There are few treatment options available for people with disorders of the esophagus. Delivering drugs directly to this part of the body is difficult, so patients are usually treated with systemic drugs, which can have unwanted side effects.

To overcome that challenge, MIT engineers developed a gel-like oral drug formulation that can coat the mucosal lining of the esophagus after being swallowed, allowing drugs to pass through the tissue.

The formulation, which includes a hydrogel and other key ingredients that promote rapid drug absorption, could be used to deliver antibodies including infliximab, used to treat a number of autoimmune diseases, or other types of antibodies or small-molecule drugs.

“There are many people with esophageal disease, and if you look at drugs for these conditions, they’re very limited in their ability to target this part of the body and it’s very difficult to develop them. We hope this platform will make it easier to develop systems that can help patients suffering from these conditions,” says Giovanni Traverso, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, a gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and an associate member of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.

Traverso is the senior author of the new study, which appears today in Nature Biomedical Engineering. Former MIT postdoc Christina Karavasili, now an assistant professor at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece, is the paper’s lead author.

Direct delivery

One of the most common disorders of the esophagus is eosinophilic esophagitis, a type of inflammation that is caused by food allergies and leads the esophagus to close up, making it impossible to swallow food. Crohn’s disease can also cause inflammation of the esophagus. 

These disorders are usually treated with systemic drugs, including infliximab, an antibody that neutralizes an inflammatory protein called tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha). However, this drug is an immunosuppressant that can lead to a higher risk for infections and other health problems.

Delivering the drug directly to the esophageal tissue could reduce those side effects, but this is inherently challenging because drugs taken orally pass through the esophagus so quickly. Adding to the difficulty, the esophagus is lined by a layer of tissue called stratified squamous epithelium, which is very impermeable to drugs.

Injecting drugs into the esophageal tissue is another option, but that is uncomfortable for patients and inconvenient because it has to be done at a doctor’s office. There is also at least one anti-inflammatory steroid drug that is formulated as a thick mixture, allowing it to remain in the esophagus longer after being swallowed, but the drug still has some difficulty passing through the impermeable squamous layer.

In this study, the researchers set out to develop new drug formulations that would include molecules that could increase the permeability of those esophageal cells, allowing more of the drug to pass through. 

To identify molecules that would enhance permeability, the researchers designed a screening system that mimics the structure of the esophagus. This system contains esophageal tissue pressed between two vertical plates. Drug formulations can be poured into the top of the system, simulating oral ingestion. The researchers can then measure how much of the drug passes through the tissue and is collected by wells in one of the plates.

Using this system, the researchers were able to measure how different excipients — inactive ingredients that help enhance drug effects — affect the permeability of the esophageal tissue. First, they tested about 100 different compounds and identified several top candidates. Then, they tested pairs of these excipients and found that the most effective combination was a pair of bile salts called sodium chenodeoxycholate and sodium cholate.

These salts appear to work together to loosen up the cell-cell junctions that normally act as a barrier to drug molecule entry. The researchers added those bile salts to a polysaccharide-derived hydrogel, which has a viscous consistency that allows it to lightly coat the lining of the esophagus.

“The hydrogel helps the formulation remain on the esophageal surface for longer, while the bile salts help increase transport across the tissue,” Karavasili says. “Our data suggest that the bile salts temporarily loosen these cell–cell junctions, mainly by interacting with calcium ions that help maintain junction integrity. This creates a more permissive pathway between the cells, allowing larger molecules to move into the mucosal tissue more efficiently.”

Minimizing side effects

In tests in animals, the researchers showed that this formulation could be used to effectively deliver infliximab to the esophagus. They also found that the loosening of the cell-cell junctions was temporary, and the cells returned to normal within three days.

This kind of delivery could help to avoid the side effects that patients sometimes experience when infliximab is given systemically, the researchers say. 

“We were interested in delivering anti-TNFs as a model drug, but also to help people who suffer from conditions like Crohn’s disease to have options that could be delivered to the site,” Traverso says. “If we have the possibility of site-directed delivery, we may be able to mitigate systemic side effects from these immunosuppressing agents.”

The researchers are now working on further optimizing the formulation for potential testing in humans. One key goal is to ensure that the gel adheres for long enough to deliver the drugs, but not so long as to cause discomfort for patients. The researchers are also exploring the possibility of using this approach to deliver other types of drugs. 

“This is a platform to enable the development of drug-delivery systems for the esophagus, which hasn’t been possible before because the tools haven’t existed,” Traverso says.

The research was funded by the Karl van Tassel Career Development Professorship, the Department of Mechanical Engineering at MIT, the Division of Gastroenterology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), which notes that the views and conclusions contained in this article are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies of the United States government.

Debates about vaccines are a recurring feature of contemporary politics. It turns out they actually date back more than 200 years, since the development of the first smallpox vaccine. MIT Professor Thomas Levenson, one of the country’s leading science writers, explores this important history in a new book about the contours of anti-vaccination thought. Levenson identifies different types of arguments vaccination opponents have developed through history, to help shed light on our current debates. He spoke with MIT News about his new book, “A Pox on Fools: The True Believers, Grifters, and Cynics Who Convinced Us to Reject Vaccines,” published this week by Penguin Random House. 

Q: Your book is about the longer history of anti-vaccination arguments. How far back does this go, and what have those arguments been? 

A: Hesitation, skepticism, and outright opposition to vaccines is not a new thing. It didn’t just happen starting in the late 1990s. Opposition to vaccines dates back to the beginning of the vaccine era, around the early 19th century. The first kind of opposition to vaccines is this sense that it violates the moral or the natural order. If you believed that God has authority over all of us and is mindful of everything, intervening in the disease process could seem blasphemous. 

In the early 19th century, the first true vaccine, the smallpox vaccine, used material from a related disease, cowpox, that doesn’t cause human beings to fall ill but does provide immunity to smallpox. That shifted the initial focus on God’s plans to the notion that vaccination — sticking some cow-stuff into people — violated the natural order. That sort of uneasiness is easily co-opted by a broader philosophy that says: If you align yourself with nature, you don’t need to use vaccines. 

I want to emphasize that in the early history of the anti-vaccine movement, there were reasonable fears being expressed. That changes over time, because science advances and the mystery of vaccines falls away. Still, the current anti-vaccine movement includes an impulse we all have: We wish to be in control. I would never deny the value of exercise, sunlight, and sanitation, but they are not sufficient when you are faced with many pathogens, and that’s what the modern anti-vaccine movement obscures. We share this world with bacteria and viruses that do their thing no matter what we eat or how much we exercise. 

Q: One section of your book explores the argument that vaccines have been actively harmful. What is that historical trajectory like? 

A: The idea that vaccines are not just unnecessary but actively bad for you is certainly very contemporary, but it too goes back to the beginning of the vaccine era. The first true smallpox vaccine came into public use in 1798. Very soon afterward people started pointing to different harms. Most of them were spurious. They were just making things up or mistaking another infection that was already there. But there were some flaws in the early forms of vaccination. People thought it conferred life-long immunity, and that wasn’t always the case. Additionally, people mistook syphilis infections for cowpox infections and transmitted syphilis to healthy people. There were maybe 750 cases in Europe.

What is repeated over and over in the history of vaccination is that when problems became apparent, people found a way to address them. A problem with diphtheria antitoxin at the turn of the century led directly to the first U.S. regulatory body, the Division of Biological Controls. And when the first polio vaccine was released to the public in 1955, one of the five drug companies making it had shoddy production practices. Thousands got sick, a hundred died, and some were paralyzed. The flawed vaccine was identified after two weeks on sale and stopped cold, and that ended that particular problem. What came out of it was the development of an FDA vaccine division with teeth. 

This is an area where the rhetorical skill of the anti-vaccine movement is on display. Anything human beings do carries some risk. Anything you do medically. I had my hip replaced last year. That carries some risk, such as surgical site infections. Well, the risks of vaccines are incredibly small. The most common response is a sore arm the next day, and maybe feeling under the weather. There is extremely close control over manufacturing now. We have stories of great harm, but the various specific allegations of the last 30 or 35 years have proven to be incorrect. But there’s a power to an anecdote versus statistics. 

Q: This book raises an issue also explored in your last one, “So Very Small,” that the sheer success of vaccines has, paradoxically, created a situation in which people take their effects for granted and find it easier to argue against them. Can you explain this phenomenon?

A: The reason that occurs is because vaccines have worked so brilliantly well. At the turn of the century, life expectancy was much lower, 47 years in the U.S. Several top causes of death were infectious diseases, and child mortality was high. Now, life expectancy is around 80 years in every developed nation, and child mortality is a tiny fraction of 1 percent. By 1970, you had almost a complete set of vaccines against what used to be called childhood diseases. And those diseases, up until extremely recently, had essentially disappeared. And that’s amazing. 

In the 1950s, before the measles vaccine, for instance, everybody had an experience of what it meant to be at at the mercy of waves of infection. But by the 1970s, that was no longer the expected, ordinary, common experience of raising kids. So we’ve forgotten how unpleasant even an ordinary case of one of these diseases is that you recover from, much less the more severe problems and death. In 1952, there was the largest polio outbreak in U.S. history, and it was scary to let your kid go to the movies or a swimming pool. They could go to someone’s birthday party, come back, and two weeks later start feeling muscle aches and a fever, and two weeks after that were maybe paralyzed, or dead. Then in 1955 the Salk polio vaccine came out. We don’t live that way any more. 

And so, because infectious disease seems like a nonexistent threat, vaccines, even with a tiny potential of harm, are made to seem worse because we don’t realize what happens if we let our vaccine coverage lapse. Well, we’re starting to get a glimpse of it, because the measles rate in the U.S. is shooting up, and we see what happens when vaccine coverage wanes, and in particular, when we lose herd immunity. In every population, some people cannot be vaccinated: infants who are too young, some people who have had transplants and are on immunosuppressive drugs, or the elderly in whom sometimes immunity wanes. Some diseases are so infectious, and measles is famous for this, that about 95 percent of a population must be vaccinated or the disease spreads. If we’re not at that threshold, every newborn is at risk. 

We don’t know what it’s like to live with the genuine risk and fear of those diseases. If you were born in 1970, you’re 56 now, and you literally never lived in a world where these diseases were common. 

Q: One source of resistance to vaccines is not strictly medical, but political and philosophical at one level. This also has a lengthy history, it seems. 

A: Another major theme of the anti-vaccination movement is to argue the question: Who has the right to say that somebody else must put something in their body? Again, all this is not new: In the mid-19th century, in the United Kingdom, there was a requirement that children be vaccinated against smallpox, and these mandates brought immediate opposition as an infringement of liberty. 

In 1850 the country’s top doctor, John Simon, physician to the privy council in England, described the right that people claim against vaccination as the liberty of “omissional infanticide,” that you are killing kids by not protecting them. Where do I stand? This is a philosophical question. Does the state have the right to make me do something because it will make society as a whole safer? I think, “Yes.” We live in societies, we depend on each other for all kinds of things, we aren’t just atomized individuals. But I can understand those who say, “No.” I just think it’s wrong. But it’s an argument that’s winning in some places. What I realized as I worked on this book is that the argument against vaccination on philosophical grounds is a lonely view: I owe nothing to anyone, and nothing owes anything to me. I think it’s a fearful one, too.

Q: For the vaccine hesitant, for those questioning vaccines, what will they get out of this book? 

A: On social media you see some people calling vaccine-hesitant people stupid, but that’s not right. People are busy. We all have daily lives. Get the kids ready for school, pack their lunches, go to work, get home, fix dinner. All of us offload some decisions to people we trust as experts. I have a ton of sympathy and empathy both for people trying to think how to make it through an incredibly complicated world. They hear noise about how vaccines are problematic and there’s no easy way for them to get to the bottom of the issue. That’s an opening the anti-vaccine movement exploits.

I hope my book reaches people who are vaccine hesitant. It’s understandable that people might think that where there’s smoke, there’s fire. But when you get down to the bottom question: Do vaccines help human flourishing, do they support the ability of human beings to live healthy, fulfilled lives? Yes, they do. Unequivocally, they are the greatest lifesaving invention humankind has ever come up with.

Jinhua Zhao MCP ’04, SM ’04, PhD ’09 has been appointed head of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP), effective July 1. Zhao is the Class of 1941 Professor of Cities and Transportation at MIT.

In making the announcement, dean of the MIT School of Architecture and Planning Hashim Sarkis noted that Zhao is a renowned transportation planner, educator, and scholar, and a world leader in imagining and shaping better futures for mobility.

“Jinhua is one of those rare scholars who moves seamlessly between cutting-edge research and real-world policy,” says Sarkis. “His work with governments and transportation agencies around the world is a model for what MIT’s impact can look like beyond our campus.” 

Zhao succeeds Professor Christopher Zegras, who has served as department head since 2020. Under his leadership, DUSP expanded opportunities for students to engage directly with communities and policymakers around the world and continued to strengthen its long-standing connection between research and practice. “I want to extend my gratitude to Chris Zegras for his excellent and level-headed leadership, especially in challenging times,” says Sarkis.

After earning advanced degrees at MIT, Zhao joined the DUSP faculty. He says he found the Institute’s lack of conventionality and its culture of sharing ideas across disciplines stimulating. 

“MIT is a small school in the best sense of the word,” says Zhao. “We have fewer boundaries than other universities — intellectually and physically. Our ‘infinite corridor’ literally connects us to so many disciplines.”  

Shaping mobility systems worldwide 

That connectivity has been key for Zhao’s research and programs he has founded at MIT. Respected as a global authority on mobility, his research has been put into practice across some of the world's most complex mobility challenges. He and his team have shaped policy for Transport for London, the Mass Transit Railway in Hong Kong, and Japan Railways. His research has positively impacted leading U.S. transit authorities including Boston’s MBTA, the Chicago Transit Authority, and Washington’s Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. He has guided strategic planning for mobility industry on the future of autonomous and digital mobility, and developed autonomous vehicle (AV) deployment strategy in Singapore and the Middle East.

“Every city I’ve worked with faces the same tension: The technology is moving faster than the institutions designed to govern it,” says Zhao. “My work has been about closing that gap.”

At MIT, Zhao founded the MIT Mobility Initiative, which engages mobility and transportation researchers across the Institute as well as leaders in these disciplines from around the world. Zhao hosts the weekly MIT Mobility Forum via Zoom, with each discussion open to the public. What began as a small internal list of participants has grown into a global platform, drawing more than 200 practitioners, policymakers, and researchers every week around the world. The sizeable interest in the subject doesn’t surprise Zhao.

“No single discipline owns transportation,” says Zhao. “AI and autonomous systems are reshaping urban living faster than most institutions can adapt. The question is no longer what we know. It is whether the people who need it most — municipal governments, transport agencies, federal ministries — can access it when they make decisions on transportation. This is why the forum exists.”

Zhao directs the JTL Urban Mobility Lab that unites behavioral science and transportation technology to shape travel behavior, design mobility systems, and improve transportation policies. He is also a lead principal investigator with Mens, Manus, and Machina, an MIT initiative at the intersection of artificial intelligence, the future of work, and human learning, developing the tools and strategies for how cities, institutions, and economies can be designed to ensure AI augments, rather than displaces, the people within them.

DUSP’s global agenda

“If you look at the global agenda, what are the issues people are facing?” asks Zhao. “An aging society; AI and its impact on jobs; the energy crisis; traffic congestion. These are just some of the problems people feel connected to because they are embodied in our cities and communities. I want DUSP to engage with the city leaders and share our research and insights.” 

As he prepares to step into his role as department head, Zhao says he would like the research generated within DUSP to more quickly reach those who need it most: the planners, officials, and engineers making decisions in cities right now. A transit authority grappling with AV integration; a city government rethinking aging infrastructure; a leading transport ministry navigating the policy implications of AI — these are the constituencies Zhao believes DUSP should be in active conversation with.

“We know a great deal about how cities grow, how people move, and how that will change. The question is whether the people responsible for making these changes — in city halls, transport agencies, federal ministries — can access what we know, when they need it.”

Last fall, MIT Campus Dining recruited a group of students to make short videos and share their experiences as student diners on Instagram. The MIT Dining Ambassadors program is an effort to get students talking about — and helping to improve — MIT’s food services and systems. 

One of the inaugural ambassadors, Michaela Brown, a biochemical engineering major from Kingston, Jamaica, sat down to discuss what she’s learning as an ambassador, how she has adapted to dining-hall life, the best things about her mom’s cooking, what it was like to experience American Thanksgiving for the first time, and more.

Q: How did you get involved in the Dining Ambassadors program? 

A: Last October, my friend got a job. So I was like, I need to get a job. When I read the description, I said, Wait, this involves food, and talking to people, and posting on Instagram? That’s literally what I do every day. And I wanted to do my part. 

The ambassadors program has clear goals: They want to encourage students to use the dining halls, and they want us to find genuine issues MIT can work on. I wanted to be a part of that. The food at MIT is OK, but everything can be better. And you can’t make things better in any circumstance without trying. Plus — getting paid to eat food and talk? That is good money.

Q: What did you eat growing up? 

A: I love Jamaican food. On Sunday, we do a big dinner. (Well, my mom would do a big dinner; sometimes I would wash the vegetables.) She would cook rice, peas, and vegetables with a sauce, and either fried chicken with sauce or stewed chicken. We would eat that food on Sunday, and then maybe Monday, too. We call it “Sunday-Monday” in Jamaica. 

During the week, we eat flour dumplings, boiled green bananas, and lots of plantains. Sometimes, when my mom is on a health kick, she will boil everything, but plantains are so much better when you fry them! Often, she will serve that with ackee. That’s our national food. And she will cook saltfish or mackerel mixed with coconut milk. She also makes things like corned beef or tuna. On Fridays, we usually go out. 

For special occasions, sometimes we do pork or oxtail. Or sometimes we have escovitch fish; I think you fry it and you steam it. And then we have sides like dumpling, or banana, or bami, which is fried flour. And usually we eat these with okra and pickled onions, and add a little spice with Scotch bonnet pepper. 

And curry chicken! If I am home and I smell the curry, I get so happy. I genuinely feel better about myself. If you’re buying food from a vendor, like fried chicken and rice, you would ask for curry gravy because it is very essential in Jamaican culture. 

Q: What was your first project for the ambassadors program?

A: I did a video about Thanksgiving. I was excited, because it would be my first American Thanksgiving. As a kid in Jamaica, I saw it on TV. I watched Nickelodeon. Also, we learned about it in school. But we didn’t do Thanksgiving in Jamaica. So I was excited.

In the video, I was trying to cater to students who don’t normally celebrate Thanksgiving and show them the experience from a fresh perspective. I brought my friends with me and we all ate together. And luckily everyone thought the food was good. I really wanted to show the food — the mashed potatoes, the turkey, the jelly, the ham, all those things — because I think New Vassar did it really well. I wanted to show that. 

There are a lot of international students at MIT. I didn’t know what MIT was like until I got here. I wanted to show that I came here and liked it. Even while I was missing home, I was being introduced to other cultures — like the one in America — and MIT was helping me appreciate it through food.

Also, I wanted to show the community — being with my friends, giving thanks for the people around me. I really enjoyed that, and I thought it went well. My mom loved it.

Q: What have you done since then? 

A: Usually, I just try to take pictures when I’m in a dining hall and post them on Instagram. You know — regular life.

The other major thing was the global Olympics. Each day over two weeks, they had a special theme at each of the dining halls — Latin American at New Vassar, East Asian at Simmons, African at McCormick, European at Next House, Indian at Massey, and North American and Caribbean at Baker. 

My favorite was Baker, because, well, I’m a little biased. And also, I love the burgers at Baker. 
I told my friends they had to come. A lot of the cooking staff in Baker are Haitian. They would know how food from Haiti and Jamaica should taste. I knew they wouldn’t mess it up. 

I interviewed a lot of students, including two Haitians and one of my Jamaican friends. I asked about the food, about how it compared to regular dining hall meals. They were really positive. I think they liked the change. 

Q: Do you like to cook? 

A: Not really. The summer before I came here, I was like, OK, I’m gonna learn something. 
And then I proceeded to spend the summer out with my friends, and volunteering. So I wasn’t really in the kitchen. My mom would call me to come help her, and when I stepped in the kitchen it was so hot! I was like, I can’t do this, and I went back to my room. 

So I’m not really a cook, even though I live in Burton-Connor. It’s a cook-for-yourself dorm, so it doesn’t have a dining hall. A few weeks ago, I tried to do burritos. I got the beef and the seasoning. It was actually really good! I’m looking forward to it again. It’s just really hard to find the time. 


Q: When you’re posting, who do you imagine is looking at it? 

A: My friends. And my mom. Honestly, I just try to make sure you can understand what I’m saying because sometimes my Jamaican patois comes out, and I talk too fast. I also think about how the people I’m interviewing want to be seen, because this is not their job. They don’t have to be on camera, or help me. I try to make the experience as fun as possible for them. 

Q: What have you learned doing this work?

A: Walking up to strangers and getting their permission to record them is really new to me. I have learned so much about people. The other day, I was looking at a job application and it asked: Are you comfortable talking to other people and being social? This job has prepared me for all that so well. 

It also prepared me for dealing with people who might not be open to talking. I have learned to be OK with that, just walking away and handling it well. This is a skill set that I have now, and I look forward to working more and doing more interviews. I feel like, you know, a YouTuber!

Q: What dining stories do you want to tell next? 

A: I’m not sure. Dining is different for different people. For me personally, sometimes eating is a time to get together with other people. But sometimes I go to the dining hall by myself. It’s very much a time for me to decompress. Sometimes I don’t even want anyone to sit with me. I’m just trying to be with myself, watch my show, or do the learning sequence I have due at 11 o’clock. Or I just watch my TikToks. 

Maybe I’ll do a day-in-my-life dining story next, and go for breakfast at a dining hall. I would have to wake up earlier, but I would do it. 

Corporations harvest and monetize ever-growing amounts of our personal data, such as our browsing history and physical location. One bitter fruit of this poisonous tree is known as “surveillance pricing”: corporations offer the same product to two different people at two different prices, based on scrutiny of these people’s respective personal data.

Surveillance pricing is bad for privacy, equity, and price transparency. So EFF supports a California bill, S.B. 2564, which would ban this creepy practice.

How Surveillance Pricing Works

In 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a report about the practices of six companies that provide surveillance pricing services to hundreds of other companies, including grocery stores and apparel retailers. The report found that surveillance pricing draws upon customers’ browsing history, physical location, and shopping transaction history. Customers’ data can come from the vendor itself, from its surveillance pricing service provider, or from third-party data brokers. Customers are sorted into groups based on their personal data, as is done for targeted ads. As a result of surveillance pricing, a business might offer two customers different prices for the same product, based for example on whether they are a new parent, or whether they live near a business’s competitor.

As former FTC Chair Lina Khan explained:

Initial staff findings show that retailers frequently use people’s personal information to set targeted, tailored prices for goods and services – from a person’s location and demographics, down to their mouse movements on a webpage.

Unfortunately, the current FTC chair closed the FTC’s portal for public comments regarding surveillance pricing. Fortunately, the California Attorney General has initiated its own investigation of this practice.

Researchers have identified many examples of surveillance pricing:

• The Princeton Review offered people who lived in some zip codes a higher price for test prep services, compared to people in other zip codes. As a result, Asians were twice as likely as non-Asians to be offered a higher price.
• In a year-long study of tens of millions of rides in Chicago, Uber and Lyft offered a higher price for trips that ended in neighborhoods with high non-white populations.
• Tindr offered older people (aged 30 to 49) higher prices for Tindr Plus, compared to younger people (aged 18-29).
• Orbitz offered people who used Apple computers a higher price for hotel rooms, compared to people who used other types of computers.
• Hotel booking sites offered people from San Francisco a higher price for hotel rooms, compared to people from other cities.
• Target offered a higher price to people physically located at the store, compared to people located elsewhere.
• Staples offered a higher price to customers who lived further from the company’s competitors, compared to customers who lived closer.

Why EFF Hates Surveillance Pricing

This practice is harmful in many ways. First, surveillance pricing invades our privacy.  Vendors offer us a price only after scrutinizing our personal data about what we’ve clicked online and where we’ve travelled offline. Moreover, surveillance pricing incentivizes all businesses to harvest as much of our personal data as possible. Some businesses will use it for their own surveillance pricing. Other businesses, which might not themselves use it this way, will sell it to data brokers, which in turn will sell it to others for use in surveillance pricing.

Second, surveillance pricing can disparately burden people of color and other vulnerable groups. For example, as described above, surveillance pricing led to Asian people paying more for test prep services, older people paying more for dating services, and people living in non-white neighborhoods paying more for a ride home.

Third, surveillance pricing is opaque. Many people don’t even know when they’ve been subjected to it. Those that do often cannot determine the unknown reasons for the price they’re offered. As a result, consumer advocates will be less able to publish meaningful price comparisons to help consumers make choices. And regulators will be less able to identify unlawful pricing practices.

Thus, EFF and many other groups object to surveillance pricing.

Its defenders sometimes argue that surveillance pricing benefits consumers because it can lead to lower prices. But while some consumers some of the time might get lower prices because of surveillance of their personal data, other consumers will get higher prices, as shown by the examples above. Some recent studies indicate there will be losers and winners based on factors like whether a consumer is willing or able to switch products. Who loses or wins also will turn on the accuracy of the underlying data – yet surveillance pricing is often based on false information.

In any event, both losers and winners of this price discrimination are harmed by surveillance. Privacy is a human right, not a property to be bought and sold on a market. For this reason, EFF has long opposed pay-for-privacy schemes, in which a company charges a higher price to a customer who refuses to submit to processing of their personal data. Thus, even if surveillance pricing sometimes leads to lower prices (and again, it often will not), we oppose it as just another way that corporations try to make customers pay for their privacy.

What the California Bill Would Do

The key term of California’s S.B. 2564 is short and sweet: “a retailer shall not engage in surveillance pricing.”

The banned practice is defined as: “[i] a customized price for a good for a specific consumer or group of consumers, [ii] based, in whole or in part, on personally identifiable information collected through electronic surveillance,” including if that information is “acquired from a third party.” In other words, “surveillance pricing” is a customized price based on personal information.

The bill has two enforcement methods. First, state and local government may bring enforcement actions, and seek all manner of remedies including monetary penalties. Second, individual consumers may bring their own enforcements lawsuits, and seek the remedies of an injunction and attorney fees. We are pleased the bill provides this private right of action, which is the most important method of enforcement (we’d be even more pleased if the private remedies included liquidated damages).

The bill has three exemptions where surveillance pricing is allowed:

• First, for price differences “based solely on costs associated with providing the good to different consumers.”
• Second, for a discount offered to a consumer who is taking steps to terminate a service.
• Third, for a discount, conspicuously posted on a retailer’s website, that is uniformly available based on (1) criteria anyone can meet, such as signing up for a mailing list, (2) membership in a broadly defined group, such as seniors, or (3) participation in a loyalty program.

The bill’s author is California Assembly Member Chris Ward. Its co-sponsors are Consumer Reports and TechEquity. Its supporters include Consumer Federation, EPIC, Kapor Center Advocacy, Oakland Privacy, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, labor unions, and other groups. The bill has advanced through the California Assembly and has arrived for consideration in the California Senate.

Why EFF Supports the California Bill

Surveillance pricing is just one part of a much larger problem: corporations maximizing their profits by invading our privacy. The all-too-common business model is to systematically harvest, collate, and store as much of our personal data as possible, and then monetize it through use and sale.

EFF’s general approach to this problem is a strong regulatory framework that we call “privacy first.” For example, laws should require businesses to “minimize” their data processing, meaning they must not collect, store, use, or disclose our data unless doing so is strictly necessary to give us what we asked for. Likewise, laws should require businesses to get our voluntary and informed opt-in consent before processing our data, buttressed by legal bans on coercive pay-for-privacy schemes and manipulative “dark patterns.”

A.B. 2564 is just a specific application of the minimization rule. Nobody who uses a web browser or a mobile app expects that, as a result, their clicks and footsteps will be funneled into personal dossiers, and later used by downstream businesses to offer a higher or lower price.

A.B. 2564 is also a specific application of the “no pay-for-privacy” rule. At its best, surveillance pricing is a corporate offer of a lower price in exchange for a consumer’s submission to surveillance of their personal data. This scheme encourages all people to surrender their privacy in exchange for a lower price. This is especially coercive for people with lower incomes, and thus carries the risk of creating a society of privacy “haves” and “have nots.” And swept into this supposed “bargain” is the potential for higher surveillance-based prices based on false information or erroneous inferences.

Surveillance pricing is very similar to online behavioral advertising, a business practice that EFF urges governments to ban. Both practices incentivize all businesses to collect as much of our personal data as possible, in order to later monetize it. Both practices lead some businesses to collate and store our data into dossiers about us for later use. Both practices use these surveillance-based dossiers to manipulate and limit our economic choices, by altering the advertisements and prices we see online. In the words of the FTC report discussed above: “Existing and common techniques used for targeted advertising can also be used for other forms of targeting prices.”

Absent a specific ban on surveillance pricing, as in A.B. 2564, it would be very difficult to protect the public from the many harms it causes. Corporate price-setting is increasingly opaque, making it difficult for consumers and regulators to determine whether a particular company set a particular price for a particular consumer based on their data, and if so, the particular data that it used. As a result, it would be very difficult in this context to enforce general laws requiring minimization or consent. Moreover, many such laws exempt how a business processes the data it directly collected from its own customers; for example, the California Consumer Privacy Act’s limits on “cross-context behavioral advertising” do not apply to how a business uses personal data it collected on its own website. Yet many practitioners of surveillance pricing (like Tindr) rely on such data.

Finally, there is little to no risk that A.B. 2564 will have unintended consequences that hurt internet users’ speech or technological innovation. The bill does not address any particular type of technology. It does not limit any collection, retention, or disclosure of personal data. It limits only one very narrow and easily defined use of data: use to set a customized price. And it has three broad exemptions.

In sum, EFF is proud to join with other groups in support of California’s A.B. 2564. You can read our support letter here.

In his 1927 paper, “A law of comparative judgment,” the American psychologist L. L. Thurstone proposed that when people select one option among multiple alternatives, they are picking the one that has the highest value to them, even though they cannot assign a particular number to that choice. 

Thurstone was a pioneer of “psychometrics” — a field built upon the premise that mental processes, which we cannot see, can nevertheless be measured and quantified. His 1927 paper laid the groundwork for what are now called random utility models, which provide a mathematical framework for describing human preferences — information that can be relied upon, in turn, to make predictions about various hypothetical situations.

Random utility models (RUMs) are so named because they assess the “utility,” or benefit, that can be obtained from a given choice — such as deciding which book to read first among the stack of novels you brought back from the library. “These models are inherently random,” explains Gabriele Farina, an assistant professor in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and principal investigator at the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS), “because people are different. Everyone has their own preferences, and even those preferences can vary from time to time.” For example, someone who normally picks coffee over tea in the morning, and prefers tea after dinner, may, upon occasion, mix up that order entirely.

RUMs, to be sure, are frequently used within government and industry in situations of far greater consequence than the selection of a hot (or iced) beverage. The models routinely facilitate predictions regarding what people will elect to do in so-called counterfactual (“what-if”) scenarios such as: How will they get to work or school if a major thoroughfare is shut down for construction? What routes and modes of transport will they take? Or, if a city suddenly receives a windfall of $20 million, how should those funds be disbursed to maximize the common good?

Given that RUMs have been with us for almost 100 years, growing in sophistication over time, one might imagine that, at this stage, there would be little room for improvement. That, however, is not the case. 

A paper presented in April at the International Conference on Learning Representations in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, uncovered basic facts that show there is much more to be gleaned from these models than had traditionally been supposed. The paper was authored by Yeshwanth Cherapanamjeri, a former MIT postdoc now based at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore; Farina, also core faculty in MIT’s Operations Research Center (ORC); Constantinos Daskalakis, the Avanessians Professor of Computer Science at MIT and a member of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory; and Sobhan Mohammadpour, an MIT PhD student in computer science based at LIDS and EECS.

The group’s findings stem, in part, from a deficiency in the way RUMs are commonly estimated in practice, which has persisted since the days of Thurstone. The data upon which the models are estimated have been largely drawn from so-called pairwise-comparisons: In a choice between items A and B — whether it pertains to movies on Netflix, competing products on Amazon.com, news stories posted on Google, and so forth — which one would you pick? One reason this approach has been so pervasive, explains Daskalakis, is that “assigning a precise numerical score, such as 4.37, to the benefit you get from a single item is very hard. Whereas comparing two things, and deciding which one you like better, is cognitively much easier to do.” But therein lies the rub, he adds. “With this way of assessing people’s preferences, looking at just two things at a time, it is impossible to find correlations between the numerous choices.”

The standard way of applying RUMs assumes that the utilities derived from A and B are independent, but they may, in fact, be linked, and that would be important to know. If someone campaigning for elective office finds out that a potential voter favors gun control, for instance, there is a reasonable chance that same person also favors government-sponsored child care. Similarly, a fan of independent movies might also be partial to foreign films, but less enthusiastic about Hollywood action blockbusters. “If a digital platform has a blind eye to the existence of such correlations, it will not be able to estimate preferences very accurately,” Daskalakis notes. “And if Netflix regularly shows you an assortment of movies you don’t care about, you might sign off and cancel your subscription.”

The MIT team proved that it is impossible to get information about correlations from two-way comparisons alone. Correlations can be discerned, however, when large numbers of people rate three alternatives in their order of preference. The same information can also be obtained from a combination of best-of-three and best-of-two choices. In practice, Mohammadpour explains, “you would get a bunch of people to rank three items. You could then utilize the method we developed for merging those individual results into one big model that can provide us with the big picture.”

Their research effort, according to Farina, is focused on the computational side of RUMs, devising algorithms that can extract preference information and figuring out how much data is needed to do so or, equivalently, how many experiments need to be run. The good news, he says, is that efficient algorithms are, indeed, possible for this purpose. The requisite number of experiments does not grow exponentially with the number of items in the catalog or database that’s under review.

“This paper provides a crucial breakthrough,” comments Emma Frejinger, a computer scientist at the University of Montreal. “It mathematically proves why traditional data collection fails and demonstrates that simply asking users for their best-of-three [choices] unlocks the ability to accurately train these powerful models. This finding provides a highly practical roadmap for collecting better data to drive more accurate optimizations.”

“Building utility models is going to remain a very active area,” Daskalakis insists. “Just as RUMs have been critical to the internet economy since the late 1990s, they are, and will remain to be, critical to the alignment of AI models going forward.” More importantly, he adds, “RUMs play a central role in the commercial viability and usefulness of large language models [LLMs].” During the training period, people are typically asked to rank the various candidate outputs of these LLMs, from which the models can gain a better sense as to the kind of text — in terms of tone, style, and content — that is preferred. 

Given that we’re constantly “besieged with a vast sea of options in so many different domains,” Daskalakis says, “you cannot possibly ask people to communicate all their personal preferences for all possible scenarios. So what you can do instead is build a model that predicts what people think about the different possible outcomes. And you have to keep improving and updating your model in an iterative process until, hopefully, you can make good predictions.”

What do EFF staffers Sarah Chen, Javier Morales, Caitlin Chin, Emma Rodriguez, and Mikko Kopponen have in common? 

For one thing, they don’t exist. 

For another, all have been quoted as EFF experts in articles published in the past two months on a site called News-USA Today, which describes itself as “an independent news publisher focused on clear, accurate, and useful journalism.” 

Uh… 

(Please don’t confuse this site with USA Today, in which real EFF experts are accurately quoted on a regular basis.) 

News-USA Today is hardly the only slagheap that’s hallucinating or fabricating EFF personnel and quotes; as we wrote last September, media companies large and small are using AI to generate news content because it’s cheaper than paying for journalists’ salaries, but that savings can come at the cost of the outlets’ reputations— assuming they care about reputation at all. 

But this many fake EFF sources in two months? That’s making a play for the championship title of bogus news content. 

News-USA Today’s site proclaims, “Our goal is simple: give readers the facts and the context they need to make informed decisions.” It then defines its mission:

• “Deliver timely, factual reporting grounded in verifiable sources and public documents.”
• “Make complex topics understandable without losing nuance or accuracy.”
• “Serve the public interest by surfacing stories that affect lives, institutions, and communities.”
• “Maintain a clear separation between news, analysis, opinion, and sponsored content.” 

Attempts to reach contacts listed on the site went unanswered. In fact, after we reached out to them, they published a story on June 9 with quotes from Electronic Frontier Foundation Executive Director Jared Cohen — who also doesn’t exist. 

As we noted last year, EFF is all about having our words spread far and wide. Per our copyright policy, any and all original material on the EFF website may be freely distributed at will under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY), unless otherwise noted.  

However, we don't want disreputable sites making up words (or false identities!) for us, whether or not they’re using AI. False quotations that misstate our positions damage the trust that the public and reputable media outlets have in us.  

The best thing a news consumer can do is invest a little time and energy to learn how to discern the real from the fake. It’s unfortunate that it's the public’s burden to put in this much effort, but while we're adjusting to new tools and a new normal, a little effort now can go a long way.   

As we’ve noted before in the context of election misinformation, the nonprofit journalism organization ProPublica has published a handy guide about how to tell if what you’re reading is accurate or “fake news,” as has FactCheck.org. 

One September day, it started to snow inside MIT’s Pierce Laboratory. 

Researchers depressurized a tank of liquid carbon dioxide (CO2), instantly freezing it and releasing solid flakes. These were blended into cement paste and pressed into discs roughly the size of a dime, each sealed with a thin layer of vegetable oil to keep water in and air out. The team trained lasers on each, observing for the first time the transient chemical reaction that might explain why CO2-injected cement paste gains its strength faster.

Injecting CO2 into cement products like concrete is one way to store it and keep it out of the atmosphere. The process has attracted commercial interest, with a growing number of companies offering CO2-injected concrete mixes. But until now, the underlying cement chemistry hadn't been directly visualized.

A new open-access paper in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society — led by Associate Professor Admir Masic and first-authored by graduate student Marcin Hajduczek, both of the MIT Concrete Sustainability Hub and MIT Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering — describes the chemical sequence that unfolds after CO2 meets fresh cement paste. Co-authors include MIT colleagues Santiago El Awad and Franz-Josef Ulm, alongside researchers from IIT Jodhpur and CarbonCure Technologies.

Previous studies had pieced together a story about CO2 injection’s chemical impacts from theory and indirect evidence; the key reactions simply moved too fast, and vanished too completely, for conventional techniques to catch them in the act. Raman confocal microscopy could — and it works on a simple principle: Illuminate a molecule with a laser, and the scattered light will reveal its identity. The light interacts with each material’s unique chemical bonds, shifting in energy to produce a distinct spectral “fingerprint.” Even the most fleeting and amorphous phases leave a readable trace.

“We’ve used Raman spectroscopy to better understand some of the most interesting materials in history, from the Dead Sea Scrolls to Ancient Roman concrete,” says Masic. “Cement paste may seem less glamorous in comparison, but pointing a laser at CO2-injected cement paste as it hardens allows us to visualize things that haven’t been seen before.”

What they saw, unfolding during 24 hours of continuous scanning, was a three-act chemical drama.

Act One: Capturing calcium

The moment that CO2 is added to the fresh cement paste, it goes to work. It dissolves into the pore solution and reacts with calcium released by the dissolving clinker, precipitating as various forms of calcium carbonate. Clinker is produced by heating limestone and aluminosilicate materials in a kiln, forming the primary ingredient ground into a fine powder to make cement. This happens within the first hour, temporarily slowing the normal hydration reaction, which requires calcium to proceed. 

In contrast, when CO2 is not present, the calcium released by the dissolving clinker remains available locally, supporting the gradual formation of the material’s binding phases as it sets.

Left without calcium, the silicates released by the clinker dissolve into the pore solution and precipitate far from their source, linking together into chains that form an interconnected silica gel network throughout the paste. This amorphous, fleeting gel sets the stage for what follows.

Act Two: The ghostly gel

Once the injected CO2 is fully mineralized — around four to five hours after mixing — normal hydration resumes. Calcium hydroxide begins to precipitate into the pore space, and when it does, it encounters the silica gel network waiting for it.

The reaction between the two phases begins immediately, producing calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H), the compound that gives cement its binding ability. What makes this form of C-S-H distinct is where and how it forms: not clustered around clinker particles as in conventional hydration, but distributed throughout the entire matrix, wherever the silica gel had spread.

The CO2 had temporarily suppressed the paste’s alkalinity, and that lower pH was the only thing keeping the silica-gel intact. As hydration reasserts itself and produces standard hydration products, namely C-S-H and calcium hydroxide, the latter drives pH back up to typical levels in a self-reinforcing loop; the silica-gel reacts with calcium hydroxide through a so-called pozzolanic reaction. Within eight hours, the silica gel is almost entirely gone — the previously well-distributed gel network turns rapidly into additional C-S-H during this critical early window. 

“At first, the fleeting nature of the silica gel looked like a fluke in the Raman data. But it quickly became clear that its sudden disappearance was a consistent, undeniable feature of every CO2-injected sample,” says Hajduczek.

Act Three: A rewired matrix

With the silica gel consumed, the paste settles into conventional hydration, but what it leaves behind is measurably different. Because the new binder was distributed more evenly throughout the cement matrix, the resulting microstructure is stronger and more uniform at an early age. In the study, paste mixed with CO2 at 1 percent by cement weight achieved, on average, 13 percent higher compressive strength at 24 hours, compared to reference mixes.

“We’ve been injecting CO2 into cement products for years without fully understanding what it was doing inside. Now that we can see it and understand the underlying mechanism that leads to improved performance, we can start to control it. And there’s a lot of room to push,” says Masic.

The findings also refine a leading explanation for CO2-injected cement paste’s higher early age strength: the calcium carbonate crystals, previously suspected to seed C-S-H growth, turn out to be passive bystanders embedded in the silica gel template rather than reacting to form C-S-H. 

Where the chemistry goes next

Knowing the mechanism gives researchers a more specific set of questions to pursue. The silica gel template explains the distribution of the new C-S-H, but directly measuring its mechanical properties remains a next step.

On the practical side, dosage matters: Flood the system with too much CO2 and calcium gets locked into carbonate before the gel can form and react. If the paste used here forms abundant C-S-H, it could theoretically offset up to 40 percent of the carbon emissions from cement production, excluding emissions associated with the fossil fuels used in the process. In practice, however, the achievable offset is likely to be only a fraction of that value, although still potentially significant.

But even with these open questions, the ghostly gel has been caught. And now that researchers know what to look for, the chemistry that unfolds in those first eight hours is no longer invisible.

Last June during Pride, we launched a new initiative—LGBT Q&A—where we answered your most pressing queer-related digital rights questions on EFF’s Instagram and TikTok accounts. No question was too big or too small! You asked us things like what pictures to use on dating apps; how to remove your name from internet searches; why homophobic content doesn't get removed after you report it; and how to stay safe at Pride marches.

And this year, we’re doing it all again. 

Both online and offline, LGBTQ+ individuals and the fight for queer liberation are under threat; and the need for guidance and protection from prying eyes and oppressive structures is increasingly pertinent. This is particularly true for those of us who face consequences when intimate details around gender or sexual identities are revealed without consent. 

But we know that it can feel overwhelming to even start thinking about how you can protect yourself online in the face of these issues. That's why this Pride, we’re answering all your digital rights questions. 

How to submit your questions?

• If you would like to remain anonymous and away from social platforms, you can submit questions via this secure link. 
• Head to EFF’s Reddit or the r/LGBTQ subreddit and submit your questions underneath the posts. 
• Your questions can also be submitted under the linked posts on EFF’s Instagram and TikTok, as well as on our stories where you can submit questions directly. 
• If you prefer Mastodon and Bluesky, comment your questions under the linked posts. 

As always, we will not engage with comments that discriminate against marginalized groups, including the LGBTQ+ community.

We’re here to help build an online space where you get to decide what aspects of yourself you share with others, how you present to the world, and what things you keep private. Join us to make the internet private, safe, and full of pride.

The surveillance company Leonardo wants more data:

A surveillance company plans to add sensors to automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) that would mean the devices, as well as capture the license plate of passing vehicles, would also sweep up unique identifiers of mobile phones, wearables, and other Bluetooth-enabled devices in those cars, potentially letting law enforcement identify specific drivers or passengers.

The technology, called SignalTrace, would turn ALPR cameras from devices focused on tracking cars to ones that can more readily track the location of particular people. ALPR cameras have become a commonly deployed technology all across the U.S.; SignalTrace would make some of those cameras capable of collecting much more data...

An emerging field of research that can measure how much climate change has worsened individual disasters is under attack by friends of the fossil fuel industry. Billions of dollars are at stake.

Some progressive primary challengers to Democratic lawmakers are criticizing their opponents over the changes to the state’s climate law.

In a letter to state electricity officials, Gov. Greg Abbott asked for an outline of actions and recommendations by mid-July to help prevent a surge in residential electric costs.

The country's manufacturing investments in other countries fell short.

A top Democrat said Wednesday he wanted to see more movement on renewable energy approvals. A White House official didn’t appear willing to budge.

The modifications came in response to petitions from the oil and gas industry.

As Xavier Becerra and Steve Hilton prepare to face off, environmentalists lament the race that could have been.

A Prague-led coalition warned that Europe’s climate ambitions will become increasingly difficult to achieve if freight continues shifting from rail to road.

Any such move, which would increase costs for airlines, is likely to anger trading partners like the United States.

The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz in early March has driven Asian buyers to look for alternative sources to replace disrupted Persian Gulf barrels.