Feed aggregator
EFF to State AGs: Investigate Google's Broken Promise to Users Targeted by the Government
SAN FRANCISCO – The Electronic Frontier Foundation sent complaints today to the attorneys general of California and New York urging them to investigate Google for deceptive trade practices, related to the company's broken promise to give users prior notice before disclosing their information to law enforcement.
The letters were sent on behalf of Amandla Thomas-Johnson, whose information was disclosed to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without prior notice from Google.
For nearly a decade, Google has promised billions of users that it will notify them before disclosing their personal data to law enforcement. Many times, the company has done just that. But through a hidden and systematic practice, Google has likely violated that promise numerous times over the years. This was the case for Thomas-Johnson, a Ph.D. candidate who was targeted by ICE after briefly attending a protest, effectively preventing him from contesting an invalid subpoena for his data.
"Google should answer the question: How many other times has it broken its promise to users?” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney F. Mario Trujillo. "Advance notice is especially important now, when agencies like ICE are unconstitutionally targeting users for First Amendment-protected activity. State attorneys general should investigate Google for this deception."
On Google’s Privacy & Terms page, it promises its users that “When we receive a request from a government agency, we send an email to the user account before disclosing information.” This promise ensures that users can protect their own privacy and decide to challenge overbroad or illegal demands on their own behalf.
But on May 8, 2025, Google complied with an administrative subpoena from ICE seeking Thomas-Johnson’s subscriber information, including his name, address, IP address, and other personal identifiers. Later that same day, the company sent Thomas-Johnson a message telling him it had already complied with the subpoena, which he would have successfully challenged had he been given advance notice. Google received the subpoena in April and had more than a month to alert Thomas-Johnson.
Communication between EFF and Google later revealed that this is a systematic issue, not an isolated one. When Google does not fulfill a subpoena within a government-provided artificial deadline, the company's outside counsel explained, Google will sometimes comply with the request and provide notice to a user on the same day. The company calls this practice “simultaneous notice.”
"What this experience has made clear is that anyone can be targeted by law enforcement," said Thomas-Johnson. "And with their massive stores of data, technology companies can facilitate those arbitrary investigations. Who, exactly, can I hold accountable?"
Google must commit to ending this deception and pay for its past mistakes. The attorneys general of California and New York are empowered to stop deceptive business practices and seek financial restitution stemming from those practices. As EFF writes in its complaints, they should investigate, hold Google to its public promise to give users advanced notice of law enforcement demands, and take appropriate action if necessary.
For the complaints:
https://www.eff.org/document/eff-letter-re-google-notice-california
https://www.eff.org/document/eff-letter-re-google-notice-new-york
https://www.eff.org/document/eff-letter-re-google-notice-exhibits
For Thomas-Johnson's account of his ordeal: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/google-broke-its-promise-me-now-ice-has-my-data
For more information on lawless DHS subpoenas: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/02/open-letter-tech-companies-protect-your-users-lawless-dhs-subpoenas
Contact: press@eff.org
Tags: privacyfree speechanonymityDHSsubpoenafederal law enforcementGoogleHuman-machine teaming dives underwater
The electricity to an island goes out. To find the break in the underwater power cable, a ship pulls up the entire line or deploys remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to traverse the line. But what if an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) could map the line and pinpoint the location of the fault for a diver to fix?
Such underwater human-robot teaming is the focus of an MIT Lincoln Laboratory project funded through an internally administered R&D portfolio on autonomous systems and carried out by the Advanced Undersea Systems and Technology Group. The project seeks to leverage the respective strengths of humans and robots to optimize maritime missions for the U.S. military, including critical infrastructure inspection and repair, search and rescue, harbor entry, and countermine operations.
"Divers and AUVs generally don't team at all underwater," says principal investigator Madeline Miller. "Underwater missions requiring humans typically do so because they involve some sort of manipulation a robot can't do, like repairing infrastructure or deactivating a mine. Even ROVs are challenging to work with underwater in very skilled manipulation tasks because the manipulators themselves aren't agile enough."
Beyond their superior dexterity, humans excel at recognizing objects underwater. But humans working underwater can't perform complex computations or move very quickly, especially if they are carrying heavy equipment; robots have an edge over humans in processing power, high-speed mobility, and endurance. To combine these strengths, Miller and her team are developing hardware and algorithms for underwater navigation and perception — two key capabilities for effective human-robot teaming.
As Miller explains, divers may only have a compass and fin-kick counts to guide them. With few landmarks and potentially murky conditions caused by a lack of light at depth or the presence of biological matter in the water column, they can easily become disoriented and lost. For robots to help divers navigate, they need to perceive their environment. However, in the presence of darkness and turbidity, optical sensors (cameras) cannot generate images, while acoustic sensors (sonar) generate images that lack color and only show the shapes and shadows of objects in the scene. The historical lack of large, labeled sonar image datasets has hindered training of underwater perception algorithms. Even if data were available, the dynamic ocean can obscure the true nature of objects, confusing artificial intelligence. For instance, a downed aircraft broken into multiple pieces, or a tire covered in an overgrowth of mussels, may no longer resemble an aircraft or tire, respectively.
"Ultimately, we want to devise solutions for navigation and perception in expeditionary environments," Miller says. "For the missions we're thinking about, there is limited or no opportunity to map out the area in advance. For the harbor entry mission, maybe you have a satellite map but no underwater map, for example."
On the navigation side, Miller's team picked up on work started by the MIT Marine Robotics Group, led by John Leonard, to develop diver-AUV teaming algorithms. With their navigation algorithms, Leonard's group ran simulations under optimal conditions and performed field testing in calm waters using human-paddled kayaks as proxies for both divers and AUVs. Miller's team then integrated these algorithms into a mission-relevant AUV and began testing them under more realistic ocean conditions, initially with a support boat acting as a diver surrogate, and then with actual divers.
"We quickly learned that you need more sensing capabilities on the diver when you factor in ocean currents," Miller explains. "With the algorithms demonstrated by MIT, the vehicle only needed to calculate the distance, or range, to the diver at regular intervals to solve the optimization problem of estimating the positions of both the vehicle and diver over time. But with the real ocean forces pushing everything around, this optimization problem blows up quickly."
On the perception side, Miller's team has been developing an AI classifier that can process both optical and sonar data mid-mission and solicit human input for any objects classified with uncertainty.
"The idea is for the classifier to pass along some information — say, a bounding box around an image — to the diver and indicate, "I think this is a tire, but I'm not sure. What do you think?" Then, the diver can respond, "Yes, you've got it right, or no, look over here in the image to improve your classification," Miller says.
This feedback loop requires an underwater acoustic modem to support diver-AUV communication. State-of-the-art data rates in underwater acoustic communications would require tens of minutes to send an uncompressed image from the AUV to the diver. So, one aspect the team is investigating is how to compress information into a minimum amount to be useful, working within the constraints of the low bandwidth and high latency of underwater communications and the low size, weight, and power of the commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware they're using. For their prototype system, the team procured mostly COTS sensors and built a sensor payload that would easily integrate into an AUV routinely employed by the U.S. Navy, with the goal of facilitating technology transition. Beyond sonar and optical sensors, the payload features an acoustic modem for ranging to the diver and several data processing and compute boards.
Miller's team has tested the sensor-equipped AUV and algorithms around coastal New England — including in the open ocean near Portsmouth, New Hampshire, with the University of New Hampshire's (UNH) Gulf Surveyor and Gulf Challenger coastal research vessels as diver surrogates, and on the Boston-area Charles River, with an MIT Sailing Pavilion skiff as the surrogate.
"The UNH boats are well-equipped and can access realistic ocean conditions. But pretending to be a diver with a large boat is hard. With the skiff, we can move more slowly and get the relative motion in tune with how a diver and AUV would navigate together."
Last summer, the team started testing equipment with human divers at Michigan Technological University's Great Lakes Research Center. Although the divers lacked an interface to feed back information to the AUV, each swam holding the team's tube-shaped prototype tablet, dubbed a "tube-let." The tube-let was equipped with a pressure and depth sensor, inertial measurement unit (to track relative motion), and ranging modem — all necessary components for the navigation algorithms to solve the optimization problem.
"A challenge during testing was coordinating the motion of the diver and vehicle, because they don't yet collaborate," Miller says. "Once the divers go underwater, there is no communication with the team on the surface. So, you have to plan where to put the diver and vehicle so they don't collide."
The team also worked on the perception problem. The water clarity of the Great Lakes at that time of year allowed for underwater imaging with an optical sensor. Caroline Keenan, a Lincoln Scholars Program PhD student jointly working in the laboratory's Advanced Undersea Systems and Technology Group and Leonard's research group at MIT, took the opportunity to advance her work on knowledge transfer from optical sensors to sonar sensors. She is exploring whether optical classifiers can train sonar classifiers to recognize objects for which sonar data doesn't exist. The motivation is to reduce the human operator load associated with labeling sonar data and training sonar classifiers.
With the internally funded research program coming to an end, Miller's team is now seeking external sponsorship to refine and transition the technology to military or commercial partners.
"The modern world runs on undersea telecommunication and power cables, which are vulnerable to attack by disruptive actors. The undersea domain is becoming increasingly contested as more nations develop and advance the capabilities of autonomous maritime systems. Maintaining global economic security and U.S. strategic advantage in the undersea domain will require leveraging and combining the best of AI and human capabilities," Miller says.
Q&A: MIT SHASS and the future of education in the age of AI
The MIT School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (SHASS) was founded in 1950 in response to “a new era emerging from social upheaval and the disasters of war,” as outlined in the 1949 Lewis Committee Report.
The report’s findings emphasized MIT’s role and responsibility in the new nuclear age, which called for doubling down on genuine “integration” of scientific and technical topics with humanistic scholarship and teaching. Only that way, the committee wrote, could MIT tackle “the most difficult and complicated problems confronting our generation.”
As SHASS marks its 75th anniversary, Dean Agustín Rayo answers questions about why the need for developing students with broad minds and human understanding is as urgent as ever, given pressing challenges in the midst of a new technological revolution.
Q: Many universities are responding to artificial intelligence by launching new technical programs or updating curricula. You’ve suggested the change is deeper than that. Why?
A: Artificial intelligence isn’t just changing the way students learn — it’s transforming every aspect of society. The labor market is experiencing a dramatic shift, upending traditional paths to financial stability. And AI is changing the ways we bring meaning to our lives: the ways we build relationships, the ways we pay attention, and the things we enjoy doing.
The upshot is that the most important question universities need to ask is not how to adapt our pedagogy to AI — although we certainly need to address that. The most important question we need to ask is how to provide an education that brings real value to students in the age of AI.
We need to ensure that universities provide students with the tools they need to find a path to financial security and to build meaningful lives.
We need to produce students with minds that are both nimble and broad. We need our students to not only be able to execute tasks effectively, but also have the judgment to determine which tasks are worth executing. We need students who have a moral compass, and who understand how the world works, in all of its political, economic, and human complexity. We need students who know how to think critically, and who have excellent communication and leadership skills.
Q: What role do the humanities, arts, and social sciences play in preparing MIT students for that future?
A: They’re essential, and are rightly a core part of an MIT education: MIT has long required its undergraduates take at least eight courses in HASS disciplines to graduate.
Fields like philosophy, political science, economics, literature, history, music, and anthropology are crucial to developing the parts of our lives that are essentially human — the parts that will not be replaced by AI.
They are crucial to developing critical thinking and a moral compass. They are crucial to understanding people — our values, institutions, cultures, and ways of thinking. They are crucial to creating students who are broad thinkers who understand the way the world works. They are crucial to developing students who are excellent communicators and are able to describe their projects — and their lives — in a way that endows them with meaning.
Our students understand this. Here is how one of them put the point: “Engineering gives me the tools to measure the world; the humanities teach me how to interpret it. That balance has shaped both how I do science and why I do it.” (Full interview here.)
Q: Some people worry that emphasizing humanistic study could dilute MIT’s technological edge. How do you respond to that concern?
A: I think the opposite is true.
MIT is an important engine for social mobility in the United States, and a catalyst for entrepreneurship, which has added billions of dollars to the American economy. That cannot be separated from the fact that we are a technical institution, which brings together the country’s most talented undergraduates — regardless of socioeconomic background — and transforms them into the next generation of our country's top scientific and engineering leaders.
MIT plays an incredibly important role in our country. So, the last thing I want to do is mess with our secret sauce.
But I also think that the age of AI is forcing us to rethink what it means to be a top engineer.
Think about artificial intelligence itself. The challenges we face are not just technical. Issues like bias, accountability, governance, and the societal impact of automation are no less important. Understanding those dimensions helps technologists design better systems and anticipate real-world consequences.
Strengthening the humanities at MIT isn’t a departure from our core mission — it’s a way of ensuring that our technical leadership continues to matter in the world.
Q: What kinds of changes is MIT SHASS pursuing to support this vision?
A: There’s a lot going on!
We’ve launched the MIT Human Insight Collaborative (MITHIC) as a way of strengthening research in the humanities, arts, and social sciences, and of deepening collaboration with colleagues across MIT.
We’re shaping the undergraduate experience to ensure that every MIT student engages with the big societal questions shaping our time, from democratic resilience to climate change to the ethics of new technologies.
We’re building stronger connections through initiatives like the creation of shared faculty positions with the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing (SCC). And we recently launched a new Music Technology and Computation Graduate Program with the School of Engineering.
We’re partnering with SERC (the SCC’s Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing) to design new classes on the intersection of computing and human-centered issues, such as ethics.
And we’re elevating the humanities — for their own sake, and as a space for experimentation, bringing together students, faculty, and partners to explore new forms of research, teaching, and public engagement.
This is a very exciting time for SHASS.
Flying at the edge of the stratosphere
All the ingredients to leave the first layer of the atmosphere were laying on a picnic table. T-minus 30 minutes before launch from the New York Catskills, students in MIT's reborn 16.00 (Introduction to Aerospace Engineering) course tore open hand warmers to fight the December morning chill. One hot pack for cold hands. One for the electronics payload, which would need the warmth on the way up. This series of balloon launches rose to more than 20 kilometers above the surface.
Five student teams completed stratospheric balloon launches for a final project in the MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AeroAstro) first-year exploratory course. This fall semester was the first iteration of the reimagined 16.00. The course was co-taught by MIT professors Jeffery Hoffman, a former NASA astronaut, and Oliver de Weck, Apollo Program Professor of Astronautics and Engineering Systems. The course was reintroduced to the curriculum in 2025 to give first-year students a design-build experience from the very start, says de Weck, who is also AeroAstro's associate department head.
"This course had been taught for more than 25 years. And then the pandemic came," he explains. "We felt that it was time to bring the course back, to revive it, give it new life."
De Weck taught a version of this hands-on project from 2012 to 2016 in Unified Engineering, with 20 balloon launches over that time. Hoffman taught a version that focused on blimps, indoor flights, and achieving neutral buoyancy and control. Those prior courses inspired the new program. The current 16.00 course is an early introduction to design-build flying, offered before the well-known Unified Engineering course for Course 16 sophomores.
"Students don't want to sit through long lectures, with lots of PowerPoints and notes and blackboards," says de Weck. He referenced feedback from students that is framing the department's upcoming strategic plan. "Those hands-on visceral experiences is what we want to provide them."
The AeroAstro program adds about 60 undergraduates per year. Future students can expect to see different versions of the 16.00 course, including those focused on fixed-wing aircraft, quadcopter drones, and rockets. Future balloon courses will be called 16.00B. A fixed-wing remote-controlled aircraft course will be 16.00A.
Over 13 weeks, the students attended lectures on subjects including atmospheric composition, radio waves, and flight planning and regulations. In labs, they practiced building Arduino-based pressure and temperature sensors, and testing communication systems.
On that cold launch day, Jackson Lunfelt kept his grip against the pull of an oversized helium balloon moments before his team's launch. His team worked for weeks configuring GPS and radio communications and testing balloon buoyancy. Among their trials and errors, they had to find the right weight for a 3D printed frame to attach the balloon and parachute. It was too heavy at first. They figured out how to reduce the weight of the plastic to keep the payload buoyant.
"Fortunately, a lot of preparation had helped us," he says.
Lunfelt, a first-year student, grew up just a few hours away from the Catskills in upstate New York. In high school, he was active in Future Farmers of America, welding, and robotics. On launch day, his team was worried their onboard GoPro would shut off from the cold high-altitude temperatures. They got the green light to add a battery bank. They would need to re-calculate the weight and helium needed at the final hour.
"It was one of those things that if you don't do this, you're not gonna launch,” says Lunfelt.
That first week of December brought frigid air, gusts, and wind patterns that meant the class would have to rethink its launch site. The team aimed to fly east, over Massachusetts, and land before reaching the ocean. The new weather pattern pushed the team even farther west across the New York border.
The balloon lifted the 3.5 pound payload from the Catskills while the mission control group monitored progress from Cambridge, Massachusetts. It rose hundreds of feet per minute. It passed the troposphere and flew across Western Massachusetts at 100 miles an hour, pushed by the strong upper-level winds of the jet stream. It climbed to an estimated 22 kilometers above the surface. At that height, an onboard GoPro camera recorded the curvature of the Earth.
"Every single moment of that video was amazing. It was truly a story in itself," says Lunfelt.
Then the latex balloon burst, as designed, and descended back down — aided by a parachute. The GoPros captured that spectacular moment, too. The winds carried them just north of the Massachusetts-New Hampshire border. They landed in a neighborhood around Nashua, New Hampshire. Locals saw the MIT identifiers written on the side of the payloads and helped the teams recover them. The landing made it onto the local news.
After a very early morning and late evening monitoring the launch returns, de Weck, alongside teaching assistant Jonathan Stoppani and Senior Technical Instructor Dave Robertson, agreed that the feeling of pride from the whole class was palpable. The payloads all came back in one piece, a test of successful design-builds and last-minute adjustments. The AeroAstro flying tradition is back for first-year students.
Trump’s decision to blockade Iran ups the ante on prices
What electricity crisis? US demand muted by second-warmest winter.
Appeals court questions Hawaii’s climate tax on cruises
How Hackers Are Thinking About AI
Interesting paper: “What hackers talk about when they talk about AI: Early-stage diffusion of a cybercrime innovation.”
Abstract: The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) is raising concerns about its potential to transform cybercrime. Beyond empowering novice offenders, AI stands to intensify the scale and sophistication of attacks by seasoned cybercriminals. This paper examines the evolving relationship between cybercriminals and AI using a unique dataset from a cyber threat intelligence platform. Analyzing more than 160 cybercrime forum conversations collected over seven months, our research reveals how cybercriminals understand AI and discuss how they can exploit its capabilities. Their exchanges reflect growing curiosity about AI’s criminal applications through legal tools and dedicated criminal tools, but also doubts and anxieties about AI’s effectiveness and its effects on their business models and operational security. The study documents attempts to misuse legitimate AI tools and develop bespoke models tailored for illicit purposes. Combining the diffusion of innovation framework with thematic analysis, the paper provides an in-depth view of emerging AI-enabled cybercrime and offers practical insights for law enforcement and policymakers...
Another state looks to help protect homes against disasters
Judges skeptical of youth fight against Trump energy orders
California leaders promised fire recovery in record time. LA isn’t seeing it.
Hosting solar can be a lifeline for farmers if locals don’t fight it
Can Germany restart its nuclear program? We peek into a decommissioned reactor.
Alaskan cruise companies avoid popular excursion after landslide
Drought threatens African tree that’s key to perfumes and incomes
Carbon removal project supports Maine’s blue economy, broader marine health
Oceans absorb roughly 25 to 30 percent of the carbon dioxide (CO2) that is released into the atmosphere. When this CO2 dissolves in seawater, it forms carbonic acid, making the water more acidic and altering its chemistry. Elevated levels of acidity are harmful to marine life like corals, oysters, and certain plankton that rely on calcium carbonate to build shells and skeletons.
“As the oceans absorb more CO2, the chemistry shifts — increasing bicarbonate while reducing carbonate ion availability — which means shellfish have less carbonate to form shells,” explains Kripa Varanasi, professor of mechanical engineering at MIT. “These changes can propagate through marine ecosystems, affecting organism health and, over time, broader food webs.”
Loss of shellfish can lead to water quality decline, coastal erosion, and other ecosystem disruptions, including significant economic consequences for coastal communities. “The U.S. has such an extensive coastline, and shellfish aquaculture is globally valued at roughly $60 billion,” says Varanasi. “With the right innovations, there is a substantial opportunity to expand domestic production.”
“One might think, ‘this [depletion] could happen in 100 years or something,’ but what we’re finding is that they are already affecting hatcheries and coastal systems today,” he adds. “Without intervention, these trends could significantly alter marine ecosystems and the coastal economies that rely on them over time.”
Varanasi and T. Alan Hatton, the Ralph Landau Professor of Chemical Engineering, Post-Tenure, at MIT, have been collaborating for years to develop methods for removing carbon dioxide from seawater and turn acidic water back to alkaline. In recent years, they’ve partnered with researchers at the University of Maine Darling Marine Center to deploy the method in hatcheries.
“The way we farm oysters, we spawn them in special tanks and rear them through about a two-week larval period … until they’re big enough so that they can be transferred out into the river as the water warms up,” explains Bill Mook, founder of Mook Sea Farm. Around 2009, he noticed problems with production of early-stage larvae. “It was a catastrophe. We lost several hundred thousand dollars’ worth of production,” he says.
Ultimately, the problem was identified as the low pH of the water that was being brought in: The water was too acidic. The farm’s initial strategy, a common practice in oyster farming, was to buffer the water by adding sodium bicarbonate. The new approach avoids the use of chemicals or minerals.
“A lot of researchers are studying direct air capture, but very few are working in the ocean-capture space,” explains Hatton. “Our approach is to use electricity, in an electrochemical manner, rather than add chemicals to manipulate the solution pH.”
The method uses reactive electrodes to release protons into seawater that is collected and fed into the cells, driving the release of the dissolved carbon dioxide from the water. The cyclic process acidifies the water to convert dissolved inorganic bicarbonates to molecular carbon dioxide, which is collected as a gas under vacuum. The water is then fed to a second set of cells with a reversed voltage to recover the protons and turn the acidic water back to alkaline before releasing it back to the sea.
Maine’s Damariscotta River Estuary, where Mook farms is located, provides about 70 percent of the state’s oyster crop. Damian Brady, a professor of oceanography based at the University of Maine and key collaborator on the project, says the Damariscotta community has “grown into an oyster-producing powerhouse … [that is] not only part of the economy, but part of the culture.” He adds, “there’s actually a huge amount that we could learn if we couple the engineering at MIT with the aquaculture science here at the University of Maine.”
“The scientific underpinning of our hypothesis was that these bivalve shellfish, including oysters, need calcium carbonate in order to form their shells,” says Simon Rufer PhD ’25, a former student in Varanasi’s lab and now CEO and co-founder of CoFlo Medical. “By alkalizing the water, we actually make it easier for the oysters to form and maintain their shells.”
In trials conducted by the team, results first showed that the approach is biocompatible and doesn't kill the larvae, and later showed that the oysters treated by MIT's buffer approach did better than mineral or chemical approaches. Importantly, Hatton also notes, the process creates no waste products. Ocean water goes in, CO2 comes out. This captured CO2 can potentially be used for other applications, including to grow algae to be used as food for shellfish.
Varanasi and Hatton first introduced their approach in 2023. Their most recent paper, “Thermodynamics of Electrochemical Marine Inorganic Carbon Removal,” which was published last year in journal Environmental Science & Technology, outlines the overall thermodynamics of the process and presents a design tool to compare different carbon removal processes. The team received a “plus-up award” from ARPA-E to collaborate with University of Maine and further develop and scale the technology for application in aquaculture environments.
Brady says the project represents another avenue for aquaculture to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. “It pushes a new technology for removing carbon dioxide from ocean environments forward simultaneously,” says Brady. “If they can be coupled, aquaculture and carbon dioxide removal improve each other’s bottom line."
Through the collaboration, the team is improving the robustness of the cells and learning about their function in real ocean environments. The project aims to scale up the technology, and to have significant impact on climate and the environment, but it includes another big focus.
“It’s also about jobs,” says Varanasi. “It’s about supporting the local economy and coastal communities who rely on aquaculture for their livelihood. We could usher in a whole new resilient blue economy. We think that this is only the beginning. What we have developed can really be scaled.”
Mook says the work is very much an applied science, “[and] because it’s applied science, it means that we benefit hugely from being connected and plugged into academic institutions that are doing research very relevant to our livelihoods. Without science, we don’t have a prayer of continuing this industry.”
The Dangers of California’s Legislation to Censor 3D Printing
California’s bill, A.B. 2047, will not only mandate censorware — software which exists to bluntly block your speech as a user — on all 3D printers; it will also criminalize the use of open-source alternatives. Repeating the mistakes of Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies won’t make anyone safer. What it will do is hurt innovation in the state and risk a slew of new consumer harms, ranging from surveillance to platform lock-in. California must stand with creators and reject this legislation before it’s too late.
3D printing might evoke images of props from blockbuster films, rapid prototyping, medical research, or even affordable repair parts. Yet for a growing number of legislators, the perceived threat of “ghost guns” is a reason to impose restrictions on all 3D printers. Despite 3D printing of guns already being rare and banned under existing law, California may outright criminalize any user having control over their own device.
This bill is a gift for the biggest 3D printer manufacturers looking to adopt HP’s approach to 2D printing: criminalize altering your printer’s code, lock users into your own ecosystem, and let enshittification run its course. Even worse, algorithmic print blocking will never work for its intended purpose, but it will threaten consumer choice, free expression, and privacy.
A misstep here can have serious repercussions across the whole 3D printing industry, lead the way for more bad bills, and leave California with an expensive and ineffective bureaucratic mess.
What’s in the California Proposal?Compared to the Washington and New York laws proposed this year, California’s is the most troubling. It criminalizes open source, reduces consumer choice, and creates a bureaucratic burden.
Criminalizing Open Source and User ControlA.B. 2047 goes further than any other legislation on algorithmic print-blocking by making it a misdemeanor for the owners of these devices to disable, deactivate, or otherwise circumvent these mandated algorithms. Not only does this effectively criminalize use of any third-party, open-source 3D printer firmware, but it also enables print-blocking algorithms to parallel anti-consumer behaviors seen with DRM.
Manufacturers will be able to lock users into first-party tools, parts, and “consumables” (analogous to how 2D printer ink works). They will also be able to mandate purchases through first-party stores, imposing a heavy platform tax. Additionally, manufacturers could force regular upgrade cycles through planned obsolescence by ceasing updates to a printer’s print-blocking system, thereby taking devices out of compliance and making them illegal for consumers to resell. In short, a wide range of anti-consumer practices can be enforced, potentially resulting in criminal charges.
Independent of these deliberate harms manufacturers may inflict, DRM has shown that criminalizing code leads to more barriers to repair, more consumer waste, and far more cybersecurity risks by criminalizing research.
Less Consumer ChoiceThe bill favors incumbent manufacturers over newer competitors and over the interests of consumers.
Less-established manufacturers will need to dedicate considerable time and resources to implementing the ineffective solutions discussed above, navigating state approval, and potentially paying licensing fees to third-party developers of sham print-blocking software. While these burdens may be absorbed by the biggest producers of this equipment, it considerably raises the barrier to entry on a technology that can otherwise be individually built from scratch with common equipment. The result is clear: fewer options for consumers and more leverage for the biggest producers.
Retailers will feel this pinch, but the second-hand market will feel it most acutely. Resale is an important property right for people to recoup costs and serves as an important check on inflating prices. But under this bill, such resale risks misdemeanor penalties.
The bill locks users into a walled garden; it demands manufacturers ensure 3D printers cannot be used with third-party software tools. By creating barriers to the use of popular and need-specific alternatives, this legislation will limit the utility and accessibility of these devices across a broad spectrum of lawful uses.
Bureaucratic BurdenA.B. 2047’s title 21.1 §3723.633-637 creates a print-blocking bureaucracy, leaning heavily on the California Department of Justice (DOJ). Initially, the DOJ must outline the technical standards for detecting and blocking firearm parts, and later certify print-blocking algorithms and maintain lists of compliant 3D printers. If a printer or software doesn’t make it through this red tape, it will be illegal to sell in the state.
The bill also requires the department to establish a database of banned blueprints that must be blocked by these algorithms. This database and printer list must be continually maintained as new printer models are released and workarounds are discovered, requiring effort from both the DOJ and printer manufacturers.
For all the cost and burden of creating and maintaining such a database, those efforts will inevitably be outpaced by rapid iterations and workarounds by people breaking existing firearms laws.
Not just CaliforniaOnce implemented, this infrastructure will be difficult to rein in, causing unintended consequences. The database meant for firearm parts can easily expand to copyright or political speech. Scans meant to be ephemeral can be collected and surveilled. This is cause for concern for everyone, as these levers of control will extend beyond the borders of the Golden State.
While California is at the forefront of print blocking, the impacts will be felt far outside of its borders. Once printer companies have the legal cover to build out anti-competitive and privacy-invasive tools, they will likely be rolled out globally. After all, it is not cost-effective to maintain two forks of software, two inventories of printers, and two distribution channels. Once California has created the infrastructure to censor prints, what else will it be used for?
As we covered in “Print Blocking Won’t Work” these print-blocking efforts are not only doomed to fail, but will render all 3D printer users vulnerable to surveillance either by forcing them into a cloud scanning solution for “on-device” results, or by chaining them to first-party software which must connect to the cloud to regularly update its print blocking system.
This law demands an unfeasible technological solution for something that is already illegal. Not only is this bad legislation with few safeguards, it risks the worst outcomes for grassroots innovation and creativity—both within the state and across the global 3D printing community.
California should reject this legislation before it’s too late, and advocates everywhere should keep an eye out for similar legislation in their states. What happens in California won't just stay in California.
EFF 🤝 HOPE: Join Us This August!
Protecting privacy and free speech online takes more than policy work—it takes community. Conferences like HOPE are where that community comes together to learn, connect, and push these ideals forward. That's why EFF is proud to be at HOPE 26.
Join us at this year's Hackers On Planet Earth, August 14-16 at the New Yorker Hotel in Manhattan! Get your ticket now and support our work: throughout April EFF will receive 10% of all ticket proceeds for HOPE 26.
See EFF at HOPE 26 in New York
While you're there, be sure to catch talks from EFF's technologists, attorneys, and activists covering a wide range of digital civil liberties topics. You can get a taste of the talks to come by watching last year's EFF presentations at HOPE_16 on YouTube:
How a Handful of Location Data Brokers Actively Tracked Millions, and How to Stop Them
In the past year, a number of investigations have revealed the outsized role of a few select companies in gathering, storing, and selling the location data of millions of devices - and by extension people - worldwide. This talk will elaborate on the technologies, data flows, and industry players which comprise this complicated ecosystem.
Ask EFF
Get an update on current EFF work, including the ongoing case against the "Department" of Government Oversight, educating the public on their digital rights, organizing communities to resist ongoing government surveillance, and more.
Systems of Dehumanization: The Digital Frontlines of the War Against Bodily Autonomy
Daly covers the bad Internet bills that made sex work more dangerous, the ongoing struggle for abortion access in America, and the persecution of trans people across all spectrums of life. These issue-spaces are deeply connected, and the digital threats they face are uniquely dangerous. Come to learn about these threat models, as well as the cross-movement strategies being built for collective liberation against an authoritarian surveillance state.
Snag a ticket by the end of April to help support EFF's work ensuring that technology works for everyone. We hope to see you there!
Hot Off the Press: EFF's Updated Guide to Tech at the US-Mexico Border
When people see Customs & Border Protection's giant, tethered surveillance blimp flying 20 miles outside of Marfa, Texas, lots of them confuse it with an art installation. Elsewhere along the U.S.-Mexico border, surveillance towers get mistaken for cell-phone towers. And that traffic barrel? It's actually a camera. That piece of rusted litter? That's a camera too.
Today we are publishing a major update to our zine, "Surveillance Technology at the U.S.-Mexico Border," the first since the second Trump administration began. To help people identify the machinery of homeland security, we've added more models of surveillance towers, newly deployed military tech, and a gallery of disguised trail cams and automated license plate readers.
You can get this 40-page, full-color guide through EFF's Shop or download a Creative-Commons licensed version here.
"The Battalion Search and Rescue always carries the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s zine in our desert rig," says James Holman, who founded the humanitarian group that looks for human remains in remote parts of New Mexico and Arizona. "We’re finding new surveillance all the time, and without a resource like that, we wouldn't know what the hell we're looking at.”
The original version of the zine was distributed nearly exclusively to our allies in the borderlands—journalists, humanitarian aid workers, immigrant advocates—to help them better identify and report on the technology they discover on the ground. We only made a handful available in our online shop, and they went fast.
This time, we've printed enough for our broader EFF membership. Even if you don't live near the border, you can support our work uncovering how the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's technology threatens human rights by picking up a copy.
The zine is the culmination of a dozen trips to the border, where we hunted surveillance towers and other tech installations. We attended multiple border security conventions to collect promotional and technical materials directly from vendors. We filed public records requests, reviewed thousands of pages of docs, and analyzed satellite imagery of the entire 2,000-mile border several times over. Some of the images came from local allies, like geographer Dugan Meyer and Borderlands Relief Collective, who continue to share valuable intelligence on the changing landscape of border surveillance.
The update is available in English, with an updated Spanish version expected later this year. In the meantime, we have reprinted the original Spanish edition.
If you want to know more, a collection of EFF's broader work on border technology is available here. And if you're curious exactly where these technologies are located, you can check our ongoing map.
On Anthropic’s Mythos Preview and Project Glasswing
The cybersecurity industry is obsessing over Anthropic’s new model, Claude Mythos Preview, and its effects on cybersecurity. Anthropic said that it is not releasing it to the general public because of its cyberattack capabilities, and has launched Project Glasswing to run the model against a whole slew of public domain and proprietary software, with the aim of finding and patching all the vulnerabilities before hackers get their hands on the model and exploit them.
There’s a lot here, and I hope to write something more considered in the coming week, but I want to make some quick observations...