policing technology companies often market their tools with misleading claims with our Selling Safety report . Right now, U.S. Congress is on the edge of renewing the international mass spying program known as Section 702 , affecting millions. EFF is rallying to cut through the politics and give ordinary people a chance to stop this oppressive surveillance. It’s only possible with help from supporters like you, so join EFF today . The New EFF Member Gear Get this year’s new member t-shirt when you join EFF. Aptly titled "Claw Back," the design features an orange boy swatting at the street-level surveillance equipment multiplying in our communities. You might empathize with him, but there’s a better way. Let’s end the law enforcement contracts, harmful practices, and twisted logic that enable mass spying in the first place. You can also get brand new set of eleven soft and supple polyglot puffy stickers as a token of thanks. Whether you're a kid or a kid at heart, these nostalgic stickers are perfect for digital devices, lunchboxes, and notebooks alike. Our little Ghostie protects privacy in six languages : Arabic, English, Japanese, Persian, Russian, and Spanish. And for a limited time, get a Privacy Badger Crewneck sweater to help you browse the web with confidence. The embroidered Privacy Badger mascot appears above Traditional Chinese for "privacy” because human rights are universal. Millions of people around the world use Privacy Badger , EFF's free browser extention that blocks hidden trackers that twist your web browsing into a commodity for Big Tech, advertisers, scammers, and data brokers. Privacy is a human right because it gives you a fundamental measure of security and freedom. We owe it to ourselves to fight the mass surveillance used to control and intimidate people. Let’s do this. Join EFF today with a monthly donation or one-time donation and help claw back your privacy. ____________________ EFF is a member-supported U.S. 501(c)(3) organization. We've received top rati ngs from the nonprofit watchdog Charity Navigator since 2013! Your donation is tax-deductible as allowed by law.

More: The New EFF Member Gear Get this year’s new member t-shirt when you join EFF. Privacy is a human right because it gives you a fundamental measure of security and freedom. Join EFF today with a monthly donation or one-time donation and help claw back your privacy.

TL;DR: The New EFF Member Gear Get this year’s new member t-shirt when you join EFF.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 4, 18:35

EFF Submission to UK Consultation on Digital ID

Last September, the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced plans to introduce a new digital ID scheme in the country. The scheme aims to make it easier for people to prove their identities by creating a virtual ID on personal devices with information like names, date of birth, nationality or residency status, and a photo to verify their right to live and work in the country. Since then, EFF has joined UK-based civil society organizations in urging the government to reconsider this proposal. In one joint letter from December, ahead of Parliament’s debate around a petition signed by 2.9 million people calling for an end to the government’s plans to roll out a national digital ID, EFF and 12 other civil society organizations wrote to politicians in the country urging MPs to reject the Labour government’s proposal. Nevertheless, politicians have continued to explore ways to build out a digital ID system in the country, often fluctuating between different ideas and conceptualisations for such a scheme. In their search for clarity, the government launched a consultation, ‘ Making public services work for you with your digital identity,’ seeking views on a proposed national digital ID system in the UK. EFF submitted comments to this consultation, focusing on six interconnected issues: Mission creep Infringements on privacy rights Serious security risks Reliance on inaccurate and unproven technologies Discrimination and exclusion The deepening of entrenched power imbalances between the state and the public. Even the strongest recommended safeguards cannot resolve these issues, and the fundamental core problem that a mandatory digital ID scheme that shifts power dramatically away from individuals and toward the state. They are pursued as a technological solution to offline problems but instead allow the state to determine what you can access, not just verify who you are, by functioning as a key to opening—or closing—doors to essential services and experiences. No one should be coerced—technically or socially—into a digital system in order to participate fully in public life. It is essential that the UK government listen to people in the country and say no to digital ID. Read our submission in full here .

More: EFF Submission to UK Consultation on Digital ID. In their search for clarity, the government launched a consultation, ‘ Making public services work for you with your digital identity,’ seeking views on a proposed national digital ID system in the UK.

TL;DR: It is essential that the UK government listen to people in the country and say no to digital ID. Read our submission in full here .

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 4, 15:33

Getting Digital Fairness Right: EFF's Recommendations for the EU's Digital Fairness Act

Digital Fairness in the EU The next few years will be decisive for EU digital policymaking. With major laws like the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, and the AI Act now in place, the EU is entering an enforcement era that will show whether these rules are rights-respecting or drift toward overreach and corporate control. With the proposed EU’s Digital Fairness Act (DFA), the Commission is now turning to increasingly visible risks for users, such as dark patterns and exploitative personalization. Its “ Digital Fairness Fitness Check ” makes clear that existing consumer rules need updating to reflect how digital markets operate today. But not all proposed solutions point in the right direction. Regulators are already flirting with measures that rely on expanded surveillance, such as age verification mandates—surface-level fixes that risk undermining fundamental rights while offering little more than a false sense of protection. For EFF, digital fairness means addressing the root causes of harm, not requiring platforms to exert more control over their users. It means safeguarding privacy, freedom of expression, and the rights of users and developers. If the DFA is to make a real difference, it must tackle structural imbalances. Lawmakers should focus on two interlocking principles. First , prioritize privacy. Reforms should address harms driven by surveillance-based business models, alongside deceptive design practices that impair informed choices. Second , strengthen user sovereignty, which is also a necessary precondition for European digital sovereignty more broadly. Strengthening user sovereignty means taking measures that address user lock-in, coercive contract terms, and manipulative defaults that limit users’ ability to freely choose how they use digital products and services. Together, these principles would support the EU’s objectives of consistent consumer protection, fair markets, and a more coherent legal framework. If implemented properly, the EU could address power imbalances and build trust in Europe’s digital economy. Ban Dark Patterns Dark patterns are practices that impair users’ ability to make informed and autonomous decisions. Many companies deploy these tactics through interface design to steer choices and influence behavior. Their impact goes beyond poor consumer decisions. Dark patterns push users to share personal data they would not otherwise disclose and undermine autonomy by making alternatives harder to access. The DFA should address this by clearly prohibiting misleading interfaces that distort user choice in commercial contexts. While the Digital Services Act introduced a definition, it only partially bans such practices and leaves gaps across existing consumer law rules. The DFA should close these gaps by, at the very least, introducing explicit prohibitions and clearer enforcement rules, without resorting to design mandates. Tackle Commercial Surveillance At the core of digital unfairness lies the pervasive collection and use of personal data. Surveillance and profiling drive many of the harms regulators are trying to address, from dark patterns to exploitative personalization. The DFA should tackle these incentives directly by reducing reliance on surveillance-based business models. These practices are fundamentally incompatible with privacy and fairness, and they distort digital markets by rewarding data exploitation rather than quality of service. At a minimum, the DFA should address unfair profiling and surveillance advertising by strengthening privacy rights and banning pay-for-privacy schemes. Users should not have to trade their data or pay extra to avoid being tracked. Accordingly, the DFA should support the recognition of automated privacy signals by web browsers and mobile operating systems, which give users a better way to reject tracking and exercise their rights. Practices that override such signals through banners or interface design should be considered unfair. Addressing surveillance and profiling also protects children, since many online harms are tied to the collection and exploitation of their data. Systems that serve ads or curate content often rely on intrusive profiling practices, raising concerns about privacy and fairness, particularly when applied to minors. Rather than turning to invasive age verification , the focus should be on limiting data use by default. Strengthen User Sovereignty There is a major gap in how EU law addresses user autonomy in digital markets: many digital products and services still restrict what people can do with what they pay for through opaque or one-sided licensing terms, technical protection measures, and remote controls. These mechanisms increasingly limit lawful use, modification, or access after purchase, allowing providers to revoke access, disable functionalities, or degrade performance over time. In practice, this turns ownership into a conditional rental. Consumers must be able to use and resell digit...

More: Getting Digital Fairness Right: EFF's Recommendations for the EU's Digital Fairness Act. With the proposed EU’s Digital Fairness Act (DFA), the Commission is now turning to increasingly visible risks for users, such as dark patterns and exploitative personalization.

TL;DR: Digital Fairness in the EU The next few years will be decisive for EU digital policymaking.

Read original at Eff →

Eff May 1, 14:52

A Bridge to Somewhere: How to Link Your Mastodon, Bluesky, or Other Federated Accounts

One of the central promises of open social media services is interoperability—the idea that wherever you personally decide to post doesn’t require others to be there just to follow what you have to say. Think of it like a radio broadcast: you want to reach people and don't care where they are or what device they're using. For example, in theory, a Bluesky user can follow someone on Mastodon or Threads without having to create a Mastodon or Threads account. But these systems are still a work in progress, and you might need to tweak a few things to get it working correctly. Right now, broadcasting your message across social platforms can be a funky experience at best, deliberately broken up by oligopolists. The idea of the open web was baked into the internet via protocols like HTML and RSS that made it easy for anyone to visit a website or follow most blogs. The fact social media isn’t similarly open reflects an intentional choice to privatize the internet. Bridging and managing your posts so they’re viewable outside a singular source is part of the broader philosophy of POSSE , short for Post Own Site Syndicate Elsewhere (sometimes its Post Own Site, Share Everywhere). Instead of managing several accounts across different services, you post once to one primary site (which might be your personal website, or just one social media account), then set it up so it automatically publishes everywhere else. This way, it doesn’t matter where you or your audience is, and they're not walled off by account registration requirements. We’ll come back around to POSSE at the end of this post, but for now, let’s assume you just want your current main open social media account to actually have a chance to reach the most people it can. Why Post to the Open Social Web Because the Fediverse and ATmosphere use different protocols , we need to use a third-party tool so accounts can communicate with each other. For that, we’ll need a bridge. As the name suggests, a bridge can connect one social media account to another, so you can post once and spread your message across several places. This isn’t just some niche concept: major blogging platforms like Wordpress and Ghost integrate posting to the Fediverse. Bridging is an important facet of POSSE, but also something more people should consider, even if they don’t run their own websites. For example, if you don’t want to create a Threads account just to interact with your one friend who uses that platform, you shouldn’t have to. The good news is, you don’t. There are several bridging services, like Fedisky , RSS Parrot , and pinhole , but Bridgy Fed is currently the simplest to use, so we’ll focus on that. How to Post to Bluesky from Mastodon From your Mastodon account (or other Fediverse account, for simplicity’s sake we’ll stick to Mastodon throughout), search for the username @[email protected] and follow that account. Once you do, the account will follow you back and you’ll be bridged and people can find you from their Bluesky account. You should also get a DM with your bridged username. If you don’t see the @[email protected] user when you search, your Mastodon instance may be blocking the bridging tool. Threads users who have enabled Fediverse sharing will be able to find you with your standard Mastodon username (ie, @[email protected] ), but if they haven’t enabled sharing, they will not be able to see your account. While this search is still a beta feature, you might find it easier to share the full URL, which would look like this: https://www.threads.net/fediverse_profile/@[email protected] People on Bluesky can find you by : Either searching for your Mastodon username, or if that doesn’t work, @your_user_name.instance.ap.brid.gy . For example, if your username is @[email protected] , it would appear as @eff.mastodon.social.ap.brid.gy . An example of a Mastodon username from the Bluesky web client. How to Post to Mastodon and Bluesky from Threads Yes, Threads is technically on the Fediverse, and you can bridge your Threads account to Mastodon or Bluesky ( unless you’re in Europe , where the feature is disabled), but it’s a different process than on Bluesky and Mastodon. Open Settings > Account > Fediverse Sharing and set the option to “On.” This will make your posts visible to Mastodon (or other Fediverse) users, and vice versa. Once the Fediverse sharing is enabled, you’ll likely need to wait a week , then you can bridge to Bluesky. Search for and follow the @[email protected] account (it may take some digging to find it, but if that doesn’t work you can try visiting the profile page directly . People on Mastodon (or other Fediverse accounts) and Bluesky can find you by : Mastodon users can find you at, @[email protected] while Bluesky users will find you at, @your_threads_username.threads.net.ap.brid.gy (seriously, that will be the username). Note that some Mastodon instances may block Threads us...

More: One of the central promises of open social media services is interoperability—the idea that wherever you personally decide to post doesn’t require others to be there just to follow what you have to say. Once you do, the account will follow you back and you’ll be bridged and people can find you from their Bluesky account. For example, if your username is @eff@mastodon.

TL;DR: For example, if your username is @[email protected] , it would appear as @eff.mastodon.social.ap.brid.gy .

Read original at Eff →

Eff Apr 30, 23:33

Utah’s New Law Targeting VPNs Goes Into Effect May 6th

Update, May 11, 2026: Utah has agreed to not enforce the VPN law until Sept. 3, 2026 after Aylo, the parent company of Pornhub.com, challenged the law in court. For the last couple of years, we’ve watched the same predictable cycle play out across the globe: a state (or country) passes a clunky age-verification mandate, and, without fail, Virtual Private Network (VPN) usage surges as residents scramble to maintain their privacy and anonymity. We've seen this everywhere—from states like Florida , Missouri , Texas , and Utah , to countries like the United Kingdom , Australia , and Indonesia . Instead of realizing that mass surveillance and age gates aren't exactly crowd favorites, Utah lawmakers have decided that VPNs themselves are the real issue . On May 6, 2026, Utah will become, to EFF’s knowledge, the first state in the nation to target the use of VPNs to avoid legally mandated age-verification gates. While advocates in states like Wisconsin successfully forced the removal of similar provisions due to constitutional and technical concerns, Utah is proceeding with a mandate that threatens to significantly undermine digital privacy rights. What the Bill Does Formally known as the “Online Age Verification Amendments,” Senate Bill 73 (SB 73) was signed by Governor Spencer Cox on March 19, 2026. While the majority of the bill consists of provisions related to a 2% tax on revenues from online adult content that is set to take effect in October, one of the more immediate concerns for EFF is the section regulating VPN access, which goes into effect this coming Wednesday. The VPN Provisions The new law explicitly addresses VPN use in Section 14, which amends Section 78B-3-1002 of existing Utah statutes in two primary ways: Regulation based on physical location: Under the law, an individual is considered to be accessing a website from Utah if they are physically located there, regardless of whether they use a VPN, proxy server, or other means to disguise their geographic location. Ban on sharing VPN instructions: Commercial entities that host "a substantial portion of material harmful to minors" are now prohibited from facilitating or encouraging the use of a VPN to bypass age checks. This includes providing instructions on how to use a VPN or providing the means to circumvent geofencing. By holding companies liable for verifying the age of anyone physically in Utah, even those using a VPN, the law creates a massive " liability trap ." Just like we argued in the case of the Wisconsin bill , if a website cannot reliably detect a VPN user's true location and the law requires it to do so for all users in a particular state, then the legal risk could push the site to either ban all known VPN IPs, or to mandate age verification for every visitor globally. This would subject millions of users to invasive identity checks or blocks to their VPN use, regardless of where they actually live. JOIN EFF HELP US STOP THESE VPN BILLS ACROSS THE COUNTRY "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" In practice, SB 73 is different from the Wisconsin proposal in that it stops short of a total VPN ban. Instead, it discourages using VPNs by imposing the liability described above and by muzzling the websites themselves from sharing information about VPNs. This raises significant First Amendment concerns, as it prevents platforms from providing basic, truthful information about a lawful privacy tool to their users. Unlike previous drafts seen in other states, SB 73 doesn't explicitly ban the use of a VPN. Under a "don't ask, don't tell" style of enforcement, websites likely only have an obligation to ask for proof of age if they actually learn that a user is physically in Utah and using a VPN. If a site doesn’t know a user is in Utah, their broader obligation to police VPNs remains murky. So, while SB 73 isn’t as extreme as the discarded Wisconsin proposal, it remains a dangerous precedent. Technical Feasibility Then there is also the question of technical feasibility: Blocking all known VPN and proxy IP addresses is a technical whack-a-mole that likely no company can win. Providers add new IP addresses constantly, and no comprehensive blocklist exists. Complying with Utah’s requirements would require impossible technical feats. The internet is built to, and will always, route around censorship. If Utah successfully hampers commercial VPN providers, motivated users will transition to non-commercial proxies, private tunnels through cloud services like AWS, or residential proxies that are virtually indistinguishable from standard home traffic. These workarounds will emerge within hours of the law taking effect. Meanwhile, the collateral damage will fall on businesses, journalists, and survivors of abuse who rely on commercial VPNs for essential data security. These provisions won't stop a tech-savvy teenager, but they certainly will impact the privacy of every regular Utah resident who just wants to keep their data out of the hands of brokers or malic...

More: On May 6, 2026, Utah will become, to EFF’s knowledge, the first state in the nation to target the use of VPNs to avoid legally mandated age-verification gates. While advocates in states like Wisconsin successfully forced the removal of similar provisions due to constitutional and technical concerns, Utah is proceeding with a mandate that threatens to significantly undermine di…

TL;DR: These provisions won't stop a tech-savvy teenager, but they certainly will impact the privacy of every regular Utah resident who just wants to keep their data out of the hands of brokers or malic...

Read original at Eff →

Eff Apr 30, 16:54

Open Records Laws Reveal ALPRs’ Sprawling Surveillance. Now States Want to Block What the Public Sees.

Reporters, community advocates, EFF, and others have used public records laws to reveal and counteract abuse, misuse, and fraudulent narratives around how law enforcement agencies across the country use and share data collected by automated license plate readers (ALPRs). EFF is alarmed by recent laws in several states that have blocked public access to data collected by ALPRs, including, in some cases, information derived from ALPR data. We do not support pending bills in Arizona and Connecticut that would block the public oversight capabilities that ALPR information offers. Every state has laws granting members of the public the right to obtain records from state and local governments. These are often called “freedom of information acts” (FOIAs) or “public records acts” (PRAs). They are a powerful check by the people on their government, and EFF frequently advocates for robust public access and uses the laws to scrutinize government surveillance . But lawmakers across the country, often in response to public scrutiny of police ALPRs, are introducing or enacting measures aimed at excluding broad swaths of ALPR information from disclosure under these public records laws. This could include whole categories of important information: general information about the extent of law enforcement use; details on ALPR sharing across policing agencies; data on the number of license plate scans conducted, where they happened, and how many “hits” for license plates of interest actually occur; analyses on how many false matches or other errors occur; and images taken of individuals’ own vehicles. No thanks. Public records and public scrutiny of ALPR programs have shown that people are harmed by these systems and that retained ALPR data violates people’s privacy . In this moment, lawmakers should not be completely cutting off access to public records that document the abuses perpetuated by ALPRs. Transparency with privacy To be sure, there are legitimate concerns about wholesale public disclosure of raw ALPR data. After all, many of the harms people experience from these systems are based on the government’s collection, retention, and use of this information. Public transparency rights should not exacerbate the privacy harms suffered by people subjected to ALPR surveillance. But many current proposals do not address legitimate privacy concerns in a measured way, much less seek to harmonize people’s privacy with the public’s right to know. There is a better path to balancing privacy and transparency rights than outright bans or total disclosure. Any legislative proposal concerning public access to ALPR data must start with this reality: ALPR data is deeply revealing about where a person goes, and thus about what they are doing and who they are doing it with. That’s a reason why EFF opposes ALPRs . It is dangerous that the police have so much of our ALPR information. Even worse for our privacy would be for police to disclose our ALPR information to our bosses, political opponents, and ex-friends. Or to surveillance-oriented corporations that would use our ALPR information to send us targeted ads, or monetize it by selling it to the highest bidder. On the other hand, EFF’s firsthand experience using public records from ALPR systems demonstrates the strong accountability value of public access to many kinds of ALPR data, including information like data-sharing reports and network audits. For example, in our “Data Driven” series , we used ALPR data-sharing and hit ratio reports to investigate the extent of ALPR data sharing between police departments and to analyze the number of ALPR scans that are ultimately associated with a crime-related vehicle. We have also identified racist uses of ALPR systems , ALPR surveillance of protestors , and ALPR tracking of a person who sought an abortion . Across the country, municipalities have been shutting down their contracts for ALPR use, often citing concerns with data sharing with federal and immigration agents. These records are not just informational—they are leverage. Communities, journalists, and local officials have used ALPR disclosures to block new deployments, refuse contract renewals, and terminate existing agreements with surveillance vendors whose practices proved too dangerous to continue. Without this evidentiary record , it is far harder for cities to exercise their procurement power to say no. It is not always easy to harmonize transparency and privacy when one person wishes to use a public records law to obtain government records that reveal people’s personal information. The best approach is for public records laws to contain a privacy exemption that requires balancing , on a case-by-case basis, of the transparency benefits versus the privacy costs of disclosure. Many do. These provisions of public records laws already accommodate similar concerns about disclosing personal information of private individuals whose information the government may have collected, gove...

More: Public transparency rights should not exacerbate the privacy harms suffered by people subjected to ALPR surveillance. But many current proposals do not address legitimate privacy concerns in a measured way, much less seek to harmonize people’s privacy with the public’s right to know. That’s a reason why EFF opposes ALPRs .

TL;DR: Public transparency rights should not exacerbate the privacy harms suffered by people subjected to ALPR surveillance.

Read original at Eff →

Eff Apr 30, 07:56

Digital Hopes, Real Power: From Connection to Collective Action

This is the fifth and final installment of a blog series reflecting on the global digital legacy of the 2011 Arab uprisings. You can read the rest of the series here . If the Arab Spring was defined by optimism about what the internet could do, the years since have been marked by a more sober understanding of what it takes to defend it. Back in 2011, the term “digital rights” was still fairly new. While in the decades prior, open source and hacker communities—as well as a handful of organizations including EFF—had advocated for digital freedoms, it was through the merging of disparate communities from around the world in the 2000s that digital rights came to be more clearly understood as an extension of fundamental human rights. In 2011, we observed that there were only a few organizations focused on digital rights in the region. Groups like Nawaat , which emerged from the Tunisian diaspora under the Ben Ali regime; the Arab Digital Expression Foundation , formed to promote the creative use of technology; and SMEX , which was initially created to teach journalists and others about social media but has grown to become a powerful force in the region, led the way. Since that time, dozens of organizations have emerged throughout the region to promote freedom of expression, innovation, privacy, and digital security. Understanding how the digital rights movement evolved in the Middle East and North Africa requires a closer look at the communities that shaped it, and the organizations that are carrying on the fight today. Perspectives from people and organizations that were key to these efforts offer critical insight into how the movement has grown and what challenges lie ahead. Reem Almasri , a senior researcher and digital sovereignty consultant, says that: ‘Digital rights’ emerged as a term around the Arab Spring, when the internet was still a fairly unregulated space, we were still trying to figure out the tech companies’ policies, and force governments to look at the internet as a fundamental right like water and electricity. But then the need to converge digital rights to everyday rights—economic, political, social rights—and to connect it to geopolitics has started to be thought about, and to be in discussion as well. And to not look at digital rights as a separate field from everything else that’s affecting it, from the geopolitical context. Mohamad Najem, who co-founded SMEX in 2008 and has led it to become the largest organization in the region, told me that, at the time, “Nobody gave [social media] a lot of attention in our region.” Their work was “a positive approach to social media, how we can democratize sharing information, how we can share more from civil society, change people’s minds, et cetera.” “After that phase,” he continues, “we can think about 2012-2013—after the Arab Spring, as an organization we started looking at the infrastructure of the internet, and how freedom of expression and privacy are affected. That’s when we started looking more at what we call digital rights.” Towards Tech Accountability In the aftermath of the Arab Spring, social media companies moved from a largely hands-off approach to governance toward more formalized—and often opaque—content moderation systems. Platforms expanded their trust and safety teams and began working more closely with civil society through trusted partnerships in the region and globally. But, Mohamad Najem says: After the expansion of tech accountability itself and the adaptation of tech companies, we’ve noticed that it’s not taking us anywhere. Gradually we’ve come to a new phase where it feels like tech accountability is an economy by itself that is not leading to real results. So the next phase for us at least and maybe for others in global majority communities is how we can focus on digital public good, how we can push more governments, private and public institutions to adopt more open source software, to look at the ecosystem and understand the US threats happening now, et cetera. Another group that has played a key role in the fight for digital rights and tech accountability in the region is 7amleh , a Palestinian organization that was founded in 2013. At the time, says Jalal Abukhater : [I]t was unique and interesting in Palestinian society to have a human rights organization dedicated fully to the topic of digital rights, you know, human rights in a digital format. However, with the years, we saw various milestones, we saw progress of policy decisions and movements through the Israeli government to influence content moderation in Big Tech companies. We saw problems there as an organization. 7amleh took a leading stance in fighting to preserve the digital rights of Palestinians during a period where there was a very strong influence through the Israeli government. There was actually quite important reporting coming through 7amleh on the situation of online content moderation at a time when it wasn’t really a topic being discussed but...

More: Since that time, dozens of organizations have emerged throughout the region to promote freedom of expression, innovation, privacy, and digital security. But then the need to converge digital rights to everyday rights—economic, political, social rights—and to connect it to geopolitics has started to be thought about, and to be in discussion as well.

TL;DR: At the time, says Jalal Abukhater : [I]t was unique and interesting in Palestinian society to have a human rights organization dedicated fully to the topic of digital rights, you know, human rights in a digital format.

Read original at Eff →

Eff Apr 29, 21:22

EFF Submission to UN Report on the Role of Media in the Context of Israel’s Policies Toward Palestinians

The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 recently announced a study addressing the killings and attacks against Palestinian journalists and media workers, the destruction of media infrastructure in Gaza, and the production and dissemination of narratives that may enable, justify, or incite international crimes. As part of this consultation, EFF contributed a submission that identifies a significant deterioration of press freedom and free expression in the period since October 2023, including an increase in censorship and wave of killings of journalists; adding to an already pervasive censorship and surveillance regime for Palestinians. In particular, concerns raised in our submission relate to: Government takedown requests Disinformation and content moderation Attacks on internet infrastructure The concerns about censorship in Palestine are ever increasing, and include multiple international forums. Ending the deliberate digital isolation of the Palestinian people is critical to protecting fundamental human rights. Read the briefing in full here .

More: EFF Submission to UN Report on the Role of Media in the Context of Israel’s Policies Toward Palestinians. The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 recently announced a study addressing the killings and attacks against Palestinian journalists and media workers, the destruction of media infrastructure in Gaza…

TL;DR: Ending the deliberate digital isolation of the Palestinian people is critical to protecting fundamental human rights.

Read original at Eff →

Eff Apr 29, 19:26

Former EFF Activism Director's New Book, Transaction Denied, Explores What Happens When Financial Companies Act like Censors

A U.S. citizen who teaches Persian poetry classes online is suddenly unable to receive payments or access funds when his account is flagged and frozen by Paypal and its subsidiary Venmo. A Muslim city councilwoman in New York City has a Venmo payment blocked because she uses the name of a Bangladeshi restaurant in the transaction. Online hubs for erotic storytelling repeatedly lose their payment accounts. Others active in drug legalization fights struggle to keep their bank accounts. These may sound like one-off issues, but they are not. They occur with frightening regularity, as former EFF Activism Director and Chief Program Officer, Rainey Reitman , who left EFF in 2022, describes in her new book, Transaction Denied . The book sheds new light on a serious problem that often hides in the shadows, and pushes us to ask an increasingly important question: “ Is it ever OK for financial intermediaries to act as the arbiters of online expression? " Both a storyteller and an advocate, Rainey exposes hidden systems of power that shape our choices, our speech, and, ultimately, our society. - Cindy Cohn Reitman makes her case about the impact of financial institutions and payment intermediaries shutting down accounts and inhibiting transactions through compelling individual stories, some of which have not been shared before. The people impacted are diverse: authors, teachers, journalists, elected politicians, and more are suddenly unable to retrieve or receive funds, with little explanation, transparency, or recourse. Reitman shows the reasons are frequently speech-related, resulting often from arbitrary corporate policy, a broad (mis)interpretation of the law, or in response to pressure from anti-speech advocates. In the example of the Persian poetry teacher, the blocking is due to the highly risk averse interpretation of U.S. sanctions on Iran—sanctions aimed at deterring weapons development or terrorism instead snared a poetry professor and a New York city councilwoman. Reitman demonstrates how these sanctions, and others, have an outsized impact on Muslims. But Transaction Denied is also a guide for those interested in fighting for free speech. The book covers over a decade of successful campaigns and shows that advocacy can win the day—and is sometimes necessary to counter pro-censorship campaigns. Reitman offers a behind-the-scenes view of the campaign to help restore the Stripe account of the Nifty Archive Alliance , a nonprofit which supports the Nifty Archive, a hub of erotic storytelling for the queer community since 1992. She covers EFF's successful coalition and campaign to restore the PayPal account of Smashwords, a hub for self-published fiction. And in what has become a critical moment for free speech and free press, she describes how several EFF staff members and two EFF board members became the seed for a new nonprofit, the Freedom of the Press Foundation , which continues to partner with EFF today in advancing the rights of journalists. It’s a banner time for books by EFF staff members and friends. If you're concerned about how online privacy has changed over the last three decades, read EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn's book, Privacy Defender , released in May. (All proceeds from the sale of hard copies of Privacy’s Defender are being donated to EFF, so your book order will help EFF continue fighting for the principles Cindy holds dear.) If you are worried about the individuals trapped in a system where massive financial companies can shut down their individual accounts, effectively locking up their access to money, based entirely on their speech, grab Transaction Denied, released earlier this month, at Beacon Press , Amazon , and Bookshop.org . (Half of the author proceeds go to Freedom of the Press Foundation.) More likely—you'll want both books on your shelf. Happy reading!

More: Former EFF Activism Director's New Book, Transaction Denied, Explores What Happens When Financial Companies Act like Censors. And in what has become a critical moment for free speech and free press, she describes how several EFF staff members and two EFF board members became the seed for a new nonprofit, the Freedom of the Press Foundation , which continues to partner with EFF…

TL;DR: If you're concerned about how online privacy has changed over the last three decades, read EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn's book, Privacy Defender , released in May.

Read original at Eff →

Todd Blanche Pinky Swears The $1.8 Billion J6 Slush Fund Is Dead, But Won’t Sign Anything Saying That

The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Have One Consistent Rule: Black Votes Shouldn’t Count

Whoops: Hackers Simply Had To Ask Meta ‘AI’ For Access To High Profile Instagram Accounts

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: CA’s AB 1856 Exempts Open Source But Expands Age-Gating

School Phone Bans: Great Politics, Mediocre Education Policy

We're Fighting Mass Surveillance Tech—and Winning

Prosecutor Nopes Out Of The DOJ After Being Handed The James Comey ‘8647’ Case

Judge Reopens Trump’s IRS Case, Wants To Know If The Court Was Defrauded

Daily Deal: uTalk Language Education

Welcome New EFF Executive Director Nicole Ozer

AT&T Sues California Regulators For Trying To Make Broadband Affordable

Microsoft could be the next Big Tech antitrust target

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

This Week In Techdirt History: May 24th – 30th

Knox County, TN Rolls Back ‘Roots’ Book Ban After Backlash

How AI Can Lead To False Arrests & Wrongful Convictions

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: CA's AB 1856 Exempts Open Source But Expands Age-Gating

Ctrl-Alt-Speech: Deus vs. Machina

Court Temporarily Freezes Trump’s $1.776 Billion ‘Anti-Weaponization’ Slush Fund To Figure Out WTF Is Going On

Daily Deal: MasterBundle For Web Designers

SpaceX gets $4 billion contract to build missile-tracking ‘Golden Dome’ satellites

City Lawmaker Responds To Flock Camera Ban By Demanding A Cell Phone Ban

Trump FCC Proposes Vile New Trans Panic TV Warnings

Trump’s mass deportations are impossible without racial profiling

Trump Mobile’s website still says the T1 Phone is ‘American-made’

Stop Killing Games Gets Its First American Legislative Effort Out Of Committee in California

Age Verification is a Privacy Nightmare

CNN sues Perplexity over ‘verbatim’ copycat articles

Temu fined more than $230 million by EU over illegal product sales

A Google employee allegedly used inside information to win $1.2 million on Polymarket

AI tried to bury this politician — now people have actually heard of him

More License Plate Reader Mission Creep: School Residency Verification, Background Checks, and Noise Complaints

AI warfare is already here

Cox Media fined after bragging it spied on users through their phones

Pope Leo calls for being ‘profoundly human’ in the age of AI

Can Congress Fill the Cox v. Sony -Sized Hole in Copyright Law? - Holland & Knight

Google appeals search monopoly ruling, says it won business ‘fair and square’

The Trump phone is not here

States ask judge to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster

Cryptocurrency regulation: U.S. laws and global developments - Britannica

🔒 A Win for Encrypted Messaging | EFFector 38.10

Microsoft Took a Step Toward Human Rights Accountability. Google and Amazon (and Others) Should Pay Attention!

Your Privacy Shouldn't Be A Corporate Decision

We Updated Our Privacy Policy. Here's What Changed and Why.

We Must Not Normalize Digital Surveillance Abuses. EFF’s New Guide Underlines Concrete Steps to Fight Back.

Help EFF Solve an Issue That's Bigger than Creepy Ads

The Science is Not Settled: How Weak Evidence is Fueling a National Push to Ban Social Media for Youth

Broken Promises: RIP Instagram’s End-to-End Encrypted DMs

Victory! End-to-End Encrypted RCS Comes to Apple and Android Chats

EFF Launches New Offline Campaign for Saudi Wikipedian Osama Khalid

A Hackers Guide to Circumventing Internet Shutdowns

Canada’s Bill C-22 Is a Repackaged Version of Last Year’s Surveillance Nightmare

EFF to Fourth Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant

EFF Stands in Solidarity With RightsCon and the Global Digital Rights Community

Congress Narrowed the GUARD Act, But Serious Problems Remain

Free Signal Guide

Milestone 1.0.0 Release of APK Downloader `apkeep` Powers Research on Android Apps

👎 California's Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Social Media Ban | EFFector 38.9

The SECURE Data Act is Not a Serious Piece of Privacy Legislation

EFF and 18 Organizations Urge UK Policymakers to Prioritize Addressing the Roots of Online Harm

Shut Down Turnkey Totalitarianism

EFF Submission to UK Consultation on Digital ID

Getting Digital Fairness Right: EFF's Recommendations for the EU's Digital Fairness Act

A Bridge to Somewhere: How to Link Your Mastodon, Bluesky, or Other Federated Accounts

Utah’s New Law Targeting VPNs Goes Into Effect May 6th

Open Records Laws Reveal ALPRs’ Sprawling Surveillance. Now States Want to Block What the Public Sees.

Digital Hopes, Real Power: From Connection to Collective Action

EFF Submission to UN Report on the Role of Media in the Context of Israel’s Policies Toward Palestinians

Former EFF Activism Director's New Book, Transaction Denied, Explores What Happens When Financial Companies Act like Censors