Transistors, the building blocks of modern electronics, are typically made of silicon. Because it’s a semiconductor, this material can control the flow of electricity in a circuit. But silicon has fundamental physical limits that restrict how compact and energy-efficient a transistor can be.

MIT researchers have now replaced silicon with a magnetic semiconductor, creating a magnetic transistor that could enable smaller, faster, and more energy-efficient circuits. The material’s magnetism strongly influences its electronic behavior, leading to more efficient control of the flow of electricity. 

The team used a novel magnetic material and an optimization process that reduces the material’s defects, which boosts the transistor’s performance.

The material’s unique magnetic properties also allow for transistors with built-in memory, which would simplify circuit design and unlock new applications for high-performance electronics.

“People have known about magnets for thousands of years, but there are very limited ways to incorporate magnetism into electronics. We have shown a new way to efficiently utilize magnetism that opens up a lot of possibilities for future applications and research,” says Chung-Tao Chou, an MIT graduate student in the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and Physics, and co-lead author of a paper on this advance.

Chou is joined on the paper by co-lead author Eugene Park, a graduate student in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering (DMSE); Julian Klein, a DMSE research scientist; Josep Ingla-Aynes, a postdoc in the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center; Jagadeesh S. Moodera, a senior research scientist in the Department of Physics; and senior authors Frances Ross, TDK Professor in DMSE; and Luqiao Liu, an associate professor in EECS, and a member of the Research Laboratory of Electronics; as well as others at the University of Chemistry and Technology in Prague. The paper appears today in Physical Review Letters.

Overcoming the limits

In an electronic device, silicon semiconductor transistors act like tiny light switches that turn a circuit on and off, or amplify weak signals in a communication system. They do this using a small input voltage.

But a fundamental physical limit of silicon semiconductors prevents a transistor from operating below a certain voltage, which hinders its energy efficiency.

To make more efficient electronics, researchers have spent decades working toward magnetic transistors that utilize electron spin to control the flow of electricity. Electron spin is a fundamental property that enables electrons to behave like tiny magnets.

So far, scientists have mostly been limited to using certain magnetic materials. These lack the favorable electronic properties of semiconductors, constraining device performance.

“In this work, we combine magnetism and semiconductor physics to realize useful spintronic devices,” Liu says.

The researchers replace the silicon in the surface layer of a transistor with chromium sulfur bromide, a two-dimensional material that acts as a magnetic semiconductor.

Due to the material’s structure, researchers can switch between two magnetic states very cleanly. This makes it ideal for use in a transistor that smoothly switches between “on” and “off.”

“One of the biggest challenges we faced was finding the right material. We tried many other materials that didn’t work,” Chou says.

They discovered that changing these magnetic states modifies the material’s electronic properties, enabling low-energy operation. And unlike many other 2D materials, chromium sulfur bromide remains stable in air.

To make a transistor, the researchers pattern electrodes onto a silicon substrate, then carefully align and transfer the 2D material on top. They use tape to pick up a tiny piece of material, only a few tens of nanometers thick, and place it onto the substrate.

“A lot of researchers will use solvents or glue to do the transfer, but transistors require a very clean surface. We eliminate all those risks by simplifying this step,” Chou says.

Leveraging magnetism

This lack of contamination enables their device to outperform existing magnetic transistors. Most others can only create a weak magnetic effect, changing the flow of current by a few percent or less. Their new transistor can switch or amplify the electric current by a factor of 10.

They use an external magnetic field to change the magnetic state of the material, switching the transistor using significantly less energy than would usually be required.

The material also allows them to control the magnetic states with electric current. This is important because engineers cannot apply magnetic fields to individual transistors in an electronic device. They need to control each one electrically.

The material’s magnetic properties could also enable transistors with built-in memory, simplifying the design of logic or memory circuits.

A typical memory device has a magnetic cell to store information and a transistor to read it out. Their method can combine both into one magnetic transistor.

“Now, not only are transistors turning on and off, they are also remembering information. And because we can switch the transistor with greater magnitude, the signal is much stronger so we can read out the information faster, and in a much more reliable way,” Liu says.

Building on this demonstration, the researchers plan to further study the use of electrical current to control the device. They are also working to make their method scalable so they can fabricate arrays of transistors.

This research was supported, in part, by the Semiconductor Research Corporation, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Army Research Office, and the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports. The work was partially carried out at the MIT.nano facilities.

News story: “Scientists discover a bizarre Jurassic ‘squid’ unlike anything ever seen.”

Scientists have identified the “fattest” belemnite ever discovered, a bizarre, barrel-shaped squid relative that lived in Wyoming’s ancient seas 160 million years ago. The exceptionally rare fossils reveal a creature unlike anything previously known, potentially a predator of smaller squid-like animals and a surprising survivor of a supposedly vanished family.

As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered...

Google is rightfully facing blowback for forcing K-12 schools to enable AI if they wanted to keep using Google search. The company quickly backtracked and decoupled and turned off the services by default, but made it clear search will continue to be just another AI chatbot. This mandate forces an ultimatum on educators: accept generative AI or de-google your school.

Students, teachers, and parents across the U.S. are now years into an argument about how schools should respond to the growth of AI-enabled tools. Google decided to skip this debate and take this choice from schools. In August it activated AI chatbot Gemini for 150 million K-12 students on Google Classroom, leaving educators scrambling to respond. A few months later, Google introduced a new way to turn it off — but now administrators would also be turning off Google search.

Google walked this back somewhat, clarifying that Gemini, Gemini notebook, and Search will have their own controls and will be off by default. But because of Google’s broader approach to force AI on all search users, this change is still an example of a tech monopolist pushing unwanted changes into the classroom.

Tying AI to Search

It’s no secret that the biggest companies in AI  are operating at a huge loss, in the hope they can follow Uber’s enshittification playbook. Offer a cheap convenience at a major loss until old systems atrophy, then flip the script to reduce wages and raise consumer costs—whether that’s paying with cash or with data. 

This puts Google in the odd position of an incumbent, with around 90% of search traffic. It needs to not only make good on its own AI investment, but protect its dominance from new AI tools. It’s not just enough to offer its own AI mode, it needs to turn search into AI mode, while engaging in clumsy self-preferencing that is eating its own ad revenue.

The problem with this approach is the public is split on AI, to put it mildly. Some users will welcome these changes, but the rest are stuck in an all-or-nothing bargain. Anyone concerned  about the accuracy of AI overviews or their impact on click-through rates for online communities and small publishers can just deal with it. The bet is any inconvenience in switching to an alternative is enough to keep you trapped.

Google can and should offer a way to disable AI overviews. Smaller services like DuckDuckGo* and Brave search have simple and persisting AI settings which don’t require login. These services also don't mince words and make a distinction between generated AI summaries, suspected AI results, and the backend use of AI to curate links. 

It’s not enough to point to opaque workarounds, either. Adding “-ai” to your Google search will usually remove AI Overview, but so will “-unicorn”. This trick isn’t meant to be an AI off-switch, it’s a quirk of how AI Overview was implemented and can change at any time. These tricks also don’t generalize well to settings for system administrators. Hacks might work for now, but everyone—including administrators—deserve clear set-and-forget controls for the tools they rely on.

Pushing AI on Schools

De-googling your life isn’t easy, and for schools it can be even more difficult. For decades Google has gone after schools to foster life-long Google users—resulting in many institutions being deeply entrenched in its ecosystem despite data privacy concerns. That’s because schools face major switching costs when moving to a competitor. It takes more than flipping a setting—it means a lengthy contract process, staff retraining, and a cumbersome migration of past work. 

The difficulty of switching makes granular controls even more essential, particularly for a hot-button issue like generative AI. Few parents would send their kids to AI-driven schools, but they may want their kids to learn tools like search as they exist outside of the classroom. However, many parents and teachers concerned with AI disrupting learning are pushing major school districts to implement temporary AI moratoriums for young students. These pauses are meant to make sure any introduction of AI fits the needs of students and is done in a way that actually makes sure educators are prepared. 

But in either camp, this is a choice that must be made by schools, not Google. Teachers know more about what their students need than a trillion-dollar tech company, and this expertise should be respected in their own classrooms. 

Google’s self-preferencing and desperate attempt to eventually recoup on an AI money pit must be tempered with more fine-tune controls over generative AI. It’s in Google’s own interest to stop abusing its dominance to piss off users, advertisers, and school communities. It’s also Google’s responsibility as an adjudicated monopolist.

*DuckDuckGo is an EFF donor. EFF donors do not influence our agenda or our positions.

What does the digital future look like? Who gets to imagine it, shape it, and make it real?

Building a freer, more inclusive digital age requires not only challenging systems of surveillance and control, but also making space for creativity, community, and radical imagination. 

That's why earlier this year with the queer arts collective, we put out a call for submissions inviting people to explore the intersections of technology, identity, and digital liberation—whether that involved pointing the lens towards an underrepresented issue in digital justice efforts; sharing personal accounts of joy, pleasure, or sorrow under surveillance; or painting wide imaginations for our communities using technology for good instead of carcerality and doom.

And we’re excited to share that the project is now live! Desire Lines: Encoding Queer Digital Futures explores a digital world that dreams wilder and exists louder. Seven artists share their visions of digital liberation, spanning from early internet-coded yearning to escapist steamy chat rooms and seed-laced battle suits for revolution. 

These essays and stories remind us that digital rights aren't just about the existence of technology and its deployment as existing in a vacuum, but instead about how tech tools are a way for people to express themselves freely, find communities, explore identities, and build spaces to exist and seek joy without fear. Too often, conversations about technology focus on innovation, efficiency, and the next big thing while overlooking the people and communities most affected by the systems being built. This project was an effort to break containment and make space for something different: a chance to imagine digital futures rooted in queer creativity, resistance, and possibility.

Together with the queer arts collective, we were excited to launch the magazine and celebrate the artists and ideas that brought it to life through our session at Mozilla Festival last week, ‘Privacy x Queer Desire,’ where we started out by co-curating a community privacy plan grounded in digital fairness before launching the magazine. 

If the stories in Encoding Queer Digital Futures teach us one thing, it’s that we don't have to accept the digital future handed to us by oppressive governments and tech companies. We already have pre-Big Tech internet experiences encoded in our fondest memories that can inform our dreams for something better, and together we can build a new reality.

Read Desire Lines: Encoding Queer Digital Futures here.

“The safety of young people in the digital environment cannot be assessed without also considering the safety of young people in offline environments. For millions of young people around the world, the digital environment is their safe place, their haven from an unsafe physical environment, community, or family situation. The digital environment may be the best, perhaps only, place for them to find critical safety information and community, to explore ideas that are controversial in their families and larger physical environments, and to otherwise nourish their personal autonomy.

“For these young people, regulatory efforts that limit their access to online services or to certain features they find valuable, make their lives, in total, less safe, even if there has been some marginal safety benefit to their digital environment.

“The OHCHR must thus consider the whole of young persons' lives in any recommendations that come out of this process and not treat ‘safety, physical or mental health, and rights in the digital environment’ as disconnected from safety, physical or mental health, and rights elsewhere.”

So begins EFF’s submission to the global Call for Inputs on Child Rights and Safety in the Digital Environment conducted by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. The OHCHR is preparing a report on the issue to be presented to the UN Human Rights Council at its 64th session in the first quarter of 2027. The Human Rights Council requested the OHCHR to solicit input from a wide range of stakeholders, including child and youth perspectives, and convene five regional consultations to assess the risks to the safety of the child in the digital environment and best practices to address these risks in different geographical areas, bearing in mind current and emerging business models. 

The OHCHR acknowledges that young people today navigate a digital environment with both “unprecedented opportunities” and “serious and evolving risks,” and sets out a rights-based framing whereby “Children's 'safety' is therefore addressed through the full framework of their rights — with freedom from violence (Art. 19) and protection from exploitation and abuse (Arts. 34–36) as clearly defined obligations, situated alongside privacy (Art. 16), access to information (Arts. 13 and 17), expression (Art. 13), participation (Art. 12), and development (Art. 6). Protection and the full range of children's rights are understood as reinforcing rather than competing imperatives, and measures taken in the name of safety must not be used to restrict the enjoyment of other rights, such as the right to privacy and the right to participate.”

In light of this, EFF’s submission focused on the current general disregard for young people's speech and privacy rights by regulators around the world, all of whom seem far more interested in empowering parents rather than young people themselves, or meaningfully involving young people in the regulatory process. We emphasized the human rights-centered uses young people make of social media that were not specifically set out in the concept note. We also explained that too often, policy proposals aiming to remedy the issues of online safety for young people introduce limitations on access to online services and content rather than tackling the specific problems that people experience. 

More specifically, our submission looks at:

1. the most significant risks to young people’s safety in the digital environment
2. how digital product design and business models drive risks to children's rights online, including in AI-mediated services
3. the inclusion of young people’s views in the design, governance, and regulation of digital environments 
4. how equality and non-discrimination in access and protection can be ensured
5. the promotion of digital literacy, skills, and empowerment for young people 
6. the impact of legislative and regulatory measures from the United States to Indonesia and Australia 
7. importance of broader, more systemic interventions that can address address online harms
8. how global instruments and processes can protect young people online. 

The internet is where young people learn, find community, explore their identities, access important information, and express themselves. Curtailing these opportunities doesn't make them safer. And requiring everyone to hand over sensitive personal information just to access online spaces creates privacy risks for all users.

As the OHCHR has acknowledged, the solution to the issue of online safety should not require a choice between protecting young people from danger or protecting their rights. Instead of restricting access, governments should focus on the systems that create these risks in the first place; tech companies must be accountable for their design choices, data practices, and surveillance-driven business models; and young people need to be included in the decisions that affect them. 

Read our full submission here. 

This is fascinating:

The video describes a technique that can reveal where an otherwise unidentifiable recording was made by analyzing its audio for the faint sounds of passing aircraft. The technique is both fascinating and frightening.

It works by looking at Doppler curves, which plot the way a plane’s sound changes as it passes overhead because of the Doppler effect. This is the same familiar Doppler effect that causes the frequency of a siren to rise as it approaches and then fall as it passes by and moves away. More generally, it’s the phenomenon whereby the frequency of a wave perceived by an observer changes when the observer and the source of the wave are moving in relation to one another...

On November 3, our colleagues at the Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in) received notifications from X that the Delhi Police had issued takedown requests targeting 42 URLs. Among the accounts and posts targeted were those belonging to SFLC.in, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), and X account @geoblockedindia, as well as posts documenting legal notices and instances of online censorship. 

Takedown requests targeting SFLC.in and other digital rights groups threaten not only their work, but the public’s ability to know when and how online speech is being restricted. 

The requests cite grounds including hate speech, alleged defamation of the Hindu nationalist organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and concerns relating to safety and security. But the context in which these requests have emerged is particularly troubling: they target organizations and individuals whose work involves documenting restrictions on online expression and making those restrictions visible to the public. 

In other words, the organizations being targeted are among those trying to tell the public when and how its speech is being censored. 

SFLC.in is one of India's most important digital rights organizations and promotes innovation and open access to knowledge by helping developers make great free and open-source software, protects privacy and civil liberties for Indians by educating and providing free legal advice, and helps policymakers make informed and just decisions about use of technology. In 2025, we recognized their work with an EFF Award for Defending Digital Freedoms. 

IFF (the Internet Freedom Foundation) is another of EFF's close allies in India. Like EFF, IFF combines advocacy campaigns and strategic litigation to advance digital rights. They write frequently about internet shutdowns and have filed several lawsuits contesting them. 

Among SFLC.in's initiatives is its Free Speech Tracker, which documents instances of online censorship, content restrictions, and account takedowns in India. In a country where government orders to restrict online content are often opaque, this work is absolutely essential. 
 
Recent legal notices object to the tracker itself, as well as the organization’s documentation of restricted content and geo-blocked material. The allegations against SFLC.in include claims that it is "continuously opposing government directions" and publicly circulating information about restricted content, thereby undermining measures taken in the name of national security and public order. 

But documenting government censorship is not the same as undermining public safety. Reporting that content has been restricted is not an endorsement of that content, nor does it constitute an attempt to circumvent the law. It is an exercise in transparency and accountability, and one that allows journalists, researchers, civil society organizations, and the public to understand how governments exercise their power over the information landscape. 

Censorship thrives in the absence of transparency 

The use of legal complaints and platform takedown mechanisms against organizations documenting censorship creates a particularly troubling dynamic. When those who monitor restrictions on expression are threatened with having their accounts or reporting removed, the result is a chilling effect that extends far beyond the immediate targets. Other organizations or journalists may think twice before documenting controversial takedowns or challenging government orders, and the public loses access to an independent record of decisions that affect its ability to speak and access information online. 

There is also an important role here for platforms like X. Platforms must be transparent about the requests they receive, provide meaningful notice to affected users, and ensure that any restrictions are subject to appropriate scrutiny and avenues for appeal. When governments seek to restrict speech, platforms have a responsibility to avoid becoming opaque intermediaries through which censorship is quietly carried out. 

These developments are part of a broader pattern of pressure on independent civil society organizations working to defend freedom of expression and access to information in India. Digital rights groups play an indispensable role in documenting the effects of government policies, identifying patterns of censorship, and challenging restrictions that undermine fundamental rights. Their ability to do so independently is not a peripheral concern; it is a cornerstone of a healthy democratic society. 

The right to freedom of expression includes the right to scrutinize the exercise of government power. That includes the right to document censorship, question the reasons given for it, and make that information available to the public.  

EFF stands in solidarity with SFLC.in, the Internet Freedom Foundation, @geoblockedindia, and all those working to document and challenge restrictions on online expression in India. We urge the authorities in India to respect the rights of digital rights organizations to conduct their work without intimidation or retaliation, and to ensure that any restrictions on online expression comply with international human rights standards. 

 

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 06 November 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02786-8

Carbon removal methodologies have different risks of stored CO2 leaking back to the atmosphere. Now a study provides a quantitative framework for comparison, a necessary tool for building carbon storage portfolios with improved delivery, valuation and cost.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 06 November 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02785-9

Carbon removal markets lack a standard metric for assessing permanence risk, limiting effective risk management and product development. Here researchers propose carbon at risk, a probabilistic measure, and calibrate it for forest carbon and geological storage projects, demonstrating the benefits of diversification.

Most biologists who study pathogenic microbes have focused on strains such as Escherichia coli or Staphylococcus aureus, which are not only important for human health, but also relatively easy to grow in the lab. 

Rebecca Lamason, an MIT associate professor of biology, wants to take a more expansive approach that includes bacteria that are more challenging to study. Tackling those microbes, she says, can help scientists learn more about the huge diversity of strategies that pathogens have evolved to interact with their hosts. 

In her lab, she has devised new tools for analyzing pathogens such as Rickettsia parkeri, a tickborne bacterium that causes a mild form of spotted fever. She also studies Listeria monocytogenes, a microbe commonly linked to foodborne illnesses.

From studying these microbes, she hopes to learn more about the many strategies that pathogens have devised to take over host cell machinery, which also offers insight into the fundamental functions performed by those host cells.

“We cannot learn everything from a single type of bacterium or a single type of cell,” Lamason says. “There’s a rich diversity of biological mechanisms that are out there, and I think we have just barely scratched the surface on that.”

In just one recent example, her lab found that R. parkeri can form very tight connections with a cell structure called the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), which mimics some of the interactions that the host cell’s own organelles have with the ER. They’re still puzzling out the reason for this interaction, which hasn’t been seen with other microbes.

“It’s one of those things too where we had gone into the microscope room to look at something else to ask a different question, and we discovered this other unexpected interaction,” Lamason says. “This has been a really fun experience, and it’s also very common when you’re doing cell biology experiments: you see some phenomenon that you didn't expect.”

How systems interact

As a high school student, Lamason was drawn to cell biology and physiology, and she decided she wanted to pursue a PhD even before she knew exactly what that career path would look like.

“I didn’t have anybody in my family that had a PhD or worked in science, and so I didn’t really know what it took or what it was to get a PhD, but for some reason I wanted to do it,” she says. 

Her father was in the military, so her family moved quite a bit, mainly between Florida, California, and Virginia, before settling in Pennsylvania. After graduating from high school, where she was the editor-in-chief of the school newspaper, Lamason spent two years at a local community college before transferring to Millersville University to finish her bachelor’s degree.

At Millersville, she majored in molecular biology and biotechnology and worked in a lab studying chlorella viruses, which infect algae.

“We were characterizing different variants that we could isolate from a pond that was next to the building, so we were looking at very simple questions, but that experience allowed me to see what it was like to ask questions, what it was like to work regularly in a lab,” she recalls.

To gain more experience before applying to graduate school, she worked as a research technician at Hershey Medical Center for a couple of years, in a lab studying zebrafish as a model to understand the genetics of cancer.

As a PhD student at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, where she studied immunology, Lamason realized that what she liked most about biology was studying how different biological systems interact with each together.

“The immune system was an interesting way to get that, because there were all these moving parts, all these cells that had to talk to each other to mount an effective immune response,” she says. “Studying immunology helped me realize what I liked more and more was cell biology. How does the cell, a really complex environment, respond to these external signals and commit to a program or a response that then supports some kind of function?”

For her postdoc, she chose a lab where she could look at those questions through the lens of host-pathogen relationships, at the University of California at Berkeley. 

“What really excited me about pathogens is that they are these wonderful little cell biologists, who often have to navigate the complex environment of the host cell and have evolved unexpected ways to solve problems,” she says. “If they have to get through a barrier, or they have to tell the cell not to die or they have to turn off a response, they have evolved distinct ways to do this.”

Working with Matthew Welch, a cell biologist at Berkeley, she began studying the two organisms that are now the focus of her current research: R. parkeri and L. monocytogenes.

R. parkeri, similar to viruses, cannot survive outside of a host cell and is fully dependent on the host cell machinery to replicate itself. L. monocytogenes, on the other hand, can survive and replicate on its own.

“These constraints shape the biology and the types of interactions that these organisms can use to cause infection,” Lamason says. “That’s what really got me interested in these two very different bacteria and in studying the different cellular and bacterial factors that drive a specific outcome.”

Solving technical challenges

In her lab at MIT, which she started in 2017, Lamason has identified many of the host proteins and other factors that help those two species of bacteria perform functions such as moving between infected cells, which they each do in different ways. In order to do much of this work, Lamason and her students, postdocs, and technicians have had to develop new techniques for studying these microbes. 

Until recently, there was no way to target specific genes in R. parkeri cells, but using CRISPR, Lamason’s lab developed the first technique for doing so, in 2024. That has made it easier for them to delve into the roles of specific genes of interest. They also developed ways to label bacterial proteins that are secreted into the host cell, making it much easier to pick them out from the cells’ own proteins.

“My lab recognizes the technical challenges that face our field, and so sometimes we’re building things to solve problems and sometimes we’re just chasing down really interesting observations and trying to understand how it works,” Lamason says.

When looking for faculty jobs, Lamason was drawn to MIT by the sense of collaboration she found. When members of her lab need to learn a new technique, or explore the workings of a cell organelle the lab hasn’t studied before, they can find help from one of the many other MIT labs that have expertise in different aspects of biology.

“That’s been the key to our success — not only attempting and having these riskier ideas, but having the support of the community to help us think about how do we execute on those,” she says. “There’s this wonderful community of scientists to help you think through and complete the kind of work that you want to do and also to push you to think bigger about how to approach a problem.”

When she’s not puzzling out biology problems, Lamason likes to take to the ice as part of a women’s hockey league in Boston. She took up the sport as a beginner a few years ago, in part as a way to take her mind off the everyday stresses of academia.

“It’s a good challenge, and a good way to get out of the lab and the office and give you something else to think about. If my grant got rejected, if I was having a bad day at work, it was a good way to shut my brain off for a little bit and focus on staying upright,” she says.

California’s 2026 legislative session has officially adjourned and it’s time to reflect on the wins and losses that have shaped Californians’ digital rights landscape this year. This was the second year of a two-year legislative session, which meant several bills resumed their legislative paths from 2025.

EFF monitored nearly 100 bills in the state over the two-year session. These included proposed regulations on 3D printers, access to social media platforms, police, commercial, and workplace surveillance practices, AI, and other privacy concerns. While we saw some victories, alarming developments also raised serious concerns about the future of privacy protection in the state.

Celebrating Wins Use of automated decision-making and surveillance in the workplace

Governor Newsom signed vital protections on the use of automated decision-making in the workplace and workplace surveillance tools, specifically No Robo Bosses (SB 947) and AB 1883.

Championed by our labor partners, SB 947 limits how employers can use automated decision-making to fire or discipline workers, including provisions that ensure workers get vital information about automated decisions that affect them, and that an algorithm is not the only authority for these consequential decisions. Alongside it, AB 1883 prohibits the use of workplace surveillance to predict emotions or collect neural data. This stops employers from using potentially biased, invasive, and exploitative forms of AI surveillance at the workplace, marking an important step toward creating workplaces that respect the privacy and autonomy of workers. We look forward to continuing to ensure that technology in California’s workplaces is deployed fairly, thoughtfully, and with respect for all workers.

Protecting against federal overreach

EFF was also grateful to see Governor Newsom sign SB 747, which allows damages lawsuits against federal officials who violate the U.S. Constitution. Victims of constitutional violations deserve a complete remedy and this law also helps deter constitutional violations in the first place. Gaps in current law often make it difficult to seek a damages remedy against federal officials who violate the U.S. Constitution. This bill makes it easier to bring such litigation. Federal law enforcement officials have violated our First Amendment right to record on-duty police and other newsworthy subjects, and also sometimes violate our Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches of our phones and laptops. When this happens, the people who suffer these violations should be able to sue these officials for damages.

Additionally, EFF supported two bills (which are now state law) that clarify and extend California’s shield laws to protect patients, healthcare providers, and others involved in reproductive healthcare and gender-affirming care that is legal in California. After the overturn of Roe v. Wade, California enacted numerous shield laws to protect people who provide, receive, or help others obtain healthcare that is legal in California. These laws prohibit California agencies and certain companies from helping other states enforce laws that punish this care. Yet the federal government and coordinated efforts in other states still threaten access to these legally protected healthcare services. AB 1854 addresses these threats by expanding coverage to more California businesses and individuals who receive legal demands, creating a notification process so the Attorney General can intervene to stop improper disclosures, and clarifying that law enforcement cannot arrest someone if the Governor refuses an extradition request. These protections serve as a necessary response to real and escalating tactics outside the state targeting lawful reproductive healthcare.

EFF also supported AB 1930 to protect confidential medical records from politically motivated investigations into lawful healthcare, empowering the California Attorney General’s office to meaningfully intervene and respond to out-of-state subpoenas or requests for data regarding protected care.

Young people online

EFF is dedicated to protecting the rights of young people online. We supported a handful of bills on digital literacy and cybersecurity education that were signed into law, such as AB 2071 on digital wellness instruction and AB 2298 on cybersecurity in educational standards. Unlike blanket bans, these bills 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.

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, AB 2071 was co-authored by a group of students actively seeking better resources to navigate their digital lives safely.

EFF and our allies were also able to stop the expansion of California’s dangerous age gating law from operating systems to browsers. The California legislature stepped back from their plan to expand the 2025 age-gating law and ultimately removed language from AB 1856 that could have compounded serious threats to users’ speech, privacy, and security just to browse the internet, and positively, removed the burdens on open-source operating systems.

Real digital safety comes from preparation, not isolation

While EFF still believes the underlying law that AB 1856 amends, AB 1043, is unconstitutional, we appreciate that the legislature did not expand this problematic age-gating framework to browsers. We were also pleased that an earlier amendment to AB 1856 reduced the threat to the open-source community by exempting open-source operating systems. Given these changes, EFF removed its opposition to AB 1856, and thanks the author for listening to concerns from advocates and developers.

Mourning Losses Updating California’s Information Practices Act (IPA)

EFF was proud to co-sponsor AB 1337 this session alongside our friends at Oakland Privacy and Assemblymember Chris Ward, who is also the chair of the legislative LGBTQ Caucus. The bill unfortunately failed to cross the finish line after stalling in the Senate.

AB 1337 would have updated California's foundational Information Practices Act of 1977 and extended its vital privacy safeguards present at the state agency level to counties and cities. Today, city and county governments collect vast amounts of sensitive personal data (from public health records such as vaccinations, to welfare assistance details, to license plate reader data) and administer programs that were likely not contemplated back in 1977. Yet the law has simply not kept up with modern data practices, and California still has no state law governing how local governments handle this information. While we could not build enough political progress to pass the bill this session, closing this local privacy gap remains an urgent need for California.

Social media ban

Another major setback was the passage (and subsequent signing) of a social media ban for youth under the age of 16 (AB 1709).

Technology and the laws that regulate it should support and empower young people, but AB 1709 falls far short of this goal. Using technology is how we learn and build community in today’s world, but laws such as AB 1709 cut young people off from essential information and experiences. They also particularly harm those already facing increased challenges who find safety in supportive online communities that they cannot always access in the physical world.

Technology and the laws that regulate it should support and empower young people

Denying minors access to digital forums or stripping out basic tools needed to navigate them will not make young people safer or healthier in the AI age. Research shows social media bans are ineffectual while denying young people opportunities to develop their own voices, share their art, practice religion, or engage in politics. These laws also hurt all of us. Age-gating requirements force everyone to give up 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 people. AB 1709 is also inconsistent with rights to free expression, meaning California will spend resources defending a law that will likely get tied up in court.

Gutting California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)

CIPA was originally intended to protect personal privacy against surveillance and included a private right of action so consumers could hold corporations accountable in court. This is why EFF and allied organizations spent the two-year session strongly opposing SB 690—a bill we dubbed the "Corporate Cover-Up Act" for its attempt to weaken consumer protections in CIPA. Although SB 690 was narrowed from its original draft, we asked Governor Newsom to veto it because it strips away the law's private right of action—a vital tool for individuals fighting back against unlawful metadata surveillance. People deserve the right to decide whether to bring a lawsuit, which remains one of the most effective ways to deter corporate abuse. Unfortunately, the Governor signed the bill and even urged the legislature to go further next year. It's especially alarming to see this disregard for accountability as the federal government and law enforcement agencies seek data from businesses or data brokers to target people based on political beliefs, religious affiliations, or health decisions.

We expect to see further attacks on CIPA next legislative session, as Governor Newsom’s signing statement called for “additional work in this area” and urged the legislature to “take this on next year to ensure a fair balance between protecting private information and preventing rapacious litigation."

Banning the sale of sensitive personal information

California also missed the opportunity to join other states in restricting the sale of sensitive data. We are deeply disappointed that Governor Newsom vetoed AB 1542, which would have ensured sensitive personal information stays private by banning its sale outright. There's a nationwide movement to protect consumers by making intimate details off-limits for businesses to sell or share. From precise geolocation and genetic data to private messages, health records, sexual orientation, and immigration status, sensitive data reveals the most private aspects of our lives. Monetizing this information fuels financial scams, predatory pricing, and warrant-free government surveillance. By vetoing this bill, California not only fails to lead but falls behind other states, by missing a critical opportunity to protect our most vulnerable communities.

3D printing

The California legislature unfortunately also passed AB 2047, which aimed to make every 3D printer come pre-loaded with censorship software. It's a law that is trying to prevent an act that is already illegal in the state, and just won't work. It was part of a recent sweep of misguided state bills which purport to go after "ghost guns," but actually “enshittify” 3D printers by introducing privacy risks and a new way to restrict or upcharge users. Lawmakers even considered including misdemeanor charges that would have impacted people using alternative open-source programs. Fortunately an outpouring of opposition from makers and civil liberties advocates resulted in a bill so limited that, despite having passed and been signed into law, will not affect makers until ASTM International publishes a standard — something the organization had not been considering doing.

Where California Missed the Mark Consumer privacy

California lawmakers also missed key opportunities to curb commercial surveillance. EFF supported AB 2564, which prohibits retailers from engaging in surveillance pricing, the invasive practice that allows corporations to offer the same product to two different people at two different prices based on scrutiny of their personal data. Unfortunately, the bill stalled on the last day of session.

The legislature also failed to move AB 322, which would have safeguarded the privacy of Californians by placing restrictions on the collection, use, and sale of location data. Last year, EFF published a rubric for comprehensive location privacy laws, outlining baseline standards states should meet to shield individuals from pervasive location surveillance. Since then, states like Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, and Virginia have enacted new consumer privacy restraints on geolocation data. Yet, even as these states move the ball forward, most of their laws leave significant gaps that still must be filled. California failed to make that change and protect residents from location surveillance.

Automatic license plate readers

California lawmakers have lagged in enacting meaningful limits on automated license plate readers with all proposed ALPR regulation bills failing to pass since 2022. SB 1013 initially appeared on track to pass with broad support, but ultimately stalled in the final days of the session.

EFF maintains high standards for ALPR legislation, favoring full bans or, at minimum, strict warrant requirements and brief data retention limits. While we remained neutral on earlier versions of SB 1013, EFF and our partners ultimately opposed the bill after late amendments compromised key privacy protections. The final draft would have doubled the current data retention period and allowed agencies to archive rather than delete data unrelated to active investigations—effectively shifting away from data minimization toward indefinite retention. (We saw San Francisco adopt a similar proposal this year). We encourage California lawmakers to draw from our ALPR legislative agenda to enact robust safeguards or ban ALPR mass surveillance altogether.

Looking Ahead

Next session, we expect ALPR legislation to be top of mind as states across the country reckon with the harms the technology has caused. We will also be monitoring the results and action following the state’s audit into California’s fusion centers. Following calls from advocates to address privacy abuses and a lack of transparency, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee approved Senator Sabrina Cervantes’ audit request in March 2026. This builds on our past experiences working with JLAC audits to expose law enforcement overreach—such as the state auditor's damning 2020 report on law enforcement’s use of automated license plate readers and our 2016 push to fix the deeply flawed CalGang database. The audit will examine the legal authority, governance, and funding of the centers, map out state and private data systems accessed by personnel, and review protocols for handling data breaches and unauthorized surveillance. This audit will mark the first comprehensive review of these facilities in 13 years and should be released by Summer 2027. We hope lawmakers use the findings to rein in these centers and their unauthorized surveillance.

Other “zombie bills” are also expected to return next year, including legislation regarding the use of copyrighted material to train AI systems. Throughout the two-year session, EFF raised serious concerns about AB 412, a bill that would require AI developers to identify and disclose copyrighted works used in generative AI training. We argued that complying with such a mandate is practically impossible, as it demands information that often does not exist and cannot realistically be obtained. While we are glad the legislature paused to consider the best approach rather than rushing this policy forward, we expect legislation targeting fair use and AI training to return next session.

More broadly on AI, vulnerabilities and security issues have dominated recent news cycles, and everyday Californians feel real anxiety about the risks of AI. We expect to see numerous bills addressing issues like existential risk and kill switches, as Assembly and Senate privacy committees in California have held informational hearings on these topics over the last month.

We hope to work with legislators to address the threats of AI and ensure that technology supports rights, justice, freedom, and innovation for all people. Laws should always ensure that technology empowers rather than oppresses.

Join us to celebrate the legacy of Aaron Swartz on Nov. 8, 2026. With the organizers of Aaron Swartz Day, we’re honoring his life with an in-person and remote hackathon. This event is supported by several organizations that carry on his work, including the Internet Archive—which is hosting the in-person event—the Freedom of the Press Foundation, Creative Commons and the Free Law Project.

Aaron Swartz was a digital rights champion who believed in the need for an open internet. His life was cut short in 2013, after federal prosecutors charged him under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for systematically downloading academic journal articles from the online database JSTOR. Facing the prospect of a long and unjust sentence, Aaron died by suicide at the age of 26.

EFF was proud to call Aaron a friend and ally. We continue to stand with programmers and developers engaged in cutting-edge exploration of technology through our Coders' Rights Project.

Hackathon participants can contribute code, documentation, and design to several open-source and public-interest projects. These include Secure Drop, Open Library, Quantifying the Commons, Onion Press, and our own Atlas of Surveillance.  EFF Director of State Affairs Hayley Tsukayama will also join hackathon participants at the Internet Archive at 11 a.m. for an Atlas of Surveillance on-boarding session.

Contributors across experience levels are welcome. The Aaron Swartz Day organizers are also open to adding new projects and workshops, so please contact them at aaronswartzday@gmail.com if you’d like to suggest a workshop or project—particularly open-source projects on Github that participants can continue to work on after the event. For more details on how to participate in-person or remotely, please visit the Aaron Swartz Day and International Hackathon page at www.aaronswartzday.org.

Event Details

• Date: Sunday, November 8, 2026
• Time: 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM PST
• Social Lunch: 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM PST
• In-person Location: Internet Archive Headquarters, 300 Funston Ave, San Francisco, CA 94118
• Admission: Free, but please RSVP here

In the first fraction of a second following the Big Bang, matter existed as a trillion-degree plasma of quarks and gluons — subatomic particles that zinged around at close to the speed of light. This roiling soup lasted for just a few microseconds, before the particles coalesced into more stable protons and neutrons. 

To study this primordial fluid, scientists recreate quark-gluon plasma in large particle accelerators, where ions are smashed together at close to the speed of light. These collisions create droplets of plasma roughly the size of an atomic nucleus, that exist for only tens of septillionths of a second.

One way scientists study this plasma is by tracking other particles, such as heavy quarks, that are not part of the plasma but happen to move through it. The way a heavy particle moves through a fluid should tell something about the microscopic structure of the fluid itself. This general relationship was established famously by physicist Albert Einstein in 1905. 

But in such extreme conditions, where particles are moving at close to the speed of light, something in Einstein’s theory starts to break down; there are interactions within the plasma that the theory can’t quite capture.

Now, physicists at MIT and the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) have taken up where Einstein’s theory left off. They have worked out a theory that predicts how a relativistic particle, moving at close to the speed of light, is likely to be pushed and pulled by a fluid as it flies through it. 

The researchers envision that the new theory could be applied to predict how a heavy quark will move through quark-gluon plasma. Such predictions could then be compared to experiments to characterize the microscopic structure of quark-gluon plasma, and what kind of fluid must have existed in the universe’s first moments.

“Our result reveals a new source of information carried by heavy quarks in rare, unusually large changes in their motion,” says Jean Du Plessis, a graduate student in MIT’s Center for Theoretical Physics – a Leinweber Institute. “How often those large changes occur depends on the microscopic nature of the plasma, raising the possibility that they could provide a new way to learn what the quark-gluon plasma is actually like inside.”

Du Plessis and Bruno Scheihing-Hitschfeld of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at UCSB report their findings today in Physical Review Letters. 

A path from pollen

In 1905, Einstein developed a theory to describe a particle’s motion through fluid and how that motion can reveal the fluid’s microscopic structure. His theory was inspired by the botanist Robert Brown. In 1827, Brown observed a surprising phenomenon: Grains of pollen appeared to randomly jiggle and swirl when suspended in seemingly still water. This curious jittering of particles in fluid was later named “Brownian motion.” 

Einstein’s 1905 theory showed that Brownian motion was a product of invisible, microscopic forces within the fluid. A particle’s motion is a balance between the drag that the fluid exerts on the particle to slow it down, and the random kicks within the fluid that keep the particle moving. These random kicks, Einstein argued, must come from microscopic forces within the fluid, exerted by none other than the atoms and molecules that make up the fluid. The energy of these microscopic particles can add up to kick and jostle larger particles. 

Since he first published his theory, scientists have applied Einstein’s explanation of Brownian motion to characterize a host of fluids, including quark-gluon plasma. Like most other fluids, it was assumed that a particle moving through quark-gluon plasma should experience a similar balance of microscopic kicks as a grain of pollen moving through water. 

This balance is represented by a bell-shaped probability distribution, where a particle is most likely to experience medium forces of kicks (the highest point of the bell), and an equally low probability of the most extreme kicks (the tail ends of the bell), as the particle moves through and eventually settles into a fluid. 

“Einstein showed that the drag and the random kicks must balance in just the right way for a particle eventually to come to the same temperature as its surroundings,” Du Plessis explains. “For the types of fluids he was thinking about, he was correct. But for particles that are moving at relativistic velocities, this relationship breaks down. And we’ve known for 20 years that something is missing. So we have to go beyond the work that Einstein did.”

Kick speed

In their new study, Du Plessis and Scheihing-Hitschfeld calculated the forces that a heavy quark would likely experience if it flew through a fluid at relativistic speeds, close to the speed of light. They did so by carrying out calculations of the strong nuclear force, which is the fundamental force that pulls together quarks and gluons. 

The team started with a scenario of a relativistic heavy quark flying through a gas of weakly interacting quarks and gluons. The weak interactions made this a manageable starting point for their calculations.

For this starting scenario, they calculated the heavy quark’s strong nuclear force and how much its momentum is likely to change as it moves through the gas of quarks and gluons. This calculation produced a curve, or a probability distribution of the quark’s changes in momentum. The same curve can represent the quark’s probability of being kicked with various force; stronger kicks cause bigger changes to the quark’s momentum. 

The curve that the researchers calculated was bell-shaped, similar to what Einstein found with other fluids, only for small kicks. And, unlike Einstein’s bell-shaped curve, what the team found showed a tilt for heavy quarks moving at relativistic speeds. The tails at either end of the curve were uneven, and revealed a surprising imbalance in the kinds of kicks that a heavy quark would experience.

“The usual Brownian picture assumes that large kicks become exceedingly rare,” Du Plessis says. “For heavy quarks, however, these rare kicks are more common than the bell curve predicts, and are not equally likely in opposite directions: A large kick that slows the quark down more than expected from drag is more likely than an equally large kick that leaves it moving faster than expected.”

The team carried out the same calculation in plasmas made up of different particles. They found that the same tilted curve applies, regardless of the makeup of the plasma. Furthermore, they found that this same structure was already hiding in an earlier calculation in a strongly coupled plasma, despite the differences in the microscopic physics.

“This is the first time that this seemingly universal structure was realized and really formalized,” Du Plessis says. “This gives a concrete path forward for how to better understand the quark-gluon plasma, using heavy quarks.”

In terms of what this means for the universe’s first fluid, Du Plessis says that primordial quark-gluon plasma is likely “more strongly interacting than this Brownian motion way of modeling it would suggest. It’s more like a liquid and less like a gas.” 

This research was supported, in part, by the Office of Nuclear Physics in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science, the U.S. National Science Foundation, and the Simons Foundation. 

In an emergency, a human might someday ask a robotic assistant to fetch a wall-mounted defibrillator located down the hall. But if the robot has incorrectly labeled the defibrillator as a fire extinguisher in its stored memory, it may not know where to find the life-saving device.

This robotic assistant could benefit from a new memory system created by MIT researchers. The system identifies entries in a robot’s memory that might be wrong and corrects the descriptions of mislabeled objects. 

In the future, this method could make household or industrial robots better able to perform complex, multistep tasks, such as clearing a dining room table or working alongside human collaborators to assemble a piece of machinery. 

Called UQ-DAAAM (which stands for Uncertainty Quantification for Describe Anything, Anywhere, at Any Moment), the system compares multiple descriptions of the same object, seen from different viewpoints, to quantify the robot’s uncertainty about what it saw. 

It then selects additional views to reduce the uncertainty and combines these captions into a more accurate description of the object, which it saves to memory.

The researchers also employed a special technique to streamline this process so a mobile robot can continually update uncertain memory entries in real time. 

When compared to baseline methods, UQ-DAAAM boosted the robot’s confidence and improved the accuracy of its answers to questions about objects, their locations, and when it saw them. 

“Contrary to ChatGPT, when we think about physical AI, it is not enough to simply put a disclaimer cautioning that sometimes the robot might be wrong. Allowing a robot to know what it doesn’t know is going to be essential for this technology to be deployed safely and have a positive impact on society,” says Luca Carlone, an associate professor in MIT’s Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AeroAstro), principal investigator in the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS), director of the MIT SPARK Laboratory, and the senior author of the paper presenting UQ-DAAAM.

He is joined on the paper by co-lead authors and MIT graduate students Harry Zhang and Nicolas Gorlo. The research will be presented at the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 

Amending memory

This new method builds on the researchers’ prior work, DAAAM, a robot memory system that uses a vision-language model (VLM) to richly describe objects in scenes a robot captures with its onboard cameras. These descriptions are stored as detailed captions in a 3D map-based representation of the robot’s environment that it can call upon later to answer questions. 

But the robot sometimes sees objects only partially or from far away, or its camera might capture blurry or poorly lit images. In these cases, DAAAM might describe these objects incorrectly, such as by mistaking a gray chimney for a squirrel perched on a rooftop.

“With no way to correct itself, this wrong memory would persist as the robot proceeds in its environment, which could impact downstream applications,” Zhang says.

UQ-DAAAM integrates uncertainty quantification into the DAAAM framework. It allows the robot to measure its confidence in the accuracy of object descriptions and fix incorrect captions as it travels through an environment.

While on the move, the robot constantly collects and stores images of the world around it. Many of these images show the same objects captured from different angles. UQ-DAAAM uses these additional viewpoints to identify and correct unreliable descriptions.

First, it calculates the VLM’s confidence level in the words it generated to describe a potentially mislabeled object. Then, it measures consistency by comparing this description to captions of images that describe the same object from different vantage points.

“We fuse both sources of uncertainty into a single number that captures how certain the VLM is in its overall understanding of the object,” Carlone explains.

If that number exceeds a certain threshold, the uncertainty is too high, and UQ-DAAAM will refine the caption by using additional images of the object.

It does this using a heuristic, or simple rule, that determines which additional viewpoints will reduce the robot’s uncertainty about the object. For instance, it might choose an image captured a few frames later that clearly shows smoke emanating from the chimney. 

The researchers mathematically proved that this heuristic can identify the best frames to select without rerunning the VLM, dramatically reducing the amount of computation. 

“The key challenge Nico and Harry had to overcome is how to combine VLMs with uncertainty quantification into something that is running in a fraction of a second on a robot that is moving,” Carlone says.

Remembering with confidence

Once it has identified additional captions that will reduce its uncertainty about the object, the system uses an LLM to fuse them into a single object description. To boost accuracy, the LLM puts more weight on new captions and those with less ambiguity.

This refinement step is able to resolve ambiguities for about 92 percent of the objects in the robot’s environment, while only requiring two additional captions per object. It increased the accuracy of object descriptions by 5 percent compared to the state of the art.

UQ-DAAAM also provided more accurate answers to questions about the objects it observed, where it saw them, and when it last encountered them than baseline methods.

“Performing this uncertainty quantification procedure across the entire map the robot generates allows it to improve its understanding of what it has observed,” Gorlo says.

Next, the researchers want to use UQ-DAAAM to guide different types of robots, like mobile robotic manipulators, and apply their uncertainty quantification techniques to other domains. 

In addition, they are studying the use of UQ-DAAAM to identify areas of high uncertainty the robot could revisit to improve its understanding of the environment. They are also exploring uncertainty quantification in systems that predict the future state of a robot’s environment.

This research is supported, in part, by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the U.S. Office of Naval Research. Carlone is currently on sabbatical as an Amazon Scholar; this article describes work performed at MIT and is not associated with Amazon.

Yesterday, along with the ACLU, EFF filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit court of appeals in United States v. Spurlock, a case involving a “tower dump” warrant. These overbroad warrants require cellular providers to turn over location data about every phone in a given area at a given time. This is the first such case to be heard by a federal appeals court since the US Supreme Court ruled this summer that highly similar “geofence” warrants are searches under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Spurlock involves an investigation into two murder victims discovered on the side of a rural California highway. Police also found a car belonging to one of the victims several miles away on the same highway. They quickly sought a tower dump warrant for an area covering this stretch of road, which eventually revealed location data on nearly 1,700 unique phones. Faced with a motion to suppress, the district court relied on a Fifth Circuit court of appeals decision about geofence warrants to hold that tower dumps are similarly categorically unconstitutional “general warrants” that violate the Fourth Amendment. However, the court refused to suppress evidence on the basis of the “good faith doctrine.”

Our amicus brief on appeal makes several key arguments.

First, we point out that the Supreme Court’s decision in the geofence case Chatrie v. United States this summer only strengthens the arguments that tower dumps are unconstitutional general warrants. Tower dumps are a somewhat older technique than geofence warrants, but they are both “reverse location searches,” in which police “tap into an all-encompassing database, allowing them to undertake nearly perfect, retrospective surveillance of countless persons and places.” This is the sort of untargeted “general warrant” the framers of the Fourth Amendment wanted to prevent. As we write in the brief, “Searching all people in an area without probable cause to believe they were all involved in the criminal activity under investigation reproduces the evils of general warrants and is not constitutionally permitted.” It’s this rule of law that prevents police from searching the houses of a hundred, or even a thousand people in the vicinity of a crime.

Second, we note that even if high courts continue to allow tower dump and geofence warrants in any cases, core Fourth Amendment law requires strict limits to protect the privacy of innocent bystanders, including limits on the scope and duration of the warrants, as well notice to affected individuals and after-the-fact deletion and minimization of irrelevant data.

Finally, we argue that the Fourth Amendment requires the court to set aside the good faith doctrine in cases like these and actually decide the constitutional issue. Too often courts pass the buck in cases involving novel surveillance techniques, leading to situations where police can continue using the technique for years or even decades without a definitive ruling.

Whether they call it AI summaries, knowledge panels, or AMP, Google takes actions that are less about functionality and more about locking you into its own ecosystem. Knowing that makes it possible for all of us to choose better services than Google's, defeating their anticompetitive goal. In this case, as it is so often, knowledge is power.  

In the old days, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and getting online involved your computer making eldritch shrieking, Google was a website that took whatever you typed in and gave you a list of links that best matched what you were searching for. As it's grown beyond that, however, the core function of Google Search has moved from giving you the best answer to your query to a number of other things, most of them about making money for Google. 

This is obviously not a new observation. It's at the core of what EFF Special Advisor Cory Doctorow named "enshittification." But it's important to remember that whatever shiny new name or technology is wrapped around these tools, it's not about the wrapping, it's about the monetization. 

In the case of Google Search, the company has a history of rolling out new "features" that are less helpful to the searcher and more designed to keep you and your data within the Google ecosystem. One easy example of enshittification is putting sponsored links and ads at the top of search results, forcing you to scroll down past a bunch of not relevant links to get to your answers. Or, in some cases, accidentally clicking on sponsored links that might be designed to give you the opposite information of what you're looking for or for a competitor to the product you intended to buy.  

The other clumsy version of this is Google's self-preferencing, where Google's own services—say YouTube if you're looking for a video—are weighted so that they appear at the top of a search over a competitor's. Similar to this was Google's push for websites, particularly news ones, to be made available via what it called "Accelerated Mobile Pages" or AMP, which in theory stripped out features that might make loading a page on mobile too slow, but also handed over control of how webpages looked on mobile to Google and turned mobile links, often by default, into Google links.  

But the other way that Google has historically kept your—and your valuable eyeballs—on its website has been to just obviate the need to even click on a link and leave Google at all. The first version of this was what Google calls "knowledge panels." These are snippets of information shown on the results page of a search that purport to answer your question. Knowledge panels predate the AI push and haven't always been what you could call accurate.  

Knowledge panels are extremely similar to the AI summaries we now see at the top of Google Search results, except that instead of pulling quotes from specific linked sources, it's the AI doing the summarizing, though also sometimes with links. They are basically the same thing, mostly changed only in branding, because AI is now the cool kid on the block. The goal is essentially the same—it's less about providing you with the best answer to your query and more about making you think it's unnecessary to click a link and leave Google's ecosystem. And, more importantly, it keeps you on Google's pages longer to read the content. More time on the page is more time exposed to ads and sponsored links and more money for Google.  

The biggest irony here is that it didn’t even work. People choosing to use “AI mode”—and possibly made accustomed to getting information as text instead of links through the knowledge panels and the AI summaries at the top—has caused “lower monetization” via ads. Ads, remember, are Google’s main source of revenue. Like newspapers before them, Google is finding that counting on a monopoly on ad space maybe isn’t the most sound strategy in a shifting technological landscape. And to get out of the hole it has made for itself, it is lighting cash on fire to try to get back on top. Perhaps they should consider pivoting to video.  

Every time you see a feature like this, no matter what it is called or what "new" technology they claim fuels it, remember that it is Google's monetary incentives that drive the decisions and not necessarily the tech itself. And you can always choose to ignore it, scroll past, disable it, or even go to another service entirely.  

Before he passed away on July 11, Susumu Tonegawa had been a professor at MIT for more than 40 years. At a memorial service Oct. 16, colleagues, mentees and other friends spanning almost the whole arc of his illustrious MIT career gathered with members of his family to celebrate his life with recollections and stories that praised not only his science and achievements, but even more so his humanity.

The picture that 16 speakers collectively painted was one of a man who simultaneously demanded excellence and yet consistently demonstrated kindness and a joyous enthusiasm for science (and art and baseball). 

Although he was a 1987 Nobel laureate for his breakthrough immunology research and is renowned for his groundbreaking research on memory, the testimonials dwelled little on his awards. Instead, they focused on a much more personal and intimate degree of inspiration and impact. 

Scientist and mentor

Picower Professor Myriam Heiman, director of The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory that Tonegawa founded as MIT’s Center for Learning and Memory in 1994, had been a colleague of Tonegawa’s for 15 years. But she shared that his work in the fields of immunology and memory had been an inspiration to her long before that — ever since she was an undergraduate student at Princeton University. There, she studied his work to explain the diversity of antibodies during an immunology class at the same time she was reading a Proust novel dedicated to how memory and art can restore and make immutable what would otherwise be lost to time.

Professor Amy Keating, head of Tonegawa’s home department of Biology, hailed his passion for molecular biology as an inspiring example for students. She noted that he took big risks to learn the emerging subject in the 1960s by moving across the Pacific Ocean to enroll in graduate school in San Diego. And while he achieved historic results by applying molecular biology to both immunology and neuroscience, he only did so after persisting through worries that he and his fellow PhD students shared about the future of the field when they graduated in 1968.

Much like Tonegawa learned molecular biology from the ground up, former graduate student Arvind Govindarajan PhD '05, now at McKinsey & Co., joined Tonegawa’s lab in 1999 based on his curiosity about the brain, rather than based on having had any prior neuroscience training. He affirmed that Tonegawa encouraged his mentees to be ambitious and to dream big, even if they didn’t start out familiar with the subject matter. Govindarajan quoted Tonegawa as saying, “It is irrelevant what you know. It only relevant what you want to work on.” And similarly encouraged him to “have no fear, if the problem is interesting, go forth and do it, but when you publish, it has to be perfect.”

Another early mentee, Tom McHugh PhD '01 of the RIKEN Center for Brain Science in Japan, similarly described Susumu’s assertive encouragement, quoting Tonegawa as saying, “A journal doesn’t make your paper good, your paper makes the journal good.” But McHugh also noted that Tonegawa advised against ever resting on one’s laurels by often quoting the Japanese proverb: “after victory, tighten your helmet.”

Although Tonegawa pushed for excellence, even down to the details, 1980s mentee Juan Lafaille of New York University reminded the gathering, “he was, at least, as demanding of himself as he was of us.”

And Tomás Ryan, a postdoc in Tonegawa’s lab from 2010 to 2016, emphatically seconded the idea that Tonegawa’s advice was not only worth receiving, but also passing on. He shared a list of seven lessons that guide how he runs his own lab at Trinity College in Dublin, from where he flew in to join the ceremony.

“In Ireland we often say, you should never meet your heroes, you’ll only be disappointed,” Ryan said. “For me, the exception to this maxim was Susumu … I was incredibly fortunate to have Susumu as a mentor.”

Builder of communities

Many other speakers remembered Susumu as a community builder, not least because he founded the Picower Institute. 

MIT School of Science Dean Nergis Mavalvala praised Tonegawa for building a community of neuroscience at MIT that has had impact well beyond his pioneering work on how memories are stored, recalled, and associated with feelings and relationships. The Picower Institute today comprises 16 labs and about 400 people, and hundreds more have trained in its labs over the decades.

“It takes a vision bigger than your own science and your own lab to be part of founding something this influential, and I really admire him for that,” Mavalvala said. 

Matt Wilson, the first professor Tonegawa hired into the “Center for Learning and Memory,” recalled Tonegawa’s absolute confidence. Wilson for instance, didn’t bother renovating any lab space, because he believed (correctly, it turned out) that Tonegawa would deliver on the promise of an entirely new building (Building 46).

“The thing that really struck me was not just his infectious enthusiasm, but the absolute certainty that he had that this was going to be a success, that this was going to have impact,” Wilson said. “We built everything from scratch.”

Govindarajan recalled how Tonegawa involved himself deeply in the design of Building 46, working with architect Charles Correa to make sure every lab space would be the best it could be. And MIT Corporation member and longtime Tonegawa friend Barrie Zesiger fondly recalled a story about how when the building was new, Tonegawa stood with her at a huge window overlooking the train tracks that run directly underneath. They stayed perfectly still with their hands on the window as the train ran under, but after it passed he was elated that the vibrations were so minimal.

“It was like a child, the joy on his face,” she recalled. 

Biology Professor Chris Kaiser recalled how as an assistant professor he worked with Tonegawa when he was recruiting young faculty to the new learning and memory center, including Wilson, Troy Littleton, and Elly Nedivi.

Zesiger said, “He loved his learning and memory colleagues — loved them all, all of you.”

Honest, joyous, and kind

Picower Professor Li-Huei Tsai, among the later of Tonegawa’s Picower faculty recruits, said she frequently sought his advice during her 17 years as Picower Institute director. He was “unfailingly honest,” yet warm and supportive, she said. And he never lost his sense of wonder.

“I came to value that honesty enormously,” Tsai said. “It is only now beginning to sink in that I will no longer be able to turn to him for his sage advice.’’

Longtime and current lab member Michele Pignatelli also admired the childlike passion and wonder that Tsai and so many others recalled. He recounted how, when he first learned from Tonegawa’s wife Mayumi that Tonegawa had passed away, he initially felt heartbreak and anxiety, but that quickly transitioned to “an overwhelming sense of gratitude.” 

“Working with Susumu has been the greatest honor of my life,” Pignatelli said. “We will keep the flame burning.”

In his own personal tribute to Tonegawa, Peter Mombaerts PhD '92, a graduate student from Tonegawa’s immunology days who is now the director of Max Planck Research Unit for Neurogenetics in Frankfurt, was one of the few to dwell even for just a moment on Tonegawa’s Nobel Prize. But he did so only to make the point that Tonegawa did not suffer from “Nobelitis,” a loss of humility and perspective said to sometimes afflict those who’ve achieved their field’s highest honor.

In an especially poignant anecdote illustrating Tonegawa’s capacity for humility and kindness, current lab postdoc Quentin Ferry shared that he has a young daughter with a set of disabilities that often leave people unsure of how to interact with or understand her. She is often therefore left out. But at a lab cookout last summer, Ferry heard his daughter laughing. Tonegawa was playing with her joyfully.

“He didn’t see a condition to be nervous around, he saw a little girl who wanted to play,” Ferry said. “We will all remember Susumu’s brilliance. What I wish is that we also carry forward his kindness.”

Memorial fund

At the memorial, Picower Institute director Myriam Heiman announced that a generous donor has pledged $100,000 to launch the Susumu Tonegawa Memorial Fund, an endowed fund that will provide enduring support for curiosity-driven research at the Picower Institute. 

Additional gifts will help grow the fund and expand its long-term impact, ensuring that Tonegawa's spirit of scientific discovery continues to inspire future generations of researchers. To contribute, give online or email memorial-gifts-office@mit.edu.

MIT researchers will lead a four-year, up to $38 million project, funded by the U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), aimed at developing a noninvasive, wearable patch that continually monitors biomarkers of heart disease and sepsis.

The project is called PYTHIA, which stands for “predictive platform for physiological and therapeutic health intervention and adaptive management.”

According to the project plan, the patch, which will capture clinical-grade health information in real time, will be powered by heat from the patient’s body. It could provide essential information to help clinicians diagnose heart failure and sepsis early, before the diseases have caused irreversible damage. 

The researchers believe the minimally invasive device could also track the progress of a patient’s recovery after they are discharged from the hospital, and assist clinicians in developing more effective therapeutic approaches.

Catching common killers

Heart disease is the number one cause of death in the U.S., while sepsis kills at least 350,000 U.S. adults each year and is the leading cause of death in hospitals, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We targeted these diseases because they are very lethal, but we also see opportunities for detecting biomarkers related to heart disease and sepsis to offer a solution that could really help improve diagnosis and treatment,” says principal investigator Ahmad Bahai, a professor of the practice in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and a member of the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT.

Bahai will be joined on the project by MIT researchers Joel Voldman, the William R. Brody Professor of EECS; Tim Swager, the John D. MacArthur Professor of Chemistry; Hadley Sikes, the Willard Henry Dow Professor in Chemical Engineering; and Colin Stultz, the Nina T. and Robert H. Rubin Professor of EECS; with additional clinical and industry collaborators.

“We have created an ecosystem of R&D, with MIT at the center of it, to facilitate not only leading-edge research, but also a path toward translation into a device that can be used in the clinic,” Bahai says. “Our goal with this project is to impact the future of personalized health care.”

PYTHIA grew out of the MIT Program for Health Sciences and Semiconductors (HS+S), which Bahai co-founded when he joined MIT three years ago. The program focuses on leveraging advances in semiconductor technology and nanotechnology to invent new, transformative approaches to diagnostics, therapeutics, and drug discovery.

Inspired by his previous successful work on continuous glucose monitors, Bahai conducts research on a wide range of technologies including electrochemical devices, optics, magnetics, and ultrasonics in his “Waves, Bites, and Molecules” lab. His group’s goal is to offer clinical-grade wearable devices that track biomarkers continuously to enable real-time intervention techniques.

The glucose monitor research inspired Bahai and his colleagues to consider other biomarkers they could monitor in real-time using semiconductor technology, which led to the launch of PYTHIA.

The chip-based, wearable patch will monitor heart failure and sepsis biomarkers in interstitial fluid, which is the fluid under the skin. The biomarkers, molecules in blood plasma that are related to the onset of these diseases, are hard to detect because they exist in very low concentrations.

To measure the biomarkers in detail, the system will execute a chemical reaction that binds certain chemicals with the biomarker molecules in the interstitial fluid, making them easier to identify. The advanced microelectronics in the patch will conduct measurements, capturing biomarker data with enough sensitivity for clinical applications. 

Since the device will conduct measurements continuously, amassing a huge amount of data, PYTHIA will incorporate on-chip AI models to translate raw data into useful information for clinicians.

“This is kind of like having the patient give a blood test every 15 minutes or so, but it happens automatically. That is the power of this technology,” Bahai says.

From here, the team will start developing and testing electronic components for the tiny, low-power chip. Then they plan to advance the wearable device through pre-clinical and clinical trials, to the point that it can be commercially scaled and manufactured, Bahai says.

“This project has real potential to improve health care because, in addition to leveraging MIT’s leading-edge science and technology, we are also teaming up with clinical and industrial collaborators with direct experience of the practical constraints, the regulatory environment, and the clinical need,” he says. “The impact of this research could be huge.”

PYTHIA is funded through the ARPA-H Delphi Program led by Program Manager Leonard Tender. Delphi research teams apply a microelectronics design strategy to biosensing in an effort to develop devices that can safely, securely, and continuously monitor the body’s internal health signals. 

The project described here is supported by ARPA-H under agreement number AY2AX000243. The content of this announcement does not necessarily represent the official views of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health.

The MIT Combat Robotics Club (CRC) uses the tagline “build, battle, destroy, repeat,” which is a pretty spot-on description for a club that embraces learning opportunities through destruction. 

“We make fighting robots,” explains Ryan Duarte, the 2025-26 CRC captain and current captain of a sub team for CRC’s ARES robot. “We try and make something indestructible to kill someone else's creation [that] they've tried to make indestructible … and they're trying to kill ours. In other competitions, the winner is who scores more points. You can tell at the end of a match by looking at [the robots] who the winner is.” 

The club, which was founded in 2001 and is housed in the MIT Edgerton Center, was rebooted in 2023 with new members and designs. CRC sub teams compete in the National Havoc Robot League (NHRL) Professional Robot Fighting League. Competitions are hosted approximately every two months, including “house battles” on campus for the MIT community and local teams. Fans of the hit show “BattleBots” might remember some of CRC’s past robots, including Uppercut, SawBlaze, the Dentist, and Overhaul.

ARES, named for the Greek god of war, competes in the 30-pound weight class (other NHRL categories include the 3lb and 12lb weight classes). The robot combines a “Beater Bar,” or vertical spinner, with a compact, dual redundant poly-v belt brushless weapon power system on a high-performance brushless four-wheel drive with lightweight aluminum, titanium, and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene chassis. 

Abi Dixon, 2026-27 CRC captain, says the fighting machine was created from “from steel, titanium, aluminum, and passion.” The robot was a top seed going into last winter’s 2025 NHRL World Championships, but failed to emerge victorious. “Our two losses with ARES were against two opponents which shared a similar weapon type which our underdeveloped armor couldn't withstand,” says Duarte. The team saw the losses as an opportunity to make improvements. 

 “A unique thing about our outlook for these competitions is that no matter how poorly a match goes on our end, afterwards the dominant emotion is still pride,” says Dixon. 

“Being in this community and on this team has changed me,” she says, because “how can you put so much energy, so much love, so much blood, sweat, and tears into a machine and then be totally OK with putting it inside the cage and it exploding, and then literally picking up your pride off the floor, smushing it all back together, and getting back in there? You grow an understanding of finding the wins, even when things look like a complete loss.”

ARES, captained by Duarte, along with fellow Department of Mechanical Engineering (MechE) undergraduates Henry Dang, Kendall Binkley, and Liam Gault, has been undergoing improvements. The team took second place at an April competition and third in October. CRC is simultaneously upgrading ARES and another robot, KRATOS, while continuing progress toward a next generation of robots. 

At MIT, the CRC is open to everyone regardless of year, major, or prior experience. It is entirely student-run, self-taught, and highly collaborative. Participants engineer tough, reliable, performant systems and have an opportunity to learn a variety of skills, from computer-aided design and finite element analysis to CNC machining and welding. 

“Before MIT, I never had the opportunity to independently say, ‘I'm going to make this,’ and complete everything in the engineering process from start to finish. CRC embodies that vision, and solidified my desire to become an engineer,” says Eleni Morales, CRC team member, 2025-26 co-manufacturing chair, and undergraduate in MechE.

CRC welcomed 54 new members this fall semester. As an onboarding exercise, the new members are building 1-pound, or “ant weight,” combat robots in teams of three students. 

“We remain committed to making the team accessible for students with all levels of technical experience (including none!) through a structured onboarding process that prioritizes each and every member feeling as though they have technical ownership over a part of their sub team’s robot,” says Dixon.

The team will host their third annual MIT Combat Robotics House Battle on Nov. 14 at the new Met Warehouse. 

Global development and prosperity have become increasingly dependent on minerals and metals. This growing dependence has drawn attention to the mining industry and underscored national economic and security vulnerabilities across supply chains. As demand for these materials rises, the challenge for expanding capacity will be to develop scalable pathways to produce, use, and steward them. 

In this interview, Professor Elsa Olivetti, co-director of the MIT Minerals Stewardship Consortium, discusses how collaboration can strengthen mineral and metal supply chains and focus research on practical impact.

Q. In its first decades, MIT had a Department of Mining and Metallurgy. In recent years, we’ve seen increasing interest in mining and minerals at MIT. What explains this resurgence?

A: Six of MIT’s first 14 graduates in 1868 earned degrees in geology and mining. In 1889, one of those graduates, Robert Hallowell Richards, was the MIT professor who explicitly linked metallurgy to mining engineering within Course III [Materials Science and Engineering]. MIT shaped its curriculum to meet the nation’s increasing need for advanced materials for railroads, industrial machinery, and electrification.

It feels very similar to our time. We’ve all heard about the growing demand for minerals to support the energy transition, defense applications, data centers, and global economic development. That includes tiny amounts of gallium for defense radar systems and vast quantities of steel, aluminum, and copper for the grid. But each element and supply chain has its own “personality.” For example, gallium is a by-product of the process to make aluminum, so increasing its supply requires coordination beyond mining.

Mining and mineral processing are environmentally intensive — and becoming more so. It's harder to obtain newly mined minerals, even from places where mining already occurs. Ore bodies are deeper, lower-grade, and more often located in socially and environmentally sensitive regions. Mine projects face shifting water availability, extreme climate events, the concerns of nearby communities, fluctuating mining costs, and advancing digital technologies that change how ore is monitored, extracted, and processed over a mine’s life.

And that explains why we are seeing a renewed focus on mining and minerals at MIT. To meet this moment and serve the nation, not only do we need advances in science and engineering for extraction, but also innovations in the markets and governance to incentivize developers and communities to engage continuously and transparently. Our campus is compelled by mining’s broad, systems-level impact on people, the complex science, and the entrepreneurial opportunity. 

Q. President [Sally] Kornbluth has called curiosity-driven science our “intellectual rocket fuel.” What does fundamental research contribute to solving the challenges of mining and critical minerals? 

A: What’s exciting to me is that these challenges call for fundamental research across MIT. 

As an example, rare-earth elements have very similar chemical properties, making them difficult to separate from each other for the different end use applications we depend on. Researchers are exploring engineered microbes that can bind one metal selectively and withstand harsh conditions. This work draws on basic advances in producing engineered proteins and computational models that predict how metals bind. Other teams are investigating electrochemical approaches to extraction, studying how ions behave in ore minerals including oxides and sulfides to improve separation.

We also need contributions from different disciplines. Researchers in earth, atmospheric, and planetary sciences are partnering with colleagues in aeronautics and astronautics to advance remote sensing of changes in land use. Experts in automation and control are developing ways to keep sensitive separation processes within narrow temperature ranges, while mechanical engineers study fluid dynamics relevant to deep-sea mining. Some minerals are essential but traded in small volumes, raising distinct economic questions. Urban planners examine how community knowledge can inform more equitable and resilient decisions.

And we have to move ideas from the lab to the field. MIT’s Office of the Vice President for Energy and Climate, the MIT Energy Initiative, and other programs are seeding early-stage work. Some projects have attracted follow-on support, including the U.S. Department of Energy’s Genesis Mission, to advance technologies toward pilot testing. MIT startups Lithios and RockZero are pursuing lithium extraction from brines and hard rock, respectively. SiTration, Nth Cycle, and Found Industries are pioneering metal recovery from mining and industrial waste. These examples show how basic discoveries can lead to technologies and policy impact — and how challenges in the field can prompt new research questions.

Q. We see regular calls from the government and others to re-shore the production and refinement of critical minerals and rare-earth elements. What is the role MIT can play, and where do you see opportunities for collaboration?

A: Building domestic and allied capacity is more than just opening mines. Extraction, separation, refining, and manufacturing are technically demanding, and the economics are challenging. Trade restrictions can disrupt supply at any point along the supply chain. A domestic magnet industry, for example, needs reliable access to separated rare earth oxides. Otherwise, we replace a dependence on imported magnets with a dependence on imported materials. There must be capability across the entire supply chain to establish resilience, and it needs to be done responsibly and with a robust workforce. This will take collaboration across industry, government, and research institutions.

MIT can play a strong role as a convener, particularly among industry partners. 

In September 2025, we launched the MIT Minerals Stewardship Consortium (MSC) with three inaugural members — BHP, Vale, and Rio Tinto — which MIT Sloan Professor Chris Knittel and I lead. All of this came together when staff from MIT’s Industrial Liaison Program came to me and said, "We've been having conversations with companies, and they're describing similar needs. Is there an opportunity to have them work together with MIT?" The MSC is a platform to gather stakeholders from across the supply chain with specific aims, such as identifying barriers to technology adoption, to curate research questions and collaborative next steps.

The consortium brings together faculty expertise in operations, urban planning, aerospace engineering, materials science, and economics. Through the MSC and other campus efforts, MIT connects industry, government, startups, and researchers to identify shared priorities and move research toward practical impact.

The U.S. administration and other governments are mobilizing capital, driving regulation, and building international and corporate alliances to strengthen critical mineral supply chains. Through the MSC and engagement across campus, MIT can bring together stakeholders to identify priorities, coordinate efforts, and ensure we help build competitive, resilient supply chains.