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.

For years, EFF has pushed technology companies to make real human rights commitments—and to live up to them. In response to growing evidence that Palantir’s tools help power abusive immigration enforcement by ICE, we sent the company a detailed letter asking how the promises in its own human rights framework extends to that work.

This post explains what we asked, how Palantir responded, and why we believe those responses fall short. EFF is not alone in raising alarms about Palantir; immigrants' rights groups, human rights organizations, journalists, and former employees have raised similar concerns based on reports of the company's role in abusive immigration enforcement. We focus here on Palantir’s own human rights promises.

At the outset, we appreciate that Palantir was willing to engage respectfully, and we recognize that confidentiality and security obligations can limit what it can say. Nonetheless, measured against Palantir's own human rights commitments, its decision to keep powering ICE with tools used in dragnet raids and discriminatory detentions is indefensible. A good-faith application of those commitments should lead Palantir to end its contract with ICE, and refuse new, or end current, contracts with any other agency whose work predictably violates those commitments.

Palantir’s Public Promises

Palantir has long said it performs comprehensive human rights analysis on its work. It has also worked with ICE for years, apparently in a more limited capacity than today. It has publicly embraced the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Additionally, in its response to EFF, Palantir says its legal responsibilities are only “the floor” for broader risk assessments.

That was the point of our letter. We asked what human rights due diligence Palantir conducted when it first contracted with ICE and DHS; whether it performed the “proactive risk scoping” it advertises, how it reviews work over time, what it has done in response to reports of misuse, and whether it has used “every means at [its] disposal”—including contract provisions, third‑party oversight, and termination—to prevent or mitigate harms.

For the most part, Palantir did not answer our accountability questions. It did correct one point: Palantir says it does not currently work with CBP, and available evidence supports that, though it also made clear it could work with CBP in the future.

Palantir also raised a red herring it often deploys in response to criticism. It denied building a 'mega' or 'master' database for ICE and denied creating a database of protesters, which some ICE agents have claimed to have been built. We call it a red herring because those denials sidestep the central issues: what capabilities Palantir's tools actually provide to ICE.

To be clear, EFF has never claimed that Palantir is building a single centralized database. Our concern is grounded in how Palantir’s tools allow ICE to query and analyze data from multiple databases through a unified interface—which from an agent’s perspective can be a distinction without a difference.

In the sections that follow, we compare Palantir’s account of its work for ICE with evidence about how its tools seem to be used, and explain why legality, internal process, and sustained “engagement with the institutions whose vital tasks exist in tension with certain human rights” are no substitute for real human rights due diligence—because respect for human rights must be measured by outcomes, not just process.

Palantir’s ICE Work Undermines Its Own Standards

Palantir says ICE uses its ELITE tool for “prioritized enforcement”: to surface likely addresses of specific people, such as individuals with final orders of removal or high‑severity criminal charges. But according to sworn testimony in Oregon, ICE agents use ELITE to determine where to conduct deportation sweeps, and the system “pulled from all kinds of sources” to identify locations for raids aimed at mass detentions, including information from the Department of Health and Human Services such as Medicaid data. A leaked ELITE user guide for 'Special Operations' also instructs operators to disable filters to "display all targets within a Special Operations dataset." Those details directly conflict with Palantir’s narrow description of ELITE’s role.

Additionally, Palantir's response leans on legal authority and the Privacy Act. But it does not identify any specific lawful basis for using Medicaid data in this way or explain how its software enables that access. Even if a legal theory exists, turning sensitive medical information into fuel for dragnet sweeps is hard to reconcile with its commitments to privacy, equity, and the rights of impacted communities. Its own human rights framework requires grappling with foreseeable harms its products may enable, not just invoking possible legal authorization.   

Reporting shows that many people detained by ICE had no criminal record, much less a serious one, and in many cases no final order of removal. An overwhelming percentage of those detained were, or appeared to be, from Central and South America, and nearly one in five ICE arrests were street arrests of a Latine person with neither a criminal history nor a removal order.

These facts raise obvious questions about discriminatory impact, racial profiling, and whether Palantir's tools are facilitating detention practices far broader than the company claims. Palantir's response does not meaningfully engage those questions, despite the company's commitments to non-discrimination and due process.

EFF’s letter asked Palantir to explain how it is honoring its commitments to civil liberties in light of reports linking Palantir-owned systems to facial recognition and other tools used to identify and target people engaged in observing and recording law enforcement, including in connection with the deaths of Renée Good and Alex Pretti. The letter also cites an incident in which an officer scanned protesters’ and observers’ faces and threatened to add their biometrics to a “nice little database.” Palantir’s response denies involvement in any such database.

A narrow denial about a single database does not answer the broader question: if ICE, its customer, claims it has this capability, what has Palantir done to ensure its tools are not used to chill protected speech, retaliate against observers, or facilitate targeting of people engaged in First Amendment‑protected activity? For a company that claims to value democracy and civil liberties, this is not a marginal issue; it goes to the heart of its human rights commitments.

Legality, Process, and Engagement with ICE Are Not Human Rights Standards

As mentioned above, Palantir leans heavily on legal compliance. It says government data sharing is “subject to, and governed by, data sharing agreements and government oversight” and that any sharing it facilitates is done according to “legal and technical requirements, including those of the Privacy Act of 1974.” It describes its role in ELITE as “data integration,” enabling ICE “to incorporate data sources to which it has access,” including data shared under inter‑agency agreements.

EFF is very familiar with the Privacy Act—we are suing the Office of Personnel Management over it currently. But Palantir’s response does not clarify how ICE legally has access to this information, how Palantir ensures that it follows those legal processes, or how Palantir’s software may have enabled access in the first place. More critically, that is still a legal answer to a human rights question, and legal compliance alone is insufficient as a human rights standard.

Human rights due diligence requires assessing foreseeable harms, responding to credible evidence of abuse, and changing course when the facts demand it—something Palantir, on paper, recognizes. That’s why it stresses that its legal responsibilities are only “the floor for [its] broader risk assessments,” pointing to the way it built toward GDPR‑style data protection principles and incorporated international humanitarian law principles before those requirements were formalized. If those commitments mean anything, Palantir has to explain how specific practices—like enabling ICE to use Medicaid data in dragnet raids—square with that broader standard.

Palantir also leans heavily on process. It points to a “layered approach” to risk, frameworks that purportedly examine multiple dimensions of privacy and equity, and “indelible” audit logs that track how its tools are used. Audit logs are not sufficient for protecting human rights. There is a long history of authoritarian regimes keeping extensive logs of their human rights abuses. Those structures can be useful for protecting human rights, but only if they are used to detect harm, trigger reassessment, and lead to changes in design, access, support, or contract enforcement when credible reports of abuse emerge.

That is why we pressed Palantir to spell out clearly what reports of misuse Palantir has received, what changes it made, and on what timeline. Again, instead of offering specific examples, Palantir points back to its internal framework and its willingness to “move towards the hardest problems” as evidence of effective efforts. But human rights are an outcome, not just a process.

Human rights due diligence is not a one-time approval at contract signing; under the UN Guiding Principles, it is supposed to be continuous, with new facts triggering reassessment. Complaints, media reports, leaks, litigation, and sworn testimony are exactly the kinds of events that should prompt review. If Palantir has an account for that work— how often it reviews ICE contracts, who conducts the reviews, what triggers them, and how findings reach the Board— it had every opportunity to describe it. Instead, it offered a generic assurance that it remains committed to human rights without engaging in the specifics. Confidentiality may sometimes limit disclosure, but it is no substitute for accountability.

What Needs to Happen Next 

Palantir wants credit for “mov[ing] towards the hardest problems” and engaging with institutions whose missions it says are “in tension with certain human rights” while having a human rights framework. But when the record includes violent raids, dragnet detentions, use of sensitive medical data, discriminatory targeting, retaliation against observers, and deaths tied to immigration enforcement operations, pointing to a values page is not enough; it has to reckon with the results.

Voluntary corporate human rights policies often function as weak accountability mechanisms: companies can tout principles, publish policies, and answer criticism with polished statements while changing very little on the ground. Palantir’s response fits that pattern all too well. EFF will continue to challenge its role in abusive immigration enforcement and demanding more accountability for technology vendors whose tools enable human rights violations. We are also happy to continue a dialogue with Palantir to that end. For now, this much is clear: Palantir needs to reconsider its contract with ICE and with all agencies whose work predictably violate human rights.

Section 230 helps make it possible for online communities to host user speech: from restaurant reviews, to fan fiction, to collaborative encyclopedias. But recent debates about the law often overlook how it works in practice. To mark its 30th anniversary, EFF is interviewing leaders of online platforms about how they handle complaints, moderate content, and protect their users’ ability to speak and share information. 

Reddit is one of the largest user-generated content platforms on the internet, built around thousands of independent communities known as subreddits. Some subreddits cover everyday interests, while others host discussions about specialized or controversial topics. These communities are created and moderated by volunteers, and the site’s decentralized model means that Reddit hosts a vast range of user speech without relying on centralized editorial control. 

Ben Lee is Chief Legal Officer at Reddit, where he oversees the company’s legal strategy and policy work on issues including content moderation and intermediary liability. Before joining Reddit, Lee held senior legal roles at other tech companies including Plaid, Twitter, and Google. At Reddit, he has been closely involved in litigation and policy debates surrounding Section 230, including cases addressing the legal risks faced by platforms and their users and moderators. He was interviewed by Joe Mullin, a policy analyst on EFF's Activism Team.

Joe Mullin: When we talk about user rights and Section 230, what rights are most at stake on a platform like Reddit? 

Ben Lee: Reddit, we often say, is the most human place on the internet. What’s often missing from the debate is that section 230 protects people—not platforms. 

It protects millions of everyday humans and volunteer moderators who participate in online communities. Without it, people could face lawsuits for voting down a post, enforcing community rules, or moderating a discussion. These are foundational activities on Reddit, and frankly, the whole internet.

If you had to describe section 230 to a regular Reddit user without naming the law, what would you say it does for them?

Section 230 protects your ability to participate in community moderation.

Even if all you are doing is up-voting or down-voting content, that’s participation. On Reddit, everyone is a content moderator, through voting. Up-voting determines the visibility of content. 

We believe, strongly, this is one of the only models to allow Reddit to scale. You make the community part of the moderation process. They’re invested in the community, making it better. 

How would user speech be affected if Section 230 were eliminated or weakened? 

We would undermine community self governance—the notion that humans can do content moderation, and take that responsibility for themselves. Whether you’re a small blog or big forum. I like to think of Reddit as composed of this federation of communities that range from the tiny to the humongous. That’s what the internet is! 

The legal risk would discourage people from moderating, or even speaking at all. The kind of speech we’re trying to protect is often critical of powerful people or entities. If a moderation decision leads to litigation from those powerful entities, that’s an expensive proposition to fight. 

Reddit relies on user-run communities and volunteer moderators. Can you walk me through how content moderation and legal complaints actually work in practice, and where section 230 comes into that? 

We have a tiered structure, like our federal system. Each community is like a state: it has its own rules, and enforces them. The vast majority of content moderation decisions are made by the communities, not by Reddit itself. 

Reddit is built on self-governing communities that are moderated by volunteers, supported by automated tools. Section 230 gives Reddit the freedom to experiment, and lets users shape healthy, interest-based spaces.

Section 230 is fundamental to protecting the moderators from a frivolous lawsuit. A screenwriting community might want to protect their community from scammy competitions—and then they get sued by that competition. 

Or a community wants to keep their conversation civil. And, for example, may not allow Star Trek characters to be called “soy boys,” and they enforce that. Then a person sues. 

I wish these were hypotheticals. But they were actual lawsuits. And we have them, routinely. 

What are policymakers missing about Section 230? 

The [moderation] decisions being criticized in court, are decisions to try to make the internet safer. In none of the cases that I mentioned is there a moderator saying, “I want to increase harmful content!” These are good-faith decisions about what makes the internet better. 

Section 230 is, at its core, protecting the ability for people to make those choices for their own communities. 

There's a price to be paid for not having a Section 230. And it will be paid by internet users—not the biggest platforms.

Some see 230 as a way to punish Big Tech. But removing it doesn't punish Big Tech—it makes them more powerful. It's startups, community driven platforms, and individual moderators who rely on Section 230 to compete and innovate. Weakening Section 230 will harm the open internet, and reduce the choice, diversity, and resilience of the internet. 

The big guys, they have armies of lawyers. They have the budget to withstand a flood of lawsuits. Weakening Section 230 just entrenches them. 

In Reddit’s amicus brief in the Gonzalez v. Google Supreme Court case, you point out that without Section 230, many moderation decisions wouldn’t be protected. The brief states: “A plaintiff might claim emotional distress from a truthful but hurtful post that gained prominence when a moderator highlighted it as a trending topic. Or, a plaintiff might claim interference with economic relations arising from an honest but very critical two-star restaurant review.” 

When you have situations where moderators get threats or litigation, what can you do? 

We have had cases where our own moderators got sued, along with us. In the “soy boy” case, we worked to help find pro bono counsel for the moderators. 

Someone posted “Wesley Crusher is a soy boy,” and it got removed. I'm enough of a Star Trek fan that I understand both the reference, and why the moderator decided—“hey, it's gone. I don't want this here.”

This would not violate our Reddit rules. But the community took it down under its own rules about being civil. It was just not a kind-hearted action, and the community had a right to decide. 

But the moderator got sued. We got sued, actually, because the poster disagreed with that moderation choice. Section 230 is what allowed us to win that case. 

These are just average people, implicated only because they moderated their own community. They are trying to do the right thing by their community. 

In cases where litigation happens, when does Section 230 come into play? 

Section 230 is usually one of the first things that's talked about in the case. It’s usually the most effective way of saying: if you believe someone who defamed you—please go to the person who has defamed you. If you’re looking to the moderator, or to Reddit itself, this is not a great way of getting the justice that you seek. 

Is there a different workflow internationally? 

There’s a very different workflow. We had a prominent case in France where a company was trying to sue moderators, and of course, we didn't have section 230 to protect them. So we had to do all sorts of other things to protect them. It got much more complicated. 

The breadth of content that's considered illegal in certain jurisdictions can be somewhat breathtaking. 

Our goal is always to preserve as much freedom of expression as possible for our community. In the U.S., we look at it through the lens of the First Amendment, and other aspects. Outside the U.S., we rely more on the lens of international human rights. 

How would you characterize legal demands around user content, the ones you see most often? 

They tend to be: somebody said something mean about me—take this down. Or someone says: you didn’t allow me to say something mean about someone or some entity. It completely runs the spectrum. 

One law that has already passed that weakens Section 230 is SESTA/FOSTA. From Reddit’s perspective, what changed after that? 

There's some communities we had to shut down, in particular, support communities. There was a cost. Every time Section 230 is narrowed, there’s a cost—some types of speech and communities have a harder time staying online. 

The cost may not seem high to some people, because those communities are not for them. But if they visited them, they’d see that these are actual people, interacting in a positive way. If it wasn’t positive, we have rules for that—but that’s a different question. 

The New York Times has a long article where the author lays out an impressive array of circumstantial evidence that the inventor of Bitcoin is the cypherpunk Adam Back.

I don’t know. The article is convincing, but it’s written to be convincing.

I can’t remember if I ever met Adam. I was a member of the Cypherpunks mailing list for a while, but I was never really an active participant. I spent more time on the Usenet newsgroup sci.crypt. I knew a bunch of the Cypherpunks, though, from various conferences around the world at the time. I really have no opinion about who Satoshi Nakamoto really is...

Conservative justices focused on industry costs when blocking the Clean Power Plan, the first climate rule proposed for the power sector.

The court sided with the oil industry in a lawsuit over damage to Louisiana’s eroding coastline.

Countries are navigating between the desire to speed up their green transition and worries over Beijing’s clean-tech dominance.

House Science Chair Brian Babin says he has questions about the report committee's "composition, objectivity, and funding."

A new IEA report shows how the clean energy transition has accelerated, despite U.S. policies aimed at slowing renewable energy growth.

The Trump administration will pull its emergency levers to head off a major water and power crisis.

The Defense Department is still engaged on one front of the climate fight: steeling its bases against the effects of a warming atmosphere, such as higher seas, fiercer storms and deadlier fires.

Both banks cited the geopolitical and energy security context.

The Nuclear Regulation Authority said nuclear power plants and related facilities in the region were all intact and no abnormalities were detected.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 20 April 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02636-7

Publisher Correction: Neglecting land–atmosphere feedbacks overestimates climate-driven increases in evapotranspiration

Chances are, you’ve already used a satellite today. Satellites make it possible for us to stream our favorite shows, call and text a friend, check weather and navigation apps, and make an online purchase. Satellites also monitor the Earth’s climate, the extent of agricultural crops, wildlife habitats, and impacts from natural disasters.

As we’ve found more uses for them, satellites have exploded in number. Today, there are more than 10,000 satellites operating in low-Earth orbit. Another 5,000 decommissioned satellites drift through this region, along with over 100 million pieces of debris comprising everything from spent rocket stages to flecks of spacecraft paint.

For MIT’s Richard Linares, the rapid ballooning of satellites raises pressing questions: How can we safely manage traffic and growing congestion in space? And at what point will we reach orbital capacity, where adding more satellites is not sustainable, and may in fact compromise spacecraft and the services that we rely on?

“It is a judgement that society has to make, of what value do we derive from launching more satellites,” says Linares, who recently received tenure as an associate professor in MIT’s Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AeroAstro). “One of the things we try to do is approach these questions of traffic management and orbital capacity as engineering problems.”

Linares leads the MIT Astrodynamics, Space Robotics, and Controls Lab (ARCLab), a research group that applies astrodynamics (the motion and trajectory of orbiting objects) to help track and manage the millions of objects in orbit around the Earth. The group also develops tools to predict how space traffic and debris will change as operators launch large satellite “mega-constellations” into space.

He is also exploring the effects of space weather on satellites, as well as how climate change on Earth may limit the number of satellites that can safely orbit in space. And, anticipating that satellites will have to be smarter and faster to navigate a more cluttered environment, Linares is looking into artificial intelligence to help satellites autonomously learn and reason to adapt to changing conditions and fix issues onboard.

“Our research is pretty diverse,” Linares says. “But overall, we want to enable all these economic opportunities that satellites give us. And we are figuring out engineering solutions to make that possible.”

Grounding practical problems

Linares was born and raised in Yonkers, New York. His parents both worked as school bus drivers to support their children, Linares being the youngest of six. He was an active kid and loved sports, playing football throughout high school.

“Sports was a way to stay focused and organized, and to develop a work ethic,” Linares says. “It taught me to work hard.”

When applying for colleges, rather than aim for Division I schools like some of his teammates, Linares looked for programs that were strong in science, specifically in aerospace. Growing up, he was fascinated with Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” docuseries. And being close to Manhattan, he took regular trips to the Hayden Planetarium to take in the center’s immersive projections of space and the technologies used to explore it.

“My interest in science came from the universe and trying to understand our place within it,” Linares recalls.

Choosing to stay close to home, he applied to in-state schools with strong aeronautical engineering departments, and happily landed at the State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo), where he would ultimately earn his bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees, all in aerospace engineering.

As an undergraduate, Linares took on a research project in astrodynamics, looking to solve the problem of how to determine the relative orientation of satellites flying in formation.

“Formation flying was a big topic in the early 2000s,” Linares says. “I liked the flavor of the math involved, which allowed me to go a layer deeper toward a solution.”

He worked out the math to show that when three satellites fly together, they essentially form a triangle, the angles of which can be calculated to determine where each satellite is in relation to the other two at any moment in time. His work introduced a new controls approach to enable satellites to fly safely together. The research had direct applications for the U.S. Air Force, which helped to sponsor the work.

As he expanded the research into a master’s thesis, Linares also took opportunities to work directly with the Air Force on issues of satellite tracking and orientation. He served two internships with the U.S. Air Force Research Lab, one at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the other in Maui, Hawaii.

“Being able to collaborate with the Air Force back then kind of grounded the research in practical problems,” Linares says.

For his PhD, he turned to another practical problem of “uncorrelated tracks.” At the time, the Air Force operated a network of telescopes to observe more than 20,000 objects in space, which they were working to label and record in a catalog to help them track the objects over time. But while detecting objects was relatively straightforward, the challenge came in correlating a detected object with what was already in the catalog. In other words, is what they were seeing something they had already seen?

Linares developed image analysis techniques to identify key characteristics of objects such as their shape and orientation, which helped the Air Force “fingerprint” satellites and pieces of space debris, and track their activity — and potential for collisions — over time.

After completing his PhD, Linares worked as a postdoc at Los Alamos National Laboratory and the U.S. Naval Observatory. During that time he expanded his aerospace work to other areas including space weather, using satellite measurements to model how Earth’s ionosphere — the upper layer of the atmosphere that is ionized by the sun’s radiation — affects satellite drag.

He then accepted a position as assistant professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis. For the next three years, he continued his research in modeling space weather, tracking space objects and coordinating satellites to fly in swarms.

Making space

In 2018, Linares made the move to MIT.

“I had a lot of respect for the people and for the history of the work that was done here,” says Linares, who was especially inspired by the legendary Charles Stark “Doc” Draper, who developed the first inertial guidance systems in the 1940s that would enable the self-navigation of airplanes, submarines, satellites, and spacecraft for decades to come. “This was essentially my field, and I knew MIT was the best place to continue my career.”

As a junior faculty member in AeroAstro, Linares spent his first years focused on an emerging challenge: space sustainability. Around that time, the first satellite constellations were launching into low-Earth orbit with SpaceX’s Starlink, which aimed to provide global internet coverage via a huge network of several thousand coordinating satellites. The launching of so many satellites, into orbits that already held other active and nonactive satellites, along with millions of pieces of space debris, raised questions about how to safely manage the satellite traffic and how much traffic an orbit can sustain.

“At what level do we reach a tipping point, where we have too many satellites in certain orbital regimes?” Linares says. “It was kind of a known problem at the time, but there weren’t many solutions.”

Linares’ group applied an understanding of astrodynamics, and the physics of how objects move in space, to figure out the best way to pack satellites in orbital “shells,” or lanes that would most likely prevent collisions. They also developed a state-of-the-art model of orbital traffic, that was able to simulate the trajectories of more than 10 million individual objects in space. Previous models were much more limited in the number of objects they could accurately simulate. Linares’ open-source model, called the MIT Orbital Capacity Assessment Tool, or MOCAT, could account for the millions of pieces of space debris, in addition to the many intact satellites in orbit.

The tools that his group has developed are used today by satellite operators to plan and predict safe spacecraft trajectories. His team is continuing to work on problems of space traffic management and orbital capacity. They are also branching out into space robotics. The team is testing ways to teleoperate a humanoid robot, which could potentially help to build future infrastructure and carry out long-duration tasks in space.

Linares is also exploring artificial intelligence, including ways that a satellite can autonomously “learn” from its experience and safely adapt to uncertain environments.

“Imagine if each satellite had a virtual Doc Draper onboard that could do the de-bugging that we did from the ground during the Apollo missions,” Linares says. “That way, satellites would become instantaneously more robust. And it’s not taking the human out of the equation. It’s allowing the human to be amplified. I think that’s within reach.”

Pretty fantastic video from Japan of a giant squid eating another squid.

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

Blog moderation policy.

In a dramatic middle-of-the-night stand off, a bipartisan set of lawmakers pushing for true reform and privacy protections for Americans bought us some more time to fight! They are holding out for, at a minimum, the requirement of an actual probable cause warrant for FBI access to information collected under the mass spying program known as 702.

A reauthorization with virtually no changes was defeated because a core group of lawmakers held strong; they know that people are hungry for real reform that protects the privacy of our communications. We now have a 10-day extension to continue to push Congress to pass a real reform bill. 

The Lawmakers rallied late Thursday night to reject a proposed amendment that made gestures at privacy protections, but it would not have improved on the status quo and would have reauthorized Section 702 for five more years to boot. 

Take action

TELL congress: 702 Needs Reform

Section 702 is rife with problems, loopholes, and compliance issues that need fixing. The National Security Agency collects full conversations being conducted by and with targets overseas – including by and with Americans in the U.S. –  and stores them in massive databases. The NSA then allows other agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to access untold amounts of that information. In turn, the FBI takes a “finders keepers” approach to this data: they reason that since it's already collected under one law, it’s OK for them to see it. 

Under current practice, the FBI can query and even read the U.S. side of that communication without a warrant. What’s more, victims of this surveillance  won’t even know and have very few ways of finding out that their communications have been surveilled. EFF and other civil liberties advocates have been trying for years to know when data collected through Section 702 is used as evidence against them.  

Reforming Section 702 is even more urgent because of revelations hinted at by Senator Ron Wyden’s public statements concerning a “secret interpretation” of the law that enables surveillance of Americans, and a public  “Dear Colleague” letter he sent to fellow Senators about FBI abuse of Section 702. 

That’s right—the way the government conducts mass surveillance is so secret and unaccountable even the way they interpret the law is classified. 

 “In many cases these will be law-abiding Americans having perfectly legitimate, often sensitive, conversations,” Wyden wrote. “These Americans could include journalists, foreign aid workers, people with family members overseas - even women trying to get abortion medication from an overseas provider. Congress has an obligation to protect our country from foreign threats and protect the rights of these and other Americans.” 

We have 10 days to make it clear to Congress: 702 needs real reforms. Not a blanket  reauthorization. Not lip service to change. Real reform.

Take action

TELL congress: 702 Needs Reform

MIT Professor Michael T. Laub as well as 21 MIT alumni have been elected as fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

The 2025 class of AAAS Fellows includes 449 scientists, engineers, and innovators, spanning all 24 of AAAS disciplinary sections, who are recognized for their scientific achievements.

Laub, the Salvador E. Luria Professor in the MIT Department of Biology and an HHMI Investigator, studies the biological mechanisms and evolution of how cells process information to regulate their own growth and proliferation, using bacteria as a model organism to develop a deeper, fundamental understanding of how bacteria function and evolve. Laub was honored as a AAAS Fellow for distinguished contributions to the field of bacterial information processing, particularly to the understanding of coevolution of host-pathogen response and immunity.

“This year’s AAAS Fellows have demonstrated research excellence, made notable contributions to advance science, and delivered important services to their communities,” said Sudip S. Parikh, AAAS chief executive officer and executive publisher of the Science family of journals. “These fellows and their accomplishments validate the importance of investing in science and technology for the benefit of all.”

The following alumni were also named fellows of the AAAS:

• Debra Auguste ’99
• Julie Claycomb PhD ’04
• Chris Clifton ’85, SM ’86
• Kevin Crowston PhD ’91
• Maitreya Dunham ’99
• David Fike PhD ’07
• Jianping Fu PhD ’07
• Peter A. Gilman SM ’64, PhD ’66
• Diane M. Harper ’80, SM ’82
• Cherie R. Kagan PhD ’96
• Elizabeth A. Kensinger PhD ’03
• Kenro Kusumi PhD ’97
• Charla Lambert ’96
• Bennett A. Landman ’01, MNG ’02
• Michael E. Matheny SM ’06
• Paul David Ronney ScD ’83
• Steven Semken ’80, PhD ’89
• Sudipta Sengupta SM ’99, PhD ’06
• Lawrence R. Sita PhD ’86
• Jan M. Skotheim ’99
• Beverly Park Woolf ’66

Picture this scenario in a business: An employee, Brad, disclosed some information that wound up in the hands of a competitor. He may not have meant to, but he did, and a few people at the firm know this. So, at the next company meeting, another employee, Linda, looks pointedly at Brad and says, “I know that no one would ever dream of leaking information, intentionally or otherwise, from our discussions.”

Linda means the opposite of what she says, of course. She is letting people know that Brad is to blame. However, while Linda is making her message public, she also wants what we often call “plausible deniability” for her statement. If anyone asks later if she was insinuating anything about Brad, she can claim she was just making a general comment about the firm.

From the boardroom to the courtroom, the talk show, and beyond, people frequently seek plausible deniability for their statements. It seems to work, too. Indeed, to have plausible deniability, the denial need not be plausible.

“People can say, ‘That’s not what I meant,’ and completely get away with it, even though it’s totally obvious they’re lying,” says MIT philosopher Sam Berstler. “They wouldn’t be getting away with it in the same respect by putting the content in explicit words.”

She adds: “This should be very puzzling to us, because in both cases the intent is maximally obvious.”

So why does plausible deniability work, and work like this? And what does it tell us about how we interact? Berstler, who studies language and communication, has published a new paper on plausible deniability, examining these issues. It is part of a larger body of work Berstler is generating, focused on everyday interactions involving deception.

To understand plausible deniability, Berstler thinks we should recognize that our conversations cannot be understood simply by analyzing the words we use. Our interactions always take place in social contexts, often have a performative aspect, and occasionally intersect with “non-acknowedgement norms,” the practice of keeping quiet about what we all know. Plausible deniability is bound up with social practices that incentivize us to not be fully transparent.

“A lot of indirect speech is designed, as it were, to facilitate this kind of deniability,” Berstler says.

The paper, “Non-Epistemic Deniability,” is published in the journal MIND. Berstler, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Career Development Chair and assistant professor of philosophy at MIT, is the sole author.

Managing a personal “Cold War”

In Berstler’s view, there are multiple ways to create plausible deniability. One is through the practice of open secrets, the subject of one of her previous papers. An open secret is widely known information that is never acknowledged, for reasons of power or in-group identification, among other things. Indeed, no one even acknowledges that they are not acknowledging the open secret.

Examining open secrets led Berstler directly to her analysis of plausible deniability. However, the new paper focuses more on another way of creating plausible deniability, which she calls “two-tracking norms.” Two-tracking is when a group divides its communications into two parts: One track consists of official, limited, courteous interaction, and the second track consists more of informal, resentful, uncooperative interactions. Linda, in our example, is engaging in two-tracking.

But why do we two-track at all? Why not just be fully transparent? Well, in an office scenario, if Linda is mad that Brad divulged some company secrets, calling out Brad directly might lead to recriminations and conflict beyond what Linda is willing to tolerate for the sake of critizing Brad on the record.

“It's like a Cold War situation where we each have an interest in not letting the conflict go to a state where we’re firing warheads at each other, but we can’t just purely manage relations around the negotiating table because we’re adversaries,” Berstler says. “We’re going to aggress against each other, but in a limited way. In a two-track conversation, communicating in the second track is like fighting a proxy battle, but we’re also providing evidence to each other that we’re only going to engage in a proxy battle.”

In this way, Linda takes Brad to task and some people pick up on it, but Brad is not explicitly publicly shamed. And though he might be unhappy, he is less likely to wreck all company norms in an attempt to retaliate. The firm more or less rolls on as usual.

Waiting for Goffman

Where Berstler differs in part from other philosophers is in her emphasis on the extent to which social practices are integral to our ways of deploying deniability. Our interactions are not just limited to rhetoric, but have additional layers.

“What we mean can often be different from what we say, or enhanced from what we say,” Berstler says. “Sometimes we figure out what others mean by relying on what they say in literal language. But sometimes we’re relying on other things, like the context.”

So, back at the firm, the colleagues of Linda and Brad might have some knowledge of a confidentiality breach, or they might know that Linda does not usually speak up at meetings, or they might read things into her tone of voice and the way she appeared to look at Brad. There is more to be gleaned than her literal words.

In this kind of analysis, Berstler finds illumination in the work of the midcentury sociologist Erving Goffman, who studied in minute detail the performative parts of our everyday interactions and speech. Goffman, as Berstler notes in the paper, proposed that we have a ritualized, social self (or “face”) and that normal, everyday behavior generally allows us, and others, to keep this face intact.

Relatedly, Goffman and some of his intellectual followers concluded that habits such as two-tracking are very common in everyday life; the price we pay for saving face is a bit less transparency, and a bit more secrecy and deniability.

“What I’m suggesting is we have these other established practices like two-tracking and open secrecy, where the deniability is just a byproduct,” Berstler says.

What’s the solution?

By bringing sociological ideas into her work, Berstler is moving beyond the normal philosophical discussion of the subject. On the other hand, she is not directly disputing core ideas in linguistics or the philosophy of language; she is just suggesting we add another layer to our analysis of communication and meaning.

Digging into issues of plausible deniability also raises the question of what to do about it. There may be something pernicious in the practice, but calling out plausible deniability threatens to dismantle our social guardrails and break the “Cold War” norms used to help people co-exist.

Berstler, though, has another suggestion: Instead of calling out such subterfuge, we can become verbally and performatively skilled enough to counteract it.

“I think the actual answer is becoming rhetorically clever,” Berstler says. “It’s being the person who uses indirect speech to respond strategically, without violating these norms. That is possible. It also means you have agency. You could become very good at verbal sparring.”

Besides, Berstler says, “Often that can be more powerful than just calling them out, and demonstrates your own verbal fluency. I think we admire it when we see it. Conversational skill is an important component of being morally good, in these cases by reprimanding someone in a way that’s not going to be counterproductive.”

She adds: “People who buy into the rhetoric of transparency can be setting back their own interests. Maybe speaking transparently is morally virtuous in some respects, but given the reality of our speech practices, transparency is not necessarily going to be the most effective way of handling things.”

MIT Associate Professor Jacob Andreas of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science [EECS] and MIT Associate Professor Brett McGuire of the Department of Chemistry have been selected as the winners of the 2026 Harold E. Edgerton Faculty Achievement Award. Established in 1982 as a permanent tribute to Institute Professor Emeritus Harold E. Edgerton’s great and enduring support for younger faculty members, this award is given annually in recognition of exceptional distinction in teaching, research, and service.

“The Department of Chemistry is extremely delighted to see Brett recognized for science that has changed how we think about carbon in space,” says Class of 1942 Professor of Chemistry and Department Head Matthew D. Shoulders. “Brett’s lab combines laboratory spectroscopy, radio astronomy, and sophisticated signal-analysis methods to pull definitive molecular fingerprints out of extraordinarily faint data. His discovery of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the cold interstellar medium has opened a powerful new window on astrochemistry. Moreover, Brett is inventing the creative and unique tools that make discoveries like this possible.”

“Jacob Andreas represents the very best of MIT EECS” says Asu Ozdaglar, EECS department head. “He is an innovative researcher whose work combines computational and linguistically informed approaches to build foundations of language learning. He is an extraordinary educator who has brought these forefront ideas into our core classes in natural language processing and machine learning. His ability to bridge foundational theory with real-world impact, while also advancing the social and ethical dimensions of computing, makes him truly deserving of the Edgerton Faculty Achievement Award.”

Andreas joined the MIT faculty in July 2019, and is affiliated with the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. His work is in natural language processing (NLP), and more broadly in AI. He aims to understand the computational foundations of language learning, and to build intelligent systems that can learn from human guidance. Among other honors, Andreas has received Samsung’s AI Researcher of the Year award, MIT’s Kolokotrones and Junior Bose teaching awards, a 2024 Sloan Research Fellow award, and paper awards at the National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences, the International Conference on Machine Learning, and the Association for Computational Linguistics.

Andreas received his BS from Columbia University, his MPhil from Cambridge University (where he studied as a Churchill scholar), and his PhD in natural language processing from the University of California at Berkeley. His work in natural language processing has taken on thorny problems in the capability gap between humans and computers. “The defining feature of human language use is our capacity for compositional generalization,” explains Antonio Torralba, Delta Electronics Professor and faculty head of Artificial Intelligence and Decision-Making in the Department of EECS. “Many of the core challenges in natural language processing is addressed by simply training larger and larger neural models, but this kind of compositional generalization remains a persistent difficulty, and without the ability to generalize compositionally, the deep learning toolkit will never be robust enough for the most challenging real-world NLP tasks. Jacob’s work on compositional modeling draws new connections between NLP and work in computer vision and physics aimed at modeling systems governed by symmetries and other algebraic structures and, using them, they have been able to build NLP models exhibiting a number of new, human-like language acquisition behaviors, including one-shot word learning, learning via mutual exclusivity constraints, and learning of grammatical rules in extremely low-resource settings.”

Within EECS, Andreas has developed multiple advanced courses in natural language processing, as well as new exercises designed to get students to grapple with important social and ethical considerations in machine learning deployment. “Jacob has taken a leading role in completely modernizing and extending our course offerings in natural language processing,” says award nominator Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Panasonic Professor in the Department of EECS. “He has led the development of a modern two-course sequence, which is a cornerstone of the new AI+D [artificial intelligence and decision-making] major, routinely enrolling several hundred students each semester. His command of the area is broad and deep, and his classes integrate classical structural understanding of language with the most modern learning-based approaches. He has put MIT EECS on the worldwide map as a place to study natural language at every level.”

Brett McGuire joined the MIT faculty in 2020 and was promoted to associate professor in 2025. His research operates at the intersection of physical chemistry, molecular spectroscopy, and observational astrophysics, where he seeks to uncover how the chemical building blocks of life evolve alongside and help shape the birth of stars and planets. A former Jansky Fellow and then Hubble Postdoctoral Fellow at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, McGuire has a BS in chemistry from the University of Illinois and a PhD in physical chemistry from Caltech. His honors include a 2026 Sloan Fellowship, the Beckman Young Investigator Award, the Helen B. Warner Prize for Astronomy, and the MIT Award for Teaching with Digital Technology.

The faculty who nominated McGuire for this award praised his extraordinary public outreach, his immediate willingness to take on teaching class 5.111 (Principles of Chemical Science), a General Institute Requirement (GIR) course comprised of 150–500 students, and his service to both the MIT and astrochemical communities.

“Brett is at the very top of astrochemical scientists in his age group due to his discovery of fused carbon ring compounds in the cold region of the ISM [interstellar medium], an observation that provides a route for carbon incorporation in planets,” says Sylvia Ceyer, the John C. Sheehan Professor of Chemistry in her nomination statement. “His extensive involvement in service-oriented activities within the astrochemical/physical community is highly unusual for a junior scientist, and is testament to the value that the astronomical community places in his wisdom and judgement. His phenomenal organizational skills have made his contributions to graduate admission protocols and seminar administration at MIT the envy of the department. And most importantly, Brett is a superb teacher, who cares deeply about students’ understanding and success, not only in his course, but in their future endeavors.”

“As an assistant professor, Brett volunteered to teach 5.111, a large GIR course with 150–500 students, and has received some of the best teaching evaluations among all faculty who have led the subject,” says Mei Hong, the David A. Leighty Professor of Chemistry. “He has a natural talent in explaining abstract physical chemistry concepts in an engaging manner. His slides, which he prepared from scratch instead of modifying from previous years’ material from other professors, are clear, and … the combination of lucid explanation and humor has generated great enthusiasm and interest in chemistry among students.”

Subject evaluations from McGuire’s courses praised his humor, the clarity of his explanations, and his ability to transform a lecture into a “science show.” “I haven't felt this sort of desire for the depth of understanding in a subject beyond just a straight grade [in some time],” says one student. “Brett definitely stimulated that love of learning for me.” 

“Brett is an outstanding faculty member who is dedicated to fostering student learning and success,” says Jennifer Weisman, assistant director of academic programs in chemistry. “He is thoughtful, caring, and goes above and beyond to help his colleagues, students, and staff.”

“I’m thrilled to be selected for the Edgerton Award this year,” says McGuire. “The award is nominally for teaching, research, and service; MIT and the chemistry department in particular have been an incredible place to learn and grow in all these areas. I’m incredibly grateful for the mentorship, enthusiasm, and support I have received from my colleagues, from my students both in the lab and in the classroom, and from the MIT community during my time here. I look forward to many more years of exciting discovery together with this one-of-a-kind community.”