Published file metadata, source observations, indicators, and research history in one bounded catalog.
2,400+Reachable catalog records
60 / 100Current catalog page
24Maximum records per page
0Samples downloaded by this page
Feed collection status
Sources represented on this page. Publication and observation dates describe the content; successful batch dates describe local collection. A recent batch does not certify complete coverage or current provider availability.
intelligence_src_1f70e50a5ea23d3177Recent successful batchLast successful batch: Last attempt:
intelligence_src_1face9fbd38e6da52eRecent successful batchLast successful batch: Last attempt:
Stale means older than twice the recorded collection interval, with a minimum of one hour; without an interval, the threshold is 24 hours. Cached content remains available while a feed is stale, paused, or unverified.
2,400+ MATCHING RECORDSMETADATA ONLY / SOURCE ATTRIBUTION PRESERVED
EFF was thrilled to join organizers, advocates, and activists in the East Bay for the second annual Oakland Tech Week last week. We are grateful to our friends at MediaJustice and Upturn for inviting us co-present this all-day event, “Building Beyond Big Tech: Organizing Oakland’s Future”, on Sept. 30. The event, hosted by the Kapor Center in downtown Oakland, offered a unique chance to spend time with people across The Town and the Bay Area working to create a better future for everyone. “We’re at this truly consequential moment,” said EFF executive director Nicole Ozer, in her speech kicking off the day’s events. “We know that in this community’s work—and communities across the country—our ability to ensure that technology empowers rather than oppresses is fundamental to the future of countries, our livelihoods, and, literally, our lives.” We also participated in a panel on the state of play in California, moderated by MediaJustice executive director Steven Renderos. Director of State Affairs Hayley Tsukayama joined reporter Khari Johnson of CalMatters and Crystal Zemero of People Over Billionaires to talk about the landscape at the state level. The day also included smaller conversations focused on building better tech and fine-tuning messaging, facilitated by our colleagues at MediaJustice. Seeing the people—our neighbors—who are fighting back against surveillance in their communities was inspiring. They’re casting doubt on the claims large technology companies make about what’s happening in their neighborhoods. They’re speaking up at council meetings and rallies. They’re seeking changes that would give their workplaces and neighborhoods a better, safer relationship with technology. It was so important to come together in solidarity to compare notes, spend time together, find opportunities to support each other, and scheme together. We can work together to build a future that works for everyday people. A better world is possible—and Oakland Tech Week was a great reminder that, all around us, folks are working together to tackle huge challenges. “There are formidable forces,” Ozer said. “But we can pierce the other side’s narrative of inevitability with our power of indignation. The future of AI and other technology is not written and we can work together to get it right.” Whether you’re in Oakland or Aukland, consider this a renewed invitation to join us. Join the Fight Become an EFF Member Today
First reported Oct 09, 2026 16:41 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
California Gov. Gavin Newsom's executive order is an opportunity for a needed, thoughtful conversation about artificial intelligence and its potential harms. Everyday Californians are feeling real anxiety about the risks of artificial intelligence, and as an organization that works to ensure technology empowers people, EFF welcomes this order as a way for the state of California to lead a much-needed dialogue that addresses these concerns. DONATE TO EFF ensure ai serves people, not power Nonetheless, the most immediate and current concerns with this technology are not about sci-fi scenarios concerning rogue super-intelligence. They are happening right now through biased algorithmic decision-making for employment or government benefits, AI-powered surveillance systems such as Flock cameras, and artificially inflated personalized pricing. People want state and federal leaders to act, and we urge Gov. Newsom to develop thoughtful policies to address those concerns. Today’s EO is a good start. To that end, EFF supports the focus on expanding the reporting requirements under SB 53 (2025) for loss-of-control incidents, alongside third-party investigations. We urge the administration to consider how to make these third-party investigations available for smaller developers. As the Government Operations Agency prepares its recommendations for the governor, we urge leaders to also realize that the effectiveness of kill switches in advanced AI systems remains an area of active research. As such, they should ensure that - as we’ve previously mentioned - any technology regulation targeting cybersecurity practices at AI labs must be careful, precise, and practical. Moreover, we also caution that government-controlled kill switches run the risk of being used as a form of retaliation against protected speech, as demonstrated by the Trump Administration’s retaliatory actions against Anthropic earlier this year. Ultimately, true safety requires California to focus on concrete, immediate, and urgent harms of AI technologies by ensuring that algorithmic decision-making in both the government and private sectors respects people’s rights and well-being. We urge Gov. Newsom and the state of California to develop thoughtful policy in collaboration with those most at risk of harm to address these and other concerns.
First reported Sep 18, 2026 23:25 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
This post was co-authored by Sheila B. Lalwani, a doctorate student and recent COMPASS Fellow hosted by EFF. Age verification proposals are often presented as a simple tradeoff: sacrifice a little privacy to better safeguard children online. But that framing overlooks a more fundamental question. What happens to people who cannot verify their age at all? This is particularly a problem when users are required to prove their age with identity documents. Age-related restrictions are developing quickly around the world. While they differ radically across jurisdictions, in the past year, we’ve witnessed a sharp uptick toward mandatory age assurance for social media access but also for other high-risk digital services. For example: In late 2025, Australia became the first country to implement a minimum age requirement for prohibiting children under age 16 from creating or holding social media accounts. India passed the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act that includes mandatory verifiable parental consent and has undertaken ongoing discussions for social media restriction. The United Kingdom passed the Online Safety Act requiring age verification across a swath of services hosting content considered harmful to users under 18. More than half the states across the U.S. have enacted age verification laws. An EU Commission’s expert report recommends a ban on social media access for users under 13. It also recommends mandatory age verification for platforms to ensure that users are ‘age appropriate.’ The Access Problem Age verification laws that are predicated on the necessity of users possessing a current passport, driver’s license, credit card, or similar documents proving their identity exclude critical sections of populations. And this problem is global in nature: Millions of people lack government-issued identification or encounter regular challenges to obtaining or updating it. Roughly 15 million adult U.S. citizens lack a driver’s license, and a further 2.6 million lack any government photo ID; leaving large groups blocked from online content or services. The UK has a similar predicament: proof-of-age checks are often reliant on passports, driver’s licenses, or other recognized alternatives, which can pose unique challenges to people without these documents. Much of the advocacy around age verification discusses the privacy harms of age verification. Yet these measures also threaten something more fundamental: equal access to information and the ability to exercise the right to freedom of expression. Unfortunately, age verification systems foster unequal access to information and provide an asymmetric solution to find essential information, build community, and weigh in on public discourse. As governments and companies increasingly require users to prove their age before accessing online services, these individuals risk being excluded from large parts of the internet altogether. Effects on Global Majority Countries Age verification laws reshape who can speak, who can access information, and who gets excluded from the digital public sphere. In other words, age verification is not a neutral safety measure: it presents a structural barrier to disproportionately exclude certain groups—particularly those in the global majority—and alters the architecture of global online expression. Some of these groups are already marginalized offline, and age verification extends that exclusion into digital spaces. For instance, 850 million people globally do not have ID. Most of these individuals exist in primarily low and middle income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The World Bank points out that many are members of marginalized groups and more than half of those lacking access to identity documentation also have children whose births have not been registered. Women are particularly vulnerable and are 8% less likely than men to have an ID. Other vulnerable groups, such as adults in low
First reported Oct 08, 2026 19:59 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
The California legislature passed Assembly Bill 1709 (A.B. 1709) today, which functions as a sweeping ban on social media use for young people under the age of 16. This well-intentioned, but deeply flawed piece of legislation, cuts young people off from essential information and experiences, particularly harming vulnerable youth and marginalized groups who often find safety in supportive online communities they can't access offline. That’s why we’re urging Governor Gavin Newsom to veto the measure. Should the law go into effect in January, platforms would be prohibited from offering virtually every functional recommendation algorithm and basic input, such as who a user follows or what posts they like, to anyone under 16. These so-called "addictive features," are in reality the basic tools that online services use to identify what other user-generated content a particular user might want to see. Users also rely on these features to find audiences for their own speech, as well as community. By labeling these basic tools as "addictive," the bill relies on sweeping generalizations regarding the unsettled science of youth social media use. Because nearly every major service relies on automated feeds, the ultimate result is that young people under 16 will still be locked out of major digital services as they currently exist. A.B. 1709 is a massive privacy and free speech nightmare. A.B. 1709 is a massive privacy and free speech nightmare. Denying young people access to digital forums (or stripping out the basic tools needed to navigate them) does nothing to make young people safer or healthier. Research shows that social media bans are ineffectual, and can be harmful when they deny young people opportunities to develop their own voices and perspectives, whether that means sharing art, practicing religion, or engaging in politics. Far from protecting children, the bill will also severely restrict access to constitutionally protected speech and push platforms to implement invasive age-verification methods, such as requiring government IDs or biometric scanning. Age-gating requirements will force everyone to give big tech companies even more personal information. To verify who can pass through online gates, companies will collect even more data, concentrating power in corporate hands rather than protecting users. This creates massive honeypots of sensitive personal data, severely damages online anonymity, and exposes users of all ages to heightened data breach risks. Finally, A.B. 1709 introduces legal confusion by creating provisions that conflict with already enacted legislation like A.B. 1043 and S.B. 976. Rather than offering regulatory clarity on already-passed laws, California will only end up spending valuable resources to defend a law bound to be tied up in court. For more details, you can read our full letter to the Governor here.
First reported Aug 31, 2026 23:37 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
Here's a riddle: Why did a Goshen Police Department officer search 6,474 automated license plate reader (ALPR) networks, representing data from 82,413 cameras, on May 7, 2025? If your answer is "I don't know," it turns out you're 100% correct. The officer left the letters "idk" in the search field where cops are supposed to document the reason for the search. When law enforcement and tech salespeople pitch ALPRs to city councils, they stick to a familiar script. They trumpet the technology, which is often provided by private companies like Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions, or Axon, as an essential tool for solving high-stakes crimes, such as car jacking, kidnapping, or murder. But when you strip away the carefully curated talking points, the data continues to reveal a different (and frankly, ridiculous) story. An EFF analysis of ALPR search logs from Flock Safety systems shows that officers across the country are spying on drivers for completely nonsensical "reasons." Police are routinely searching the Flock database without providing any legitimate justification, making a mockery of our civil liberties by logging reasons like "LOL" (short for “laugh out loud”), "LMAO" (short for "laughing my ass off"), "sexy," and "idk" (short for “I don’t know”) to access sensitive ALPR location data. And in some cases, officers are just mashing keyboard buttons rather than articulating the nature of their searches. Flock Safety claims it has improved its system by requiring officers to select from a dropdown list of crimes before running a search–but that only makes it easier for officers to hide improper searches behind the veneer of uniformity. The system does not require proof that the dropdown reason actually matches the true purpose of the search. With no warrant requirements, limited guardrails, and deficient audit processes, ALPR databases have fostered a culture of unrestricted access to everyone’s location information. This culture of abuse has allowed police to treat a mass surveillance network like their own personal search engine, permitting the tracking of the movements of everyday citizens for low-level complaints, personal whims, and sometimes, seemingly, for the lols. A Documented Culture of Abuse ALPR misuse isn’t a new phenomenon; it has dominated headlines for more than a year. We already know that officers regularly abuse these systems to stalk past and potential romantic partners. We’ve seen ALPRs used to surveil protests, which can chill First Amendment-protected dissent, and seen officers try to use an ALPR system to track down a woman seeking an abortion. Typically, we learn about these uses from documents called "network audits," which are long spreadsheets that document all the searches that run through an agency's system. It is not unusual for even a small agency to have a record of millions of searches from thousands of external agencies across the United States. We’ve also uncovered horrific systemic profiling, with more than 80 law enforcement agencies using terms like "roma" and "g*psy" to target ethnic Romani people—often without any mention of a suspected crime. And when police aren’t using ALPRs for stalking or profiling, they routinely use them for extreme low-level investigations: verifying whether a student lives in a specific school zone, running employment background checks, following up on loud music complaints, or targeting a motorcyclist simply for holding a cell phone. But somehow, it gets worse. The Absurdity of Documented Search Reasons EFF’s analysis of Flock Safety’s ALPR search data obtained through public records requests has uncovered a disturbing trend. In the absence of judicial oversight, officers are inputting ridiculously unserious terms to justify their searches. Here is just a snapshot of what police consider a "reason" to track someone’s vehicle: Surveillance as a Joke Audit logs sample Barberton Police Department (Ohio) employees ran numerous searc
First reported Sep 14, 2026 15:21 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed internet users and programmers a big win today, by rejecting an attempt to stretch a narrow provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) into a new source of copyright liability. The case involves Section 1202 of the DMCA, which prohibits intentionally removing copyright management information (CMI) like an author’s name or a copyright notice, from a copyrighted work. Open AI and Microsoft used code from Github as part of the training data for their LLMs, along with billions of other works. A group of anonymous Github contributors sued, alleging the new code coming out of these LLMs was similar to theirs—but with the CMI stripped out. The Ninth Circuit correctly agreed with what we said in our brief: removing copyright information from a copyrighted work is fundamentally different from creating a new work that didn't have CMI in the first place. Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was intended to serve as a backstop for traditional copyrights in the digital age—not to create a new, more expansive right to inhibit otherwise non-infringing uses. As we also explained, accepting the Does’ theory would have created a brand-new source of liability for otherwise perfectly lawful activities, undermining creativity and innovation far beyond the specific context of AI development. Copyright holders would be able to file costly lawsuits against all kinds of legitimate users, such as artists making remixes based on older works, teachers adapting works for a classroom presentation, engineers reverse engineering code to understand it better, and search engines that help us all navigate the web. The risks would have fallen especially hard on independent software developers and other small creators. Large companies can afford to litigate these claims in federal court for years, if necessary. But an independent programmer facing massive statutory damages may simply have to settle, even when their underlying use is completely lawful. That’s why EFF fights to make sure courts don’t expand copyright beyond what Congress authorized. Copyright law still protects programmers when their work is unlawfully copied. They can still bring copyright infringement claims if someone uses a model to reproduce their code. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ contract claims against the AI companies are still in play. The specific holding here was narrow but important: that the absence of copyright information from a new work does not mean, by itself, that someone illegally removed it. That’s the correct result. New technologies will keep raising hard questions about copyright. Courts should answer those questions by applying the rights that Congress actually authorized, not by inventing new rights that could harm expression and lawful use for everyone. Additional Reading: 9th Circuit Opinion in Doe v. GitHub EFF’s Amicus Brief in Doe v. GitHub
First reported Sep 16, 2026 22:47 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
Doxxing, also known as the deliberate sharing of personal information to harass or endanger someone, is a tricky thing to protect against. It often happens by some ill-intentioned person accessing publicly available information, then sharing that information more widely in the hopes it will intimidate their target or worse. This guide is a followup from a previous post that describes a methodology for you to clean up your digital footprint and get a firm entry into the art of open source intelligence. There's a slight bit of repetition here, but with a slant towards using those now-familiar tools and methods toward what to do in the context of incident response. The best thing you can do is familiarize yourself with this post and its tactics before something happens, then return back to it for reference when needed. Incident Log An incident log is a way to keep track of suspicious or harmful activity online. It doesn't need to be beautiful or complex, just a place where you can quickly note details around the different things you're seeing online. Noting times, places, people, and the general nature of what you see ought to be enough. In the event that law enforcement gets involved, this sort of record will be helpful. The process of finding and noting hateful incidents online can be incredibly stressful, so now is a good time to revisit the team roles you might have already thought of in the previous blog post. If you haven't yet done that, here's a brief refresher: Assign Team Roles Remember, privacy–and responding to doxxing–is a team sport. Knowing who you trust is as important as identifying threat actors. Having trusted people ready to assist is invaluable in this type of situation. Refer them to this blog post or specific recommendations in it. If you've already plotted out a list of designated team roles, now is the time to remind everyone of their responsibilities. That might look like monitoring the hate forums where activity happens, keeping track of events in the incident log, setting up web alerts, locking down your social media accounts, or contacting law enforcement to reduce the likelihood of SWATing (a type of attack where bad actors call the police on their target, hoping to incite violence or disruption of peace by bringing law enforcement to their door). Monitoring Hate Forums So often the victims of doxxing and harassment campaigns are positioned that way because of bias or bigotry. If you're a part of a community who is the target of such abuse, you are likely already aware of the places where such bigots gather and the language they use. Safely and privately accessing those sites to check for organizing against you or those in your community is a crucial step to take. Take great care to do so privately. We recommend you use the Tor browser for such information-gathering missions. It’s also advisable that you don’t engage with anyone in those places. Again, this step can be particularly stressful; asking a friend for help is a good idea, or you can thoughtfully apply some of the advice from the next section to automate the process. Set Up Search Alerts Google alerts is a free service that Google offers to alert you when a particular keyword—like your name—is freshly indexed by their search engine. Doxxing efforts done by anonymous trolls may not trigger an alert, but if you're the target of smear campaigns in the media, or the victim of abuse by very prominent media figures, those things are more likely to appear. Updates can come pretty frequently, so we advise leaving the monitoring of these alerts to a person that you trust. For a more sophisticated approach, you could use a tool like Open Measures to automate the task of tracking coordinated campaigns. It's important to note that this type of tool is more likely to miss nuanced language or oblique references to you and your community. Hardening Your Public Facing Accounts For accounts that you can't or don't want to shut down, at the
First reported Aug 31, 2026 19:02 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
In the past two years, the federal government has unlawfully consolidated data exposing our private information. This consolidation has been chaotic but generally came in three rolling waves: It started with DOGE, moved to agency-to-agency data sharing with ICE, and then attempted data-driven purges of state voter rolls. We all deserve to live in a world where the data we use to pay our taxes, receive benefits, and vote is not combined and weaponized against us. The amalgamation of data leads to mistakes, abuses, and a lack of trust in institutions meant to protect us. Overall, it can chill our participation in society. This is particularly true for groups disfavored by this administration—especially immigrants and protesters. Congress highlighted similar abuses—including the creation of enemies lists and snooping on activists and federal employees—following the McCarthy and Watergate eras. And the increasing use of computers to magnify those harms led Congress to pass a slate of protections like the federal Privacy Act of 1974. The good news is that many people have stepped forward to resist the federal government’s unprecedented and unlawful data consolidations. Many groups, including EFF, have filed lawsuits to enforce our data privacy laws, and many states have, too. Legislators at the federal and state levels have worked to expose and oppose these surveillance programs. And many people have protested for their right to data privacy. Existing data privacy protections have been essential in the past two years, but they can be improved. This should include: narrowing loopholes and increasing enforcement in existing laws, limiting the government’s purchase of data on the commercial market, and passing a comprehensive consumer privacy law. Data Consolidation by DOGE Starting on January 20, 2025, President Trump created DOGE—essentially renaming an existing agency originally meant to modernize government technology. Rather than engage in modernization, DOGE quickly obtained high-level access to sensitive databases across the government that store millions of people’s personal records—including at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Social Security Administration, and the Treasury Department. DOGE was staffed with people with little government or cybersecurity knowledge and who often had conflicts of interest. DOGE’s early aim was not always clear, aside from gaining “prompt access to all unclassified agency records” and the “sharing and consolidation” of those records. The result? The indiscriminate firing of government employees and the decimation of important agencies that focused on consumer protection and foreign aid. It also resulted in clear misuses of data. For example, while working with DOGE at the Social Security Administration, one individual signed an outside agreement with an advocacy group with the aim of using SSA data to find evidence of alleged voter fraud and “overturn election results in certain States.” DOGE’s data access and consolidation violated the federal Privacy Act, which limits the sharing and consolidation of government databases. Many groups stepped in to sue. For example, EFF and our co-counsel at Lex Lumina LLC and Democracy Defenders Fund, on behalf of two public employee unions (AFGE and AALJ), sued the OPM for unlawfully disclosing federal workers’ information to DOGE. After EFF and others secured early victories, the government sought to end the lawsuits by firing many DOGE agents and removing their access to records. A great deal of damage remains in need of a judicial remedy. Data Consolidation by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Even as DOGE’s influence diminished, federal agencies have attempted to share, compare, and seize large databases, in order to target immigrants. In some cases, they have succeeded. This happened with tax records at the IRS, Medicaid data from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and public hous
First reported Oct 09, 2026 21:46 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
In an extremely disappointing ruling, a California trial court dismissed SIREN v. San Jose, our case challenging the city of San Jose’s warrantless searches of its vast stores of automated license plate reader (ALPR) data. EFF and the ACLU of Northern California represent SIREN and CAIR California, two non-profits that serve San Jose residents, in this case. Make no mistake: We believe this ruling is wrong on the law, and we will appeal. The ruling ignores the importance of landmark rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the invasiveness of aggregating collected data on an individual over time, including one issued just months ago. It also severely underestimates the harm that ALPRs cause, in San Jose and around the country. San Jose’s ALPR surveillance system is inescapable. It blankets the city’s streets in nearly five hundred cameras that continuously photograph every car that passes by and retains the collected data for a month or longer. In our briefs, we argued that law enforcement officers who warrantlessly search the resulting ALPR database are violating the California Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and its guarantee of privacy. The court disagreed, explaining that based on one California appeals court case involving individual streetlight cameras, people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when driving on a public road. This is wrong. Networked ALPRs are not individual streetlight cameras. Their net effect of tracking and mapping cars as they travel reveals patterns of life, intimate relationships, and much more. Fortunately, there are signs that the tide is turning against ALPRs in the courts. Just a day before the ruling in our case, a federal district court in Oklahoma called ALPRs “a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance” and decided that a law enforcement officer’s warrantless search of ALPR data violated the Fourth Amendment. The officer was observing traffic on an Oklahoma highway when he saw a woman driving a car with California plates. According to the court order, the officer began following the woman “for no apparent reason” other than her out of state plates. While following her, the officer decided to run the woman’s license plate number through Flock’s ALPR system – again, with no apparent reason other than her California plates. The Flock search returned at least 30 days of data, allowing the officer to track the car across at least three states, over the span of a month, from a single search. The facts of this case demonstrate how ALPRs allow law enforcement to grab a breathtakingly vast sweep of information about a car (and the driver within) with no more effort than a Google search. It’s true that when a person drives on public roads, they can be observed, including by police. But as the Supreme Court has explained, we don’t expect law enforcement to be able to secretly track and store every movement our cars while we’re driving. The federal court in the Oklahoma case aptly illustrated this difference in societal expectations: We might reasonably expect our friends and family to tell us something like: “Hey, I saw you out driving by the store last week.” But we do not expect people we know—let alone strangers, and especially not law enforcement—to randomly approach us to say: “Hey, I have been following your car for the last 30 days, and here is a detailed log of every place your vehicle has been with supporting photographic evidence. I am also going to share this information with law enforcement throughout the country so they know your whereabouts, too. This decision is the first of its kind, and EFF will continue working to ensure that it is the first of many. Outside the courts, we’ve seen people across the country step up to reject ALPRs at the state and local level. EFF will continue challenging this technology on every front as well. Related Cases: SIREN and CAIR-CA v. San Jose
First reported Oct 13, 2026 17:19 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
Mass surveillance isn't a joke. But police are treating it like one when using automated license plate reader (ALPR) networks. In our latest EFFector newsletter, we're covering a new EFF report on how officers across the country are routinely logging completely nonsensical "reasons" for their Flock searches, including "LOL," "LMAO," and even (yuck) "Sexy." JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER For over 35 years, EFFector has been your guide to understanding the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and the law. This issue covers a settlement enshrining Meta's harmful surveillance into law, states pushing back against ALPR, and how police are turning our privacy into a punchline. Prefer to listen in? EFFector is now available on all major podcast platforms. This time we're asking EFF's Adam Schwartz what has united people against Flock cameras — and how we can make sure that today's backlash leads to lasting change. 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%2F93770148-4558-4033-b345-6ff2d136d3c0%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 right to digital privacy? 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!
First reported Sep 16, 2026 16:23 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
When the rich and powerful try to use the court to silence negative reporting about themselves, it’s worth calling out that behavior for what it is: an attack on free speech. This is why EFF is happy to stand up for reporters who find themselves in that situation. The California Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision to strike a former Premise Data CEO’s meritless lawsuit against a journalist who exposed the CEO’s secret arrest for felony domestic violence. Jack Poulson, the writer and publisher of All Source Intelligence, reported details from the San Francisco Police Department’s report of the arrest and posted a copy of the report after receiving the document from a confidential source. Poulson later learned the arrest record had been sealed. The CEO, Maury Blackman, sued Poulson, Substack, AWS, and another organization for damages to try and force the removal of Poulson’s reporting from the internet. The trial court tossed the entire case under California’s anti-SLAPP statute—SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation” and describes cases where the goal isn’t vindication in court so much as it is costing someone time, money, and peace of mind fighting the lawsuit. To fight SLAPP cases, states like California have passed anti-SLAPP laws, which are invaluable tools for protecting the First Amendment. California’s law provides an avenue for early dismissals of these baseless lawsuits, which curtails their intended effect on the target. Blackman appealed the court’s decision, arguing that a court order sealing the arrest overrides Poulson’s right to report the news. The Court of Appeals correctly rejected Blackman’s appeal and affirmed the decision to throw out the case. The court held that the First Amendment protects Poulson’s publications. As the court explained in its decision, “the First Amendment protects the lawfully obtained truthful publication of the information at issue absent ‘a need to further a state interest of the highest order,’” a standard that Blackman’s privacy interests do not satisfy. The Court also found that Poulson, as the publisher of the All Source Intelligence newsletter, was protected by California’s Shield Law, relying on precedent established by EFF in 2006. The Court also affirmed that Substack and the other website, which had merely temporarily hosted a copy of the arrest record, were immunized from liability by Section 230. This decision is a win for free speech, for Jack Poulson, and for everybody. Related Cases: Blackman v. Substack, et al.
First reported Sep 30, 2026 22:38 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
EFF joined an amicus brief with ACLU, ACLU of D.C., National Press Photographers Association, and Professional Photographers of America to urge the D.C. Circuit to vacate an FAA drone flight restriction that violated the First Amendment right to record law enforcement. This is an important case—Levine v. FAA—challenging the ability of the government to punish drone pilots who record law enforcement officers engaged in official business. As we wrote about earlier this year, the FAA issued a flight restriction for drones that had effectively criminalized the recording of Department of Homeland Security officers, including immigration agents from ICE and CBP, and their vehicles (what the FAA called “mobile assets” including “ground vehicle convoys and their associated escorts”) even if the drone was over half a mile away. A drone operator, represented by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, sued the FAA in March [PDF]. But in April, the FAA rescinded the flight restriction. The petitioner argued in his opening brief that the court should evaluate the legality of the flight restriction even though it was withdrawn. Drone pilots could still be punished for violations that occurred when the flight restriction was in effect. And the FAA could reinstate the flight restriction at any time, given that the rescission did not seem to reflect “a true change of heart” but rather an effort by the agency to avoid judicial review. The amicus brief, filed in support of the petitioner, noted that drones are unique because they provide “perspectives that cannot be captured by ground-based imagery,” and they “are far more maneuverable than ground-level cameras, and they are both much cheaper and much safer than using a chartered plane or helicopter to record newsworthy events from above.” The brief highlighted that drones have captured “bird’s-eye images of protest activity” and “police uses of force against protestors,” and have “allowed journalists to provide the public with up-to-the-minute information about natural disasters without putting themselves in harm’s way.” The brief argued that using drones to capture images and video is information-gathering activity protected by the First Amendment (similar to using cell phones to record law enforcement). The brief also argued that the FAA’s flight restriction appeared to be issued specifically to ban the recording of immigration agents and thus hinder accountability for their enforcement actions—it surely wasn’t a coincidence that the FAA imposed “no-drone zones around all roving DHS patrols just as those patrols were provoking intense national backlash.” If that’s true, it would make the FAA’s action a content-based restriction on speech that is subject to strict scrutiny—the highest First Amendment standard—and presumptively unconstitutional. And even under less rigorous standards of First Amendment scrutiny, the flight restriction is unconstitutional because the FAA can’t articulate any valid governmental interest justifying such a sweeping restriction on speech. Resolving this issue to protect First Amendment rights is especially urgent as government agencies continue to sink billions of dollars into technology designed to counter drones—technology that could easily be deployed against journalists and other people hoping to use drones to document government abuse. We urge the D.C. Circuit to review the petition and to vacate the FAA’s flight restriction, which would send a message that the government can’t avoid accountability by punishing those who exercise their First Amendment rights.
First reported Sep 21, 2026 22:59 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
Amazon recently debuted a new feature for its Ring cameras that the company is calling Throw Away the Key Encryption (TAKE). The idea is to cut back on the amount of video content available to the company, and thus potentially available to law enforcement. But while it might technically add a speed bump to accessing full video content, it doesn’t deliver nearly the level of privacy we should be demanding from video doorbells and other security cameras. TAKE introduces a new way for Ring to manage encryption keys, where the user’s device has its key, then the company holds encryption keys temporarily within its own cloud infrastructure. Ring’s servers receive the keys temporarily so it can offer a variety of the features it says it can’t offer when a user chooses to use end-to-end encryption, like video descriptions, smart alerts, video search, and more, then deletes the key after 24 hours. This differs from how it works now, where footage is encrypted in transit and at rest, then decrypted by Ring, which always has access to the footage, to process those features. Comparatively, this is an improvement to the default settings Ring has now, because it at least puts some restrictions on historical footage, but it has some serious holes worth exploring. Ring Gets Access to Unencrypted Video for a Short Period Ring has designed its service so many of its camera features, including smart alerts and video search, need cloud processing to work. That means to provide those features, Ring needs to decrypt the footage while it’s stored in Ring’s cloud servers. With TAKE, in order to decrypt footage to offer these features, Ring gets access to footage stored in the cloud for 24 hours. TAKE adds some small measures using secure enclaves to make base key material harder to directly export, but keys are still released to services that can be modified. With access to the keys, the cloud processing does its thing and delivers the requested feature to the user. The key is then deleted 24 hours later—until the user wants to watch an old video or use other so-called “smart” features, at which point the keys are sent back to the server. In practice, that makes the system as a whole barely different from encryption at rest where the server holds the keys. The client device essentially takes the place of a hardware security module (HSM), including making those keys available to the server whenever they’re needed. The end result is an improvement from the status quo, but still not even close to the privacy protections of end-to-end encryption. The company says it does not keep backups of the keys and there’s no way for a Ring employee to access footage. It also claims that any decrypted content is deleted from its servers. But that doesn’t mean much when user actions send the keys back to the server. And making features like “Video Search” and “Smart Video Descriptions” available to the device owner means that while the footage can’t be seen by Ring, descriptions are readily available to the company. In response to a question about capability, Ring responded to us that, “As Ring continues to expand and further strengthen TAKE's protections, video descriptions will be included.” Plus, account recovery keys are stored in the camera itself by default. When that’s paired with the fact that currently, indices of video contents are available to the company, it means that TAKE isn’t even a protection against mass surveillance. Law enforcement could request a mass search across cameras for certain terms, then delve into further details by seizing cameras of interest from the device-owner, decrypting account backups, and using that information to decrypt encrypted videos. Law Enforcement May Still Seek to Compel Access to Footage Because of the ways the access and key rotations work, it’s technically still possible for Ring to alter its current practice if compelled to do so by law enforcement, in much
First reported Sep 11, 2026 16:56 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
Governor Newsom signed a package of 12 bills yesterday aimed at “protecting children” online. One of them was AB 1709, which EFF has opposed this legislative session and serves as a functional ban on young people under 16 using social media. However, EFF supported two of the bills signed into law, AB 2071 and AB 2298, which require that children learn critical digital literacy and cybersecurity topics. The bills are an affirmative and constitutional way for the state to address valid concerns about young people’s internet use without violating their First Amendment rights. Unlike blanket bans, A.B. 2071 and A.B. 2298 address online safety through education rather than prohibition. Young people rely on the internet not just for entertainment, but for civic engagement, education, self-expression, and community—especially vulnerable youth who may lack support in their physical surroundings. This is why real digital safety comes from preparation, not isolation. Research consistently shows that open, honest conversations about digital literacy and privacy with trusted adults are far more effective at protecting youth than restrictive censorship laws. Young people themselves recognize this need; in fact, A.B. 2071 was co-authored by a group of students actively seeking better resources to navigate their digital lives safely. Education vs. Censorship A.B. 2071 and A.B. 2298 fill critical gaps in California’s school curricula by equipping students with actionable skills. A.B. 2071 integrates digital wellness into middle and high school health classes, teaching students how to identify unhealthy tech habits, protect their personal safety, and evaluate digital content—including AI-generated media—for credibility and bias. Meanwhile, A.B. 2298 adds cybersecurity concepts to recommended school curricula, teaching young people how to safeguard their personal data from online threats. While the state’s turn toward social media bans remains a harmful and misguided policy direction, the passage and signing of A.B. 2071 and A.B. 2298 show there is a better way. Lawmakers must stop treating censorship as a quick fix and instead focus on constitutional, empowering solutions that give youth the tools they need to thrive online.
First reported Sep 11, 2026 20:25 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
EFF strongly condemns Turkey’s state-led discriminatory, oppressive attacks on feminist and LGBTQ+ organisations, media platforms, student groups, and rights defenders and activists within the country. Since mid-September, access to the websites and social media accounts of a dozen organizations have been blocked by court order, while over 60 members and activists have been detained, their offices and homes raided, mobile phones, laptops and other digital devices seized, and judicial proceedings launched against them. These actions threaten the very existence of the LGBTQ+ organizations targeted, limiting their ability to carry out legitimate human rights work, deterring participation and support, and chilling the free speech rights of not just these groups, but any organization that even reports on LGBTQ+ oppression. A little over a week ago, an Istanbul court shut down the website and social media accounts of T24, Turkey’s longest running independent digital news organization—which has covered government-backed campaigns against and earlier crackdowns on gay rights groups—alleging it had aired “LGBT propaganda” over the past year. It’s all part of Turkey’s efforts to portray LGBTQ+ groups and support networks for those living with HIV as criminal organizations that must be suppressed, purportedly to protect family values. Homosexuality is not illegal in Turkey (unlike Uganda, Nigeria, and Egypt, where it is criminalized), but LGBTQ+ organizations and activists have in recent years faced increased government oppression, including criminal proceedings on allegations related to obscenity and violations of Turkey’s Law on Associations, which regulates the activities of nonprofits. In its new crackdown, the government is targeting LGBTQ+ groups’ websites and social media channels for alleged obscene posts accessible to children. Kaos GL, Turkey’s oldest gay rights organization, said investigations are being led by the Cyber Crimes Bureau of the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, which took members of its Board of Directors into custody, raided their homes, and searched the organization’s offices, where electronic devices were seized. According to Human Rights Watch, prosecutors in Istanbul said those targeted were suspected of “founding, leading, or being a member of a criminal organization,” as well as sex work and drug-related offenses. Publicly available law enforcement and judicial documents about the investigation reportedly don’t say which publications or posts are alleged to be obscene. The prosecutor’s office launched an investigation of the organization and others under Article 226 of the Turkish Penal Code, which regulates the offense of “obscenity” (without clearly defining it), while the overall operation, dubbed “My Family is Safe” and launched as part of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s “Decade of the Family” program, is being brought under Article 220 of the code. Justifying the crackdown by invoking family values and child safety suggests that the government is trying to enforce a moral code on society based on intolerance of and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people. New Low for Turkey Framing the activities of LGBTQ+ rights organizations as violations of organized crime provisions is a new low for Turkey, where free speech and press freedoms have long been under attack. The implication from these raids and investigations is that the organizations’ legitimate civil society work advocating for the rights of queer people—monitoring human rights violations, offering legal aid, running news portals, sponsoring cultural events such as symposiums and film screenings, publishing an online magazine and supporting LGBTQ+ refugees—is suspected of being criminal threatens the basic human rights of the LGBTQ+ community in Turkey. These actions send a dangerous message to people and organizations exercising freedom of speech and association in support of quee
First reported Oct 09, 2026 14:22 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
A California law that prohibits teens from receiving recommended social media content from other social media users violates their First Amendment rights, EFF argued this week. The case, Meta v. Bonta, challenges SB 976, which requires that teen social media users get their parents’ permission before seeing other users’ recommended speech on their social media feeds. The legal challenge to SB 976 has largely centered on how the law violates social media services’ First Amendment rights to curate user-generated content and present it as they see fit. But the friend-of-the-court brief EFF filed along with the Center for Democracy & Technology and the Wikimedia Foundation shows that the law violates teen users’ First Amendment rights, too. “SB 976 frustrates young people’s ability to use the internet to its full potential, prohibiting them from relying on tools that disseminate their speech and help them view and interact with other users’ speech,” the brief argues. Recommendation systems have a dual purpose on social media: they help all users discover speech and content by other users, and to get their own speech in front of a wider audience. “SB 976 creates significant, constitutionally violative, burdens on young users’ ability to read and comment on the news, discuss politics, find and share art, share their religious beliefs, or even practice their religion with fellow members of their faith,” the brief argues. “There is simply too much content on services for users to sift through manually, and young users may not know what to search for or even how to find content.” Because SB 976 creates such broad burdens on teens’ ability to distribute and receive speech, it should be struck down on First Amendment grounds. But as EFF’s brief argues, the First Amendment doesn’t stop California and other states from passing laws that help all users, regardless of age, avoid major social media services’ harmful surveillance business models. “One could imagine a law that required services to minimize the amount of data they collect, or limit using more invasive data analysis practices, such as tracking users across multiple services, analyzing keystrokes, and other surveillance-intensive practices,” the brief argues. “Such restrictions likely would serve the state’s aim of protecting all internet users—including minors—and would be more narrowly tailored to addressing the harms those practices cause than SB 976.”
First reported Sep 17, 2026 19:43 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
The federal government has inserted a provision into a funding deal with the state of California that would make the state abandon its gold standard net neutrality law, broadband affordability laws, and public safety protections. Doing so would be a huge step back for California, and would actually end up being more expensive for Californians in the long run. Tell the governor to reject this provision before accepting these funds from the federal government. Take Action Tell the Governor to Stand Up for Net Neutrality, Affordability, and Public Safety On August 31, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced it would be awarding California $1.4 billion to expand broadband connectivity in the state. In that deal is a provision that says that California agrees to not enforce any law, order, or policy that imposes any sort of restriction on internet service providers (ISPs). These ISPs will get awarded the funding in order to connect Californians they have neglected for years. The ban on enforcing our laws would last 14 years. This is disastrous for a lot of reasons. First, California is one of the only states with a strong state net neutrality law. Recreating much of the FCC’s Open Internet Order, the law prevents ISPs from blocking, throttling, zero rating, and instituting paid prioritization on internet service. Put another way, the law ensures that users, not companies, decide how they can see on the internet. If California is not allowed to enforce our gold standard law, there will be little stopping ISPs from controlling how everyone experiences the internet. Second, California has a number of affordability protections that would also fall under this agreement. For example, when the state approved the merger of Verizon and Frontier earlier this year, it required the new merged company to offer a $20 internet plan to low-income Californians—saving Californians billions of dollars over the next decade. Just this year the California Public Utilities Commission found that the average cost of broadband across four major urban markets (San Mateo, Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Diego) was $51 per month. In 2023, Consumer Reports found that 84% of American consumers pay at least $50 per month, with many paying more. That $30 difference per month—which is likely to actually be more—makes all the difference for low-income Californians. It is how Californians will save billions from this merger requirement. In contrast, $1.4 billion in new connectivity and infrastructure doesn't matter if the most vulnerable Californians cannot afford it. Eviscerations of this and the net neutrality protections will, ultimately, cost Californians more than they will get. Third, this deal will impact public safety. The same California net neutrality law which protects consumers also ensures reliable service for first responders during emergencies by banning throttling. In 2018, Verizon throttled, or slowed down, the service of firefighters as they were battling what was, at the time, the largest wildfire in California history. In reaction, fire departments came out in support of what would become California’s net neutrality law. If California cannot enforce its net neutrality law it will leave its first responders in a weaker position as natural disasters only become more intense. Most people do not have a choice in ISP as it is. California’s net neutrality law is one of the few things protecting Californians from the whims of these monopolistic giants. Californians should not give up our few hard-won protections in return for a hand out to these behemoths. Tell Governor Newsom to reject this provision before he accepts these funds from the federal government. Take Action Tell the Governor to Stand Up for Net Neutrality, Affordability, and Public Safety
First reported Sep 15, 2026 18:35 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
With the launch of iOS 27, Apple is rolling out a variety of new AI features to its familiar voice assistant, Siri. But how are AI tools like these handling our data? In our latest EFFector newsletter, we're talking about the privacy complications of AI phone features. JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER For over 35 years, EFFector has been your guide to understanding the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and the law. This issue covers drones and our right to record the law enforcement, video doorbell footage privacy, and how to limit what data Apple's new Siri AI can access. Prefer to listen in? EFFector is now available on all major podcast platforms. This time we're asking EFF's Thorin Klosowski about the difference between AI phone features that are computed on-device and ones that are computed on external servers—and what that means for data protection. 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%2Ff5abca72-7d82-4e94-9c0b-0d9f991891f0%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 right to digital privacy? 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!
First reported Sep 30, 2026 16:45 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
Judge Allows Social Media Surveillance Lawsuit Against Trump Administration to Move ForwardNEW YORK — A lawsuit filed by three labor unions against the Departments of State and Homeland Security for their viewpoint-based surveillance and suppression of protected expression online can move forward, a federal judge ruled yesterday. On October 1, 2026, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The case was filed in October 2025 on behalf of the United Automobile Workers (UAW), Communications Workers of America (CWA), and American Federation of Teachers (AFT). The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Muslim Advocates (MA), and the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic (MFIA) represent the labor unions. This decision is a victory: The Court held that claims that the government’s social media surveillance program is harming the unions’ members, as well as hampering the ability of the unions to associate with their members and potential members, can move forward. The Court ruled that: "This threat of adverse immigration consequences, under a government whose harsh immigration crackdowns has been heavily publicized and reported on, is certainly enough to 'deter a person of ordinary firmness from the exercise of First Amendment rights.' It is objectively reasonable that noncitizens would limit their expression of disfavored viewpoints under the [Challenged Surveillance Program] given the credible threat of adverse immigration action from the Government." "The freedom of Plaintiffs' members to speak, associate, and appear publicly is not incidental to union work, but rather is the mechanism through which unions recruit, organize, communicate, and bargain," the Court further explained. "A program alleged to silence members and drive them from the unions' rolls therefore strikes at the unions' representational function itself, which is the 'grounds that bring [their] membership together.'" Since taking power, the Trump administration has created a mass surveillance program to monitor constitutionally protected speech by noncitizens lawfully present in the U.S. Using AI and other automated technologies, the program surveils the social media accounts of visa and green card holders with the goal of identifying and punishing those who express viewpoints the government disfavors. The surveillance program has been paired with a public intimidation campaign—silencing not just noncitizens with immigration status, but also the families, coworkers, and friends with whom their lives are integrated. In October 2025, UAW, CWA, and AFT sued the Departments of State and Homeland Security, alleging that this viewpoint-based surveillance program violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. "No one should have to fear government surveillance or retaliation against their immigration status for expressing their views or participating in their union. We're pleased the Court has allowed this challenge to move forward and will continue fighting to protect the rights of everyone to speak, organize, and advocate without fear," said UAW President Shawn Fain. "This is a victory for working people, for the labor movement, and for our democracy," said CWA President Claude Cummings Jr. "Our very freedom is under attack by the Trump administration's online surveillance program, and today's decision is a critical first step toward affirming our freedom to speak, to protest, to organize without fear of government retaliation. These essential freedoms underpin our union rights to join together and fight to improve our working conditions. CWA is a fighting union, and our members remain ready to stand together to protect our rights and our freedoms." "Today’s decision is a critical step toward vindicating our Constitutional right to freedom of speech and rejecting the Trump Administration’s cynical attempts to criminalize a
First reported Oct 02, 2026 15:54 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
The term “digital sovereignty” has become ubiquitous. European officials invoke it in debates about cloud infrastructure, AI, semiconductors, and platform regulation. Governments throughout the global majority use it to argue for greater control over data and communications infrastructure and boost their economies. Companies market “sovereign cloud” products designed to reassure their customers that their information stays under local jurisdiction. But digital sovereignty could be something more: an opportunity for users around the world to build more resilient, open systems and the skills and infrastructure to maintain them. There is no singular definition of digital sovereignty, nor is there a single coherent position in the digital rights space. Despite its growing popularity, the term remains frustratingly vague. Policymakers, regulators, civil society groups, and others can mean very different things when they use the term. But to start simply with a broad definition, we can say that it means having the capacity to control one’s digital destiny—though the implications of that will obviously differ considerably whether you’re talking about an individual or a country. We can start by developing a shared understanding of what digital sovereignty actually means. We’ve also included a glossary of terms at the bottom of this post. In Europe and other places where digital sovereignty has become a topic of policy, discussions focus on reducing dependency: on foreign (and particularly American) cloud infrastructure, chips, platforms, and at times, foreign political priorities. The concern is both economic and geopolitical. If essential infrastructure is controlled by companies elsewhere—and thus subject to the laws of another jurisdiction—then what control does a country actually have over its own digital future? In global majority countries in particular, wars, sanctions, and the growing fragmentation of the internet have demonstrated for many that the physical infrastructure that underlies digital life is neither neutral nor invulnerable. Amidst this increasing geopolitical instability governments and civil society should consider whether digital sovereignty can help shore up that infrastructure. What are we talking about when we talk about digital sovereignty? A recent Franco-German joint paper on digital sovereignty defines it as the “capability and capacity to develop, provide, use, adapt and control digital technologies including hardware in an independent, self-determined and secure manner” and puts forward a framework to operationalize Europe’s capacity to act in the digital domain. Some governments, such as Germany’s, have started to put funding behind sovereignty efforts through initiatives like the Sovereign Tech Agency, which “invest[s] globally in the open software components that underpin Germany's and Europe's competitiveness and ability to innovate.” Positions on digital sovereignty among EFF’s allies across Europe vary. Open Rights Group have defined digital sovereignty as “the ability of a country to have control over its digital infrastructure, data, and technology” and states it to be “critical for the UK’s economic and national security.” Similarly, the European Partnership for Democracy has expressed concern that “a few Big Tech corporations decide our collective destiny,” and argue that the EU should explore “alternative ownership models for tech companies and clearly [define] their purpose and mission.” And our friends at EDRi (of which EFF is a member) have stated clearly that “Europe’s digital sovereignty starts with open source.” Some initiatives, such as DI.DAY, consider digital sovereignty an opportunity to free users from Big Tech dependencies. Elsewhere in the world, conversations about digital sovereignty often take a different shape. Indigenous discussions of the topic have been ongoing for more than a decade and focus on t
First reported Sep 09, 2026 18:04 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
San Francisco's decision to retain its use of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) surveillance cameras belies what we know about this spying technology tool: it endangers residents and threatens the privacy and civil liberties of our community. Based on what's in the city's press release and announcement, this policy will do nothing to stop actual harms. We know innocent drivers will be stopped and menaced by officers because of erroneous matches. We know officers use Flock to stalk potential and past romantic partners. Data will be accessed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and used to deport immigrants. Promising greater penalties for such abuse will not end this. These are not isolated mistakes that another policy can fix. They are consequences of building a system that records everyone’s movements and makes them searchable by police. This is also not unique to a single vendor. From Flock Safety to Motorola to Axon—San Francisco must end its use of ALPRs. We ultimately cannot rely on new protocols from city officials, and the City’s new policy is woefully inadequate. There is no warrant requirement to search stored ALPR data. An incident or computer-aided dispatch (CAD) number is not judicial authorization. Without a warrant requirement, officers can search stored location data without showing probable cause to a judge, and will. Without judicial control, officers will continue to search the data for abusive reasons. But a warrant requirement alone would not justify retaining the ALPR network: the community is demanding an end to the collection itself. Additionally, the announced policies include no deadline to delete ALPR data, there is only a 30-day deadline to move data from the vendor’s servers to the city’s servers. City officials must understand that moving data is not deleting it. Whether Flock or SFPD stores the data, it remains a permanent record of where people drive, worship, work, organize, seek care, and spend time with others. Thus, the best practice is deletion. New Hampshire requires deletion in three minutes, and Flock itself has reduced the default retention time to seven days. San Francisco can and should do better. Lastly, while transparency and documentation are important concepts, better audit logs are not the answer. They can expose abuse only after a search has occurred. They cannot undo the disclosure of someone’s movements or justify collecting everyone’s location data in the first place; especially when we are talking about people’s lives and civil liberties. The city's announced policy does not even require officers to state, in their own words, why they are searching the stored ALPR data—an accountability rule that has exposed abusive searches across the country. San Francisco is behind many communities that have considered the tradeoffs of ALPR surveillance and made the right choice by ending their contracts. San Francisco must do the same.
First reported Sep 29, 2026 21:30 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
When we communicate online today – from your personal emails and DMs to secure international commerce – we usually do so with encryption. Encryption converts readable data into unreadable gibberish to protect our privacy and security. This didn’t just happen organically. Three decades ago, the U.S government treated encryption like a weapon, and it took some unlikely heroes to set it free: a grad student, a junior lawyer, and a fledgling digital rights group who sued the federal government. The ruling in Bernstein v. Department of Justice held that code is speech and so is protected by the First Amendment – a precedent that underpins the internet as we know it today. This landmark case was led by Cindy Cohn, then a young pro bono lawyer working on behalf of EFF, who went on to become EFF’s legal director and then executive director. Welcome to the second episode of “Privacy’s Defenders,” a podcast about the people – lawyers, journalists, hackers, and others – who’ve fought to secure your digital liberties since before most people even knew what the internet was. %3Ciframe%20height%3D%2252px%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%2F91542147-6839-46fe-a813-73eb7a5c683c%3Fdark%3Dtrue%26amp%3Bcolor%3D000000%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from simplecast.com (You can also find this episode on the Internet Archive and on YouTube.) In this episode, Cindy – who left EFF in June – speaks with Dan Bernstein, who was a Cal Berkeley grad student when he developed a simple encryption algorithm called “Snuffle.” Because federal law classified encryption as a war munition, publishing Snuffle meant submitting it to the government for review, getting a license as an arms dealer, and being granted a license the government had no intention of granting. Bernstein felt this violated his free-speech rights and in 1995 he sued, represented by Cindy working with EFF. Cindy also talks with Tony Coppolino, the Justice Department lawyer she battled in court – who admits she intimidated him from their very first phone call, and who offers a surprising perspective on the case all these years later. The “Privacy’s Defenders” podcast (new episodes drop every other Tuesday!) is a follow-up to Cindy’s book, “Privacy’s Defender: My Thirty-Year Fight Against Digital Surveillance,” bringing to life pivotal moments in the voices of those who fought for your rights. Sales of “Privacy’s Defender” benefit EFF, so pick up your copy today! Joanne Elgart Jennings co-produced and created this podcast. Jarod Sport co-produced, mixed, and mastered it. Corinne Ruff is our story editor. We had additional help from Rachel Estabrook and Alison Broverman. The original music was composed and performed by Nat Keefe of Hot Buttered Rum with Ben Andrews on the fiddle.
First reported Oct 13, 2026 15:00 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
Since its integration into our digital world, social media has played a pivotal role in youth organizing and social mobilization. Yet, people’s access to these platforms is increasingly coming under threat from courts and legislatures under the guise of protecting young people online—presenting a significant hindrance to youth organizing. In a major recent example, Meta settled in a lawsuit with 52 states and territories regarding the use of Instagram and Facebook by young people. The settlement will require Meta, and pressure other non-Meta owned platforms like TikTok and YouTube, to embed age gating practices into every product while also requiring restrictions on the accounts of people under-18, such as a two-hour daily time limit and content restrictions. Youth Power on Social Media Young people have been using social media for political advocacy and community organizing for more than a decade. From organizing protests speaking out against police brutality, to organizing nationwide school walkouts demanding safety in schools from gun violence, and striking to demand lawmakers take action to protect the climate, social media has become an instrumental tool for youth to both speak out and connect with other young activists. Instagram has become especially useful for activism online by young people. The features on the app make it a helpful tool for being able to efficiently and quickly spread awareness, which is especially important when people need to share real-time information. For example, 17-year-old Darnella Frazier’s video on Facebook showed the world the murder of George Floyd. The impact of youth activism online is also evident on non-Meta owned platforms, with services like TikTok and YouTube being particularly prevalent spaces for young people to share their stories, build movements, and amplify collective engagement. However, in a digital world operating under the settlement’s new guidelines, young people risk not being able to read crucial news due to the content being labeled as “age-inappropriate,” which has already happened for teenagers in Australia under its social media ban. A two-hour daily time limit and a block on Meta’s apps between midnight and 6am leaves little room for young activists to organize rapid response efforts. Being unable to see likes on a post will make it difficult to gauge the effectiveness of their campaigns. Add to this what we already know about Meta’s content policies which claim to “protect children” and keep sites “family-friendly” but instead label content like LGBTQ+ content as “adult” or “harmful,” youth will be left with no choice in what content they see once the ‘age-appropriate’ content filter is turned on by default. One recent report noted that Meta had hidden posts that reference LGBTQ+ hashtags like #lesbian, #bisexual, #gay, #trans, and #queer for users with the sensitive content filter on. This would specifically curtail the efforts of young activists doing work on comprehensive sex education. Global Trends Measures like this are being discussed across the globe, but not all courts have taken such a short-sighted approach. In August, the French Constitutional Council got a lot right in its decision to strike down the country’s legislation banning under-15s from social media for infringing free expression and communication for everyone online, not just young people. The French Court also called attention to its infringement on privacy as the legislation would have forced people of all ages to hand over government IDs, face scans, and other sensitive information to prove their age and access online content. Requiring this much data from users puts activists in danger of even more surveillance. Meta has already previously complied with deman
First reported Sep 16, 2026 16:04 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
As communities across the U.S. grapple with the rapid spread of Flock cameras and questions about who can access the data they collect, a new study from a University of Massachusetts Amherst public policy researcher reframes the debate to ask a more basic question: Does the technology serve the public?
First reported Oct 01, 2026 14:00 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:24 UTCOpen evidence record
The public shared-host view reaches the newest 2,400 matching records. Narrow the filters or search an exact MD5, SHA-1, or SHA-256 value to reach a specific record.
A filename, label, or report mention alone does not establish maliciousness. Observation dates describe cited sources; collection dates describe this local metadata catalog. No malware samples are stored, fetched, or executed by these pages.