In the wake of the California State Senate’s passage of S.B. 690, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), TechEquity, Consumer Federation of California, Tech Oversight California, and ACLU California Action issued a joint statement warning that the bill would put the safety and privacy of millions of Californians at serious risk:

“SB 690 gives the green-light to dystopian big tech surveillance practices which will endanger the privacy and safety of all Californians. SB 690 would allow companies to spy on us to get our sensitive personal information, such as our immigration status or what healthcare we’ve received. And once they have our sensitive personal information, SB 690 places no limits on how that business can use or share that information, allowing them to share it with data brokers, immigration officials, or law enforcement officials in states that restrict reproductive or gender-affirming care.

“At a time where agencies of the federal government are actively targeting individuals based on information collected from businesses about their political beliefs, religious affiliations, or health decisions, we cannot risk sharing even more sensitive information with them. The legislature should be doing all it can to protect Californians, not make it easier for the federal government to secretly obtain our sensitive information.”

Background

Coalition Floor Alert Opposing SB 690

Take Action Against SB 690

“Close your eyes and imagine we are on the same team. Same arena. Same jersey. And the game is on the line,” Jaylen Brown, the 2024 NBA Finals MVP for the Boston Celtics, said to a packed room of about 200 people at the recent Day of Climate event at the MIT Museum.

“Now think about this: We aren’t playing for ourselves; we are playing for the next generation,” Brown added, encouraging attendees to take climate action. 

The inaugural Day of Climate event brought together local learners, educators, community leaders, and the MIT community. Featuring project showcases, panels, and a speaker series, the event sparked hands-on learning and inspired climate action across all ages.

The event marked the celebration of the first year of a larger initiative by the same name. Led by the pK-12 team at MIT Open Learning, Day of Climate has brought together learners and educators by offering free, hands-on curriculum lessons and activities designed to introduce learners to climate change, teach how it shapes their lives, and consider its effects on humanity. 

Cynthia Breazeal, dean of digital learning at MIT Open Learning, notes the breadth of engagement across MIT that made the event, and the larger initiative, possible with contributions from more than 10 different MIT departments, labs, centers, and initiatives. 

“MIT is passionate about K-12 education,” she says. “It was truly inspiring to witness how our entire community came together to demonstrate the power of collaboration and advocacy in driving meaningful change.”

From education to action 

The event kicked off with a showcase, where the Day of Climate grantees and learners invited attendees to learn about their projects and meaningfully engage with lessons and activities. Aranya Karighattam, a local high school senior, adapted the curriculum Urban Heat Islands — developed by Lelia Hampton, a PhD student in electrical engineering and computer science at MIT, and Chris Rabe, program director at the MIT Environmental Solution Initiative — sharing how this phenomenon affects the Boston metropolitan area. 

Karighattam discussed what could be done to shield local communities from urban heat islands. They suggested doubling the tree cover in areas with the lowest quartile tree coverage as one mitigating strategy, but noted that even small steps, like building a garden and raising awareness for this issue, can help.

Day of Climate echoed a consistent call to action, urging attendees to meaningfully engage in both education and action. Brown, who is an MIT Media Lab Director’s Fellow, spoke about how education and collective action will pave the way to tackle big societal challenges. “We need to invest in sustainability communities,” he said. “We need to invest in clean technology, and we need to invest in education that fosters environmental stewardship.”

Part of MIT’s broader sustainability efforts, including The Climate Project, the event reflected a commitment to building a resilient and sustainable future for all. Influenced by the Climate Action Through Education (CATE), Day of Climate panelist Sophie Shen shared how climate education inspired her civic life. “Learning about climate change has inspired me to take action on a wider systemic level,” she said.

Shen, a senior at Arlington High School and local elected official, emphasized how engagement and action looks different for everyone. “There are so many ways to get involved,” she said. “That could be starting a community garden — those can be great community hubs and learning spaces — or it could include advocating to your local or state governments.”

Becoming a catalyst for change 

The larger Day of Climate initiative encourages young people to understand the interdisciplinary nature of climate change and consider how the changing climate impacts many aspects of life. With curriculum available for learners from ages 4 to 18, these free activities range from Climate Change Charades — where learners act out words like “deforestation” and “recycling” — to Climate Change Happens Below Water, where learners use sensors to analyze water quality data like pH and solubility.

Many of the speakers at the event shared personal anecdotes from their childhood about how climate education, both in and out of the classroom, has changed the trajectory of their lives. Addaline Jorroff, deputy climate chief and director of mitigation and community resilience in the Office of Climate Resilience and Innovation for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, explained how resources from MIT were instrumental in her education as a middle and high schooler, while Jaylen Brown told how his grandmother helped him see the importance of taking care of the planet, through recycling and picking up trash together, when he was young.

Claudia Urrea, director of the pK-12 team at Open Learning and director of Day of Climate, emphasizes how providing opportunities at schools — through new curriculum, classroom resources and mentorship — are crucial, but providing other educational opportunities also matter: in particular, opportunities that support learners in becoming strong leaders.

“I strongly believe that this event not only inspired young learners to take meaningful action, both large and small, towards a better future, but also motivated all the stakeholders to continue to create opportunities for these young learners to emerge as future leaders,” Urrea says.

The team plans to hold the Day of Climate event annually, bringing together young people, educators, and the MIT community. Urrea hopes the event will act as a catalyst for change — for everyone.

“We hope Day of Climate serves as the opportunity for everyone to recognize the interconnectedness of our actions,” Urrea says. “Understanding this larger system is crucial for addressing current and future challenges, ultimately making the world a better place for all.”

The Day of Climate event was hosted by the Day of Climate team in collaboration with MIT Climate Action Through Education (CATE) and Earth Day Boston.

When people think of MIT, they may first think of code, circuits, and cutting-edge science. But the school has a rich history of interweaving art, science, and technology in unexpected and innovative ways — and that’s never been more clear than with the Institute’s latest festival, Artfinity: A Celebration of Creativity and Community at MIT.

After an open-call invitation to the MIT community in early 2024, the inaugural Artfinity delivered an extended multi-week exploration of art and ideas, with more than 80 free performing and visual arts events between Feb. 15 and May 2, including a two-day film festival, interactive augmented reality art installations, an evening at the MIT Museum, a simulated lunar landing, and concerts by both student groups and internationally renowned musicians. 

“Artfinity was a fantastic celebration of MIT’s creative excellence, offering so many different ways to explore our thriving arts culture,” says MIT president Sally Kornbluth. “It was wonderful to see people from our community getting together with family, friends, and neighbors from Cambridge and Boston to experience the joy of music and the arts.”

Among the highlights were a talk by Tony-winning scenic designer Es Devlin, a concert by Grammy-winning rapper and visiting scholar Lupe Fiasco, and a series of events commemorating the opening of the Edward and Joyce Linde Music Building.

Devlin shared art tied to her recent spring residency at MIT as the latest honoree of the Eugene McDermott Award in the Arts. Working with MIT faculty, students, and staff, she inspired a site-specific installation called “Face to Face,” in which more than 100 community members were paired with strangers to draw each other. In recent years, Devlin has focused her work on fostering interpersonal connection, as in her London multimedia exhibition “Congregation,” in which she drew 50 people displaced from their homelands and documented their stories on video.

Fiasco’s May 2 performance centered around a new project inspired by MIT’s public art collection, developed this year in collaboration with students and faculty as part of his work as a visiting scholar and teaching the class “Rap Theory and Practice.” With the backing of MIT’s Festival Jazz Ensemble, Fiasco presented original compositions based on famed campus sculptures such as Alexander Calder’s La Grande Voile [The Big Sail] and Jaume Plensa’s Alchemist, with members of the MIT Rap Ensemble also jumping on board for many of the pieces. Several students in the ensemble also spearheaded complex multi-instrument arrangements of some of Fiasco’s most popular songs, including “The Show Goes On” and “Kick, Push.” 

Artfinity’s programming also encompassed an eclectic mix of concerts commemorating the new Linde Music Building, which features the 390-seat Tull Hall, rehearsal rooms, a recording studio, and a research lab to help support a new music technology graduate program launching this fall. Events included performances of multiple student ensembles, the Boston Symphony Chamber Players, the Boston Chamber Music Society, Sanford Biggers’ group Moonmedicin, and Grammy-winning jazz saxophonist Miguel Zenón, an assistant professor of music at MIT.

“Across campus, from our new concert hall to the Great Dome, in gallery spaces and in classrooms, our community was inspired by the visual and performing arts of the Artfinity festival,” says MIT provost Cynthia Barnhart. “Artfinity has been an incredible celebration and display of the collective creativity and innovative spirit of our community of students, faculty, and staff.” 

A handful of other Artfinity pieces also made use of MIT’s iconic architecture, including Creative Lumens and Media Lab professor Behnaz Farahi’s “Gaze to the Stars.” Taking place March 12–14 and coinciding with the total lunar eclipse, the large-scale video projections illuminated a wide range of campus buildings, transforming the exteriors of the new Linde Music Building, the MIT Chapel, the Stratton Student Center, the Zesiger Sports & Fitness Center, and even the Great Dome, which Farahi’s team affixed with images of eyes from the MIT community.

Other popular events included the MIT Museum’s After Dark series and its Argus Installation, which examined the interplay of light and hand-blown glass. A two-day Bartos Theatre film festival featured works by students, staff, and faculty, ranging from shorts to 30-minute productions, and spanning the genres of fiction, nonfiction, animation, and experimental pieces. The Welcome Center also hosted “All Our Relations,” a multimedia celebration of MIT's Indigenous community through song, dance, and story.

An Institute event, Artfinity was organized by the Office of the Arts, and led by professor of art, culture, and technology Azra Akšamija and Institute Professor of Music Marcus A. Thompson. Both professors spoke about the importance of spotlighting the arts and demonstrating a diverse breadth and depth of programming for future iterations of the event.

“People think of MIT as a place you go to only for technology. But, in reality,  MIT has always attracted students with broad interests and required them to explore balance in their programs with substantive world-class offerings in the humanities, social sciences, and visual and performing arts,” says Thompson. “We are hoping this festival, Artfinity, will showcase the infinite variety and quality we have been offering and actually doing in the arts for quite some time.”

Professor of music and theater art Jay Scheib sees the mix of art and technology as a way for students to explore other ways for them to approach different research challenges. “In the arts, we tend to look at problems in a different way … framed by ideas of aesthetics, civic discourse, and experience,” says Scheib. “This approach can help students in physics, aerospace design, or artificial intelligence to ask different, yet equally useful, questions.”

An Institute-sponsored campus-wide event organized by the Office of the Arts, Artfinity represents MIT’s largest arts festival since its 150th anniversary in 2011. Akšamija, who is director of MIT’s Art, Culture, and Technology (ACT) program, says that the festival serves as both a student spotlight and an opportunity to interact with, and meaningfully give back to, MIT’s surrounding community in Cambridge and greater Boston.

“What became evident during the planning of this festival was the quantity and quality of art here at MIT, and how much of that work is cutting-edge,” says Akšamija. “We wanted to celebrate the creativity and joyfulness of the brilliant minds on campus [and] to bring joy and beauty to MIT and the surrounding community.”

With a dramatic victory in the 4x400m relay, the MIT women's track and field team clinched the 2025 NCAA Division III Outdoor Track and Field National Championship May 24 at the SPIRE Institute's Outdoor Track and Field facility. The title was MIT's first NCAA women's outdoor track and field national championship. The team scored first of 79 with 56 points; runners-up included Washington University with 47 points and the University of Winsconsin at La Crosse with 38 points.

With the victory, MIT completed a sweep of the 2024-25 NCAA Division III women's cross country, indoor track and field, and outdoor track and field titles — becoming the first women's program to sweep all three in the same year.

MIT earned 20 All-America honors across three days, including the program's first relay national championship in the 4x400m on Saturday and Alexis Boykin's eighth career national title with an NCAA record-breaking performance in the shot put on Friday.

On Thursday, Boykin opened the championships with a third-place performance in the discus as MIT quickly moved to the top of the team leaderboard on the first day of competition. Boykin and classmate Emily Ball each earned a spot on the podium. Boykin was third with a throw of 45.12m (148' 0") on her second attempt and Ball was seventh with a mark of 41.90m (137' 5") on her final throw of prelims.

In the pole vault, junior Katelyn Howard tied for fifth, clearing 3.85m (12' 7.5") to pick up three points for MIT. Howard passed on the first height and cleared at both 3.75m and 3.85m, but did not pass the fourth progression. Classmate Hailey Surace was 14th, clearing 3.75m (12' 3.5").

Junior Elaine Wang picked up a big point with an eighth-place finish for MIT in the javelin. Wang's second attempt traveled 40.44m (132' 8"), moving her into sixth place. She would eventually finish in eighth on the strength of her second attempt.  

The opening day concluded with junior Kate Sanderson finishing fourth with a personal best of 34:48.601 in the 10,000m to earn a spot on the podium, as MIT continued to lead the team standings. 

On Friday, Boykin returned on day two and set the NCAA Division III women's shot put all-time record, winning her eighth career national championship with a throw of 16.80m (55’ 1/2”). Boykin won the event by over 2 meters, breaking Robyn Jarocki's NCAA Division III record on her final preliminary attempt with a throw of 16.80m.

MIT wrapped action with the 3,000m Steeplechase final, where sophomore Liv Girand finished in 10th place in 10:58.71 to earn the first All-America honor of her career. MIT continued to lead the team standings at the end of the second day of competition.

On Saturday, Boykin earned her third All-America honor in three events at the championships with a third-place finish in the hammer with a throw of 58.79m (192' 10”), while junior Nony Otu Ugwu took 10th with a jump of 11.91m (39' 1") on her final attempt of prelims. Otu Ugwu did not advance to the final.

MIT shined on the track to secure the title, as grad student Gillian Roeder and senior Christina Crow picked up seven big points in the 1,500m final. Roeder was fifth in 4:27.76 and Crow was one spot back, finishing sixth in 4:28.81.

Senior Marina Miller followed and picked up six more points while earning the first of two All-America honors on the day with a third-place finish and a personal record of 54.32 in the 400m.

Junior Rujuta Sane, Roeder, and junior Kate Sanderson finished 13th, 14th, and 16th, respectively, in the 5,000m. Sane had a time of 16:51.45, with Roeder finishing in 16:54.07 and Sanderson clocking in at 17:00.55.

With MIT leading second-place Washington University by seven points heading into the final event, MIT's 4x4 relay team of senior Olivia Dias, junior Shreya Kalyan, junior Krystal Montgomery, and Miller left no doubt, securing the team championship with a national title of their own, as Miller moved from third to first over the final 50m to win an electric final race.

You can read the details of Operation Spiderweb elsewhere. What interests me are the implications for future warfare:

If the Ukrainians could sneak drones so close to major air bases in a police state such as Russia, what is to prevent the Chinese from doing the same with U.S. air bases? Or the Pakistanis with Indian air bases? Or the North Koreans with South Korean air bases? Militaries that thought they had secured their air bases with electrified fences and guard posts will now have to reckon with the threat from the skies posed by cheap, ubiquitous drones that cFan be easily modified for military use. This will necessitate a massive investment in counter-drone systems. Money spent on conventional manned weapons systems increasingly looks to be as wasted as spending on the cavalry in the 1930s...

The White House proposal would slash funding for the science division from $7.3 billion to $3.9 billion.

Marcia McNutt offered a grim assessment without mentioning the president’s assault on science.

The West Virginia governor said he will urge President Trump to get “the science right.”

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the acting administrator's remarks about there not being a hurricane season was a joke.

The Supreme Court is being asked to deny the oil giant's effort to dismiss a record fine — and a key pollution finding.

The EU’s scientific advisers warned Monday that expected plans to outsource some emissions cuts would undermine the bloc’s climate credibility.

The former California governor delivered his message for environmentalists despairing over President Donald Trump's recent regulation rollbacks.

They now widely regard ESG as three separate parts as opposed to a single strategy, according to a survey by Morningstar.

The queuing system at the busiest U.S. seaport complex can cut carbon dioxide emissions by 24 percent per voyage between East Asia and California.

Many in Silicon Valley, and in U.S. business at large, seem to believe innovation springs only from competition, a race to build the next big thing first, cheaper, better, best. But what if collaboration and community breeds innovation just as well as adversarial competition?

%3Ciframe%20height%3D%2252px%22%20width%3D%22100%25%22%20frameborder%3D%22no%22%20scrolling%3D%22no%22%20seamless%3D%22%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fplayer.simplecast.com%2Ffb16baef-bf64-4c2b-9069-ad1dfaade04b%3Fdark%3Dtrue%26amp%3Bcolor%3D000000%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from simplecast.com

    

(You can also find this episode on the Internet Archive and on YouTube.)

Isabela Fernandes believes free, open-source software has helped build the internet, and will be key to improving it for all. As executive director of the Tor Project – the nonprofit behind the decentralized, onion-routing network providing crucial online anonymity to activists and dissidents around the world – she has fought tirelessly for everyone to have private access to an uncensored internet, and Tor has become one of the world's strongest tools for privacy and freedom online.  

Fernandes joins EFF’s Cindy Cohn and Jason Kelley to discuss the importance of not just accepting technology as it’s given to us, but collaboratively breaking it, tinkering with it, and rebuilding it together until it becomes the technology that we really need to make our world a better place. 

In this episode you’ll learn about:

• How the Tor network protects the anonymity of internet users around the world, and why that’s so important 
• Why online privacy is NOT only for “people who have something to hide” 
• The importance of making more websites friendly and accessible to Tor and similar systems 
• How Tor can actually benefit law enforcement  
• How free, open-source software can power economic booms 

Isabela Fernandes has been executive director of the Tor Project since 2018; she had been a project manager there since 2015.  She also has served since 2023 as a board member of both European Digital Rights – an association of civil and human rights organizations aimed at building a people-centered, democratic society – and The Engine Room, a nonprofit that supports social justice movements to use technology and data in safe, responsible and strategic ways, while actively mitigating the vulnerabilities created by digital systems. Earlier, Fernandes worked as a product manager for Twitter; Latin America project manager for North by South, which offered open-source technology integration to companies using  expertise of Latin American free software specialists; as a project manager for Brazil’s President, overseeing migration of the IT department to free software; and as a technical advisor to Brazil’s Ministry of Communications, creating and implementing new features and free-software tools for the National Digital Inclusion Program serving 3,500 communities. She’s a former member of the board of the Calyx Institute, an education and research organization devoted to studying, testing and developing and implementing privacy technology and tools to promote free speech, free expression, civic engagement and privacy rights on the internet and in the mobile telephone industry. And she was a cofounder and longtime volunteer with Indymedia Brazil, an independent journalism collective. 

Resources: 

• “We Are Making the Tech We Want” panel discussion at The Tech We Want online summit (Oct. 17, 2024) 
• Help Net Security: “Delivering privacy in a world of pervasive digital surveillance: Tor Project’s Executive Director speaks out” (Aug. 2, 2023) 
• EFF: “EFF Now Has Tor Onions” (Apr. 26, 2023)
• Marco Civil Law of the Internet in Brazil 
• EFF’s Tor University Challenge

What do you think of “How to Fix the Internet?” Share your feedback here.

Transcript

ISABELA FERNANDES: If Tor is successful, the internet would be built by its heart, right? Like the elements that Tor carries, which is community, which is decentralization. Instead of having everything focused on a few small companies would be more distributed. I come from the free software world, so I am always excited with, and I have lived at moments.
In my life where I saw I could touch it, I could touch the moment where the source code would be shared and multiple areas of society would benefit from it. Collaboration allows amazing innovation. We are here today because of free software. If it wasn't for that, we would not be here today.

CINDY COHN: That's Isabela Fernandes, head of the Tor Project, describing the beautiful promise of collaboration, community and innovation that is instilled in the free software world – and the important role it plays as we look forward to that better future we’re always talking about on this show.
I'm Cindy Cohn, the executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

JASON KELLEY: And I'm Jason Kelley, EFF's Activism Director. This is our podcast series, How to Fix the Internet.

CINDY COHN: The idea behind this show is that we're trying to make our digital lives BETTER. You know, a big part of our job at EFF is to envision the ways things can go wrong online-- and then of course jumping into action to help when things then DO go wrong.
But this show is about optimism, hope and solutions – we want to share visions of what it looks like when we start to get it right.

JASON KELLEY: And our guest today is someone whose vision of getting it right is stronger than most.

CINDY COHN: Isabela Fernandes has been an important presence in the security and free software communities for a really long time now.
She's been the executive director at the Tor project since 2018, and before that she was a product manager there. And I'm happy to say that when I was on the board of the Tor project, I was one of the board members that strongly recommended Isa for the executive director role.
She was and continues to be not only a brilliant mind, but a skilled executor. With the Tor Project providing a model for an open source tool that works, is trusted and literally saves lives around the world. We are so thrilled to have her here. Welcome, Isa.

ISABELA FERNANDES: Hi. Thank you.

JASON KELLEY: We're really excited to talk to you and I wanted to start, if I could, with some basics. I think a lot of our audience, you know, has heard of Tor. Maybe they know what the Tor browser is. But some of these things pop up and I think, you know, some people don't know the difference between. A torrent and a tour browser and like what the tour project actually works on. So what is the Tor Project? What are the tools that you’re sort of responsible for creating and maintaining there?

ISABELA FERNANDES: So the Tor Project is actually a non-profit. And our mission is to advance human rights through the technology that we build, right?
So Tor is very similar to a VPN, but much better. We have a decentralized network that is run by volunteers, that whenever you are making a connection to a service or a website, our network will route you through three servers and it's gonna encrypt it every step of the way. And because of this architecture, it's not centralized on anyone or any entity.
It's completely decentralized to thousands of servers around the world. And we also have the Tor browser, which is a fork of Firefox, and what the Tor browser does besides making it easier for you to connect to the to network, it protects your privacy on the device level, so it blocks third party cookies, it also protects you against fingerprinting tracking and other ways that your device identity can leak.

JASON KELLEY: Okay, so just to dig in and make sure I understand, if I'm on a VPN I'm, you know, basically connecting to another server. And all of my connections are going through that. And usually I can, like, pick where they are from a short list of, you know, potential servers in cities and countries.
But with Tor, I don't choose where I'm going or what those three connections are, but it adds that extra layer of protection because three is better than one. But, but why is that? I'm just like, I wonder for the audience who might not know, you know, why three, why not five, or why not two?

ISABELA FERNANDES: Right, so, three, mainly because, so it works like this, right? Like the first server will know who you are because you're connecting to Tor –

JASON KELLEY: Sure, ok.

ISABELA FERNANDES: But it does not know what you are requesting. The middle one does not know who you are and have no idea about what you are requesting, and the exit one, the third one, only knows that someone on the internet is requesting to open a website,

JASON KELLEY: Got it.

ISABELA FERNANDES: So that count is great because if it was only two, that information you, you would still have some way to discover it and to understand where the information is coming from and where it is going.
So three, it is indeed a sweet number for you to have the level of privacy and that we want without building more latency to the connection.

JASON KELLEY: Okay. And then I'm gonna ask one more question. Um. About the technical aspect. Over the last like decade plus, most of the web has become encrypted. The HTTP level has become HTTPS, and that's something that EFF has worked on with our Certbot project, and Let's Encrypt. And if I'm not super familiar with the difference between, you know, how HTTPS is encrypted versus what TOR is doing.
Why do I still need to use Tor? What is it saving? What, how is it protecting my privacy if, if, quote unquote, the web is already encrypted?

ISABELA FERNANDES: Um, let's give this example, right? Like HTTPS would be encrypting your connection to the website. So when you do, you type your username or password, that information is encrypted. However, the server who is watching still would know who you are and where you're coming from. With Tor, you gain that other layer of protection, right? Like, nobody would know who you are and where you like, uh, and what you are requesting except for the website. So it protects you from outside watchers who might be surveilling your connection, also protects you from other tracking mechanisms on the internet.
So the ideal scenario is for you to use both. Right, like it's for you to not only use Tor, but make sure that you're connected to a website that has HTTPS as well.

JASON KELLEY: Wow. Okay. That's really helpful. Thank you so much. I feel like I'm getting tech tech support from the literal executive director of the Tor Project, but I think a lot of people you know that come to us at EFF for privacy or security recommendations really do not understand some of these, you know, somewhat basic things that you're describing about the difference between proxies and encrypted sites and VPNs and Tor, and, um, I think it's just really important for people to know how these different tools work, because they're always, you know, different tools function for different purposes, right.

CINDY COHN: Yeah. And it's, you know, security is hard. It actually requires, I mean, it would be great if there was a one size fits all security. And I think that if you look at all the pieces that Tor’s building, they're, they're moving towards that.
I want us to talk a little bit more about the why of Tor, 'cause we've really outlined the how of Tor, and I wanna give you a chance to kind of debunk one of the arguments that we hear all the time at EFF, which is, you know, why do people need all this security? If you're not doing anything wrong, you know, why should you worry? Um, or is it all just hopeless and shouldn't I just give up?
But let's start with the first one, and I know that you've done a lot of work at Tor trying to really think hard about who needs these tools, who uses these tools in a way that's privacy protective. So I wonder if you could outline a little bit of kind of what you guys know about who uses Tor and why.

ISABELA FERNANDES: There is a spectrum, and I always like to give examples from the two sides of this spectrum. We collect a lot of anonymous stories from users, and let's call this one Brian. So we have Brian. He’s a father and he has two teenage kids at home.
And, uh, you know, as teenagers, they have questions about everything, right? Like about sex, gender, drugs, everything. So he recommends his kids to use Tor when they're searching for those topics on the internet. And sometimes he needs to search some topics himself. You know, like the kids bring a topic that he had no idea what it is about.
So they use Tor to make sure that those searches does not follow those teenage kids for the rest of their lives. Right. Like it's not tagged to them for the rest of their life. So we recommend his kids to use Tor. And then you have on the other side of the spectrum, um, let's call her Carolina.
Carolina is a woman in Uganda. Uh, she's a lesbian. And in Uganda, you can face criminal charge for that. So Carolina just wants to have a normal social online life. And because it's so dangerous in Uganda for her, she really needs to make sure that she's protected and anonymous online when she's interacting with her friends or just looking for topics that is related to her lifestyle. So she used Tor to be safe online, uh, to just have a normal social life on the internet. We did a research, which I thought was very interesting. We put a question on a browser, it was anonymous and anyone could answer.
And we had like a, almost like a 55,000 people answering that question and was how often you use Tor, the Tor browser. And actually more than half of that said that they use one, uh, a few times a day or a few times a week. And that for me says a lot, right? Like it's for those moments where you're like, okay, this, I will want to do on Tor. I don't want the rest of the internet to collect this information and restore it and attach that to my behavior profile.
And that for me, it's what is important, right? Like if people may think that everything is lost and there is no reason to do that. And I think the other way around, I think, uh, it is possible for you to create black spots about your behavior online. And that's what tools like Tor can allow you to do, right? Like you can, uh, create some black spots about you on the internet that protects your privacy.
I think today people do care a lot about their privacy and one example about, which is related to privacy that I always bring to people, it's how dangerous it is to compare the need and the right to be anonymous. With the need to hide something that you don't want others to know or some illegal activity, because anonymity is actually one of the pillars of our democracy. Your vote is anonymous for a reason. So for you to exercise your citizen rights, you need to have privacy.

CINDY COHN: Yep. I think that's exactly right. And I also think we're living in times when things are moving so fast about who's at risk and who's not at risk, that a lot of people are waking up to the fact that just because you might not need privacy in one zone of your life or in one time that we're living in, doesn't mean that that can't change really quickly.
And having the tools available and ready and working is one of the things that we can do – we meaning people in tech – to make sure that as times change, people have the tools that they need to stay safe and to stay protected, and to, to organize, you know, opposition, to organize for change.

Musical transition

CINDY COHN: I think that this is happening a lot, but I'm wondering how you think about helping people reclaim the idea that privacy isn't something we should be ashamed of, that privacy is something that we should be proud of.
I hear you say, and I think that's totally right, it's a pillar of an open and self-governing world. How do you help convince people about that?

ISABELA FERNANDES: Let me step by for a second. Every time, like you might have like heard this from multiple people, right? Like they complain about ads following them, or give an example. Oh, I, I was talking with my friend about bicycles and now all these bicycles ads are showing up, my phone is listening to me.
Right? Like, so I think those are the perfect moment for you to go deeper into the matter of privacy, right? Like, imagine if it was not bicycles, imagine if it was about a government decision that you were talking about, right? That is the moment, right? Like you need to connect with people when they are presenting to you the problem.
So it's, it's fundamental, right? Like that makes super, super easy for someone to understand. But the next step in it is like they ask you how, how do I protect myself. And sometimes I feel like, uh, our work at Tor is not only to create tools. But to make it easier for people to use, it needs to be friendly, it needs to be familiar, right?
Like, uh, that's why the Tor browser is super nice because it's just like any other browser. People hear about Tor and they think it's like, oh, it is this hacker tool that I need to have a special excuse to use. No, it's just like any other browser that you open and you use and you can use on your phone, you can use anywhere.
So it is extremely important to bring awareness when people are identifying the problem, even if it is in an informal conversation or in a more, uh, global conversation, right? Like sometimes those problems arise in global news. Uh, we have multiple, uh, examples of that. Cambridge Analytica was one of it.
And, um, at those, those moments, we need to learn how to connect. But when we connect, we need to also be able to provide solutions that it's easy and familiar to people so they can have hope. They can look at it and they can say, okay, I can control this, right? Like, I can control, I can protect myself, I can protect my privacy.
And those elements come in altogether, right? Like it's not, uh, a one, uh, catchphrase that will make it happen. You need to combine all those elements in the process, right? So it's doesn't seem too hard and people feel empowered to have agency to take action.

CINDY COHN: Yep. I think that's right. So what we try to do in this podcast is kind of flip the script and think about what would the world look like if we got it. All right. So what would the world look like if Tor was immensely successful? What's your vision of the world where we get this right.

ISABELA FERNANDES: In the case of Tor, I think, uh, one thing would be that service and websites, they are friendly to Tor. So if a user is coming to connect to an application, or to a website, that website would know it and would be friendly to it. This is one of the biggest problems right now, right? Like some websites are not friendly to Tor or solutions like Tor. So that would be number one, right?

CINDY COHN: Yep.

ISABELA FERNANDES: So if Tor is successful, we would have an internet or a world with technology, right? Like, to go a little bit the on internet where technology is driven by sharing, by collaboration and the model of it. It's not about the data. And the business model of it would, it can be unique to each case of services, but would not necessarily be the typical one That is the easy one between quotes of let's collect all the data, either to use it for advertise or sell it to, uh, data brokers so we can make some money out of it. Right?
Like, uh, I think that if Tor would be successful, we would have the philosophy of Tor being part of the heart of what it's building, the technology worldwide.

CINDY COHN: Yeah, I think that's great. Um, in some ways, you know, Tor wouldn't need to exist as a separate project because the Tor values would be built into everything. And what I hear there is that that also includes the way Tor has been developed, the open source collaborative, transparent process by which tools were developed would be part of what gets baked in - it's a good vision.

Music transition

JASON KELLEY: Let’s take a quick moment to say thank you to our sponsor.
How to Fix the Internet is supported by The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation’s Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology. Enriching people’s lives through a keener appreciation of our increasingly technological world and portraying the complex humanity of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians.
We also want to thank EFF members and donors. You are the reason we exist. We will talk a little later in this episode about how important funding from the community is to the work that we do. You can become a member of EFF’s community for just $25.
The more members we have, the more power we have - in statehouses, courthouses, and on the streets. EFF has been fighting for digital rights for decades, and that fight is bigger than ever, so please, if you like what we do, go to eff.org/pod to donate.
And now, back to our conversation with Isabela Fernandes and the impact that free software and the community of people making it has had on her life.

ISABELA FERNANDES: I was raised by free software. Everything I know comes from this, from not only the software itself but the community. So all my skills come from it. So, uh, in the early 2000s, I joined a volunteer network, Colored in the Media was an independent news website, globe-wide. Uh, I built the one for Brazil and we did everything, uh, with free software, right?
Like it was an open publish website. When I explain to people nowadays about it, like you didn't need a username or password to publish your article on that platform, and we have hundreds of those sites around the world, and I did this work for 10 years because I really believe in the democratization of information, and I saw the internet as the root of it. And I saw how powerful that was because it was the beginning of the internet in many parts of the world, here in Brazil was just starting, and not everybody had a connection, and here we were with this powerful tool to democratize, uh, communication in Brazil.
And through that experience, I was invited to work for the federal government in, uh, series of free software initiatives being one of them, in digital inclusion, we would build solutions to communities, um, was a basket of solutions and that was from online stores, uh, they could sell their own products online, uh, to Voiceover IP. At the time it was like there was no cell phones. I'm talking about 2003, uh, like 2004. There was no cell phone.
I arrived to a community one month after they had power for the first time in their life, and I was bringing internet, you know, like, and I'm like, okay, you have internet. What do you want? They didn't have a phone number, a phone line, so I created Voiceover IP. I was like, you can call anywhere in Brazil with this computer. And there was a line with 20 people right away to make phone calls. But that's, we were doing this, we were like going to, uh, the favelas in Brazil and collecting all the teenagers and saying ‘what do you want?’ Like, ‘oh, I wanna record my music.’ And we were recording the music on CDs using everything, free software. Some communities were like, we wanna, uh, document because they have a lot of, uh, folklore stories that is only oral and they wanted to document it. We created a wiki for them to document it. So, education, go to public schools – we did a lot of that with free software. And at the same time, why this was possible, right? Like was because of the culture that was changing. The culture was, okay, we are not gonna use proprietary software anymore. We are not gonna use the money from the country that we barely have to pay for this big, super expensive license.
Instead, we are gonna use this money to invest on the people, to invest on computer science, the students to invest on conventions, free software meetups, uh, to invest on InstallFest. And we start to do that. And we had like a huge technology boom in Brazil from the private sector, like I said, from the government, from universities, everybody was collaborating.
There was a lot of companies being created to provide different types of service or to maintain software, there was a lot of different business being generated out of it as well.
So I could touch it, I could see it. It is possible. We could like we can do it. Right? Like I actually am always very excited when I, and right now I'm seeing a movement again in Brazil, it's not too public yet, but that is a movement like this, with hundreds of organizations debating and building a strategy to recreate that inside of the country.
So it is possible to build a better world with technology, right? Like better versions of technology for us. It's not a mission impossible thing. It is totally possible.

JASON KELLEY: And it's not the distant past really. I mean, sometimes when you talk about it, like I'm, I was alive at the time, but not, you know, not old enough to be involved in that. And it does sometimes sound like a kind of golden era that's lost forever to people. And it's, it's really great to hear that it's, maybe it's something that's cyclical and, or it's something that, you know, we lost for a brief period and we can get back to. How did that movement that's happening now in Brazil, get sort of reignited?

ISABELA FERNANDES: We're bringing some respect from that time. At that time we have, uh, Linux. Linux Install Fest. So you would bring your machine and you would install Linux. We want to combine any, anytime that you have an event that you're talking about the internet, that you're talking about regulation to have install fests – let's say install Mastodon, let's install Signal. Let's have everybody come out of this event and open for the population, right? Like, because sometimes when you offer those options to people. They don't have a network within that option, so they don't tend to stay.
But if you're doing this at an event and you like, let's say let's install Mastodon and everybody can have their account on different Mastadon instance, but we all following each other and I'm seeing the content and I can see it for real, what that means? And I will leave the event already with a network of people that I can follow on MAs on. Same thing. Every time I do a Signal training, I tell people now they're young, solid, let's copy each other's contact. So we have each other on our Signal account, right? Like, so we have a community. So we are thinking about that combination.

Music transition

JASON KELLEY: I wonder how, you know, again, you talk about some of this and I feel so jealous of, you know, being in this movement, I, I've never really been, you know, an engineer, so I'm sort of looking at the free software and open source communities at a distance. How did you end up sort of getting involved in them and, and do you have any advice for other people you know, today that want to be helpful or, um, want to connect with other people to help build the kind of internet you're talking about?

ISABELA FERNANDES: I end up on this out of necessity. When I was a teenager, I hated school, but I love to learn. I got kicked out of, uh, school multiple times until my dad put me in a technical high school to learn computers, but at the same time, uh, in my house, my parents had to work from 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM. So, you know, the strong survive in the house, it was me and my siblings.
And, uh, I could not touch the computer because my older brother would not let me. So I had to write code with a pen and paper and I hate it. And I start to go to my dad’s office to connect to at night when he would leave at 11, I would arrive and stay till 7:00 AM and that's how I start to learn about Linux.
We didn't have money for a license, so the more I wanted to do with the computer, the more I had to go to free software, you know? And like I said, after that, I joined this media network where we did everything. I learned how to build websites. I learned how to build data centers. We had to have security.
We had to build new products for journalists because we wanted to use free software, but sometimes we didn't have everything, or the solutions we had was not good enough, so we had to improve them to edit an audio or a video, right? Like things like that. So I went through this whole phase because I would not accept the technology that the normal, uh, business model wanted to offer me, I didn't accept that as it is, and I thought something else could happen. And like, uh, every time I talk with young people, I tell them this: Don't accept the technology that is being offered to you as it is. Don't accept it. It is possible. The reason we have free software was because people did not accept it, the technology that it was given to them. And I think that's the spirit.

Music transition

CINDY COHN: Thank you so much, Isa, for coming, and sharing your stories with us and your hope. Um, what a, what a hopeful conversation this was.

ISABELA FERNANDES: Thank you so much, Cindy and Jason. It was great to be here. Thank you.

JASON KELLEY: Well now I know how Tor works, which is great because I've been trying to figure that out for years. Um, three steps. I understand why there are three. This makes a lot more sense to me. And I'm honestly just a lot more hopeful than I was, which is always nice. It doesn't happen every time, but I feel like she's describing a future that actually not only is she, she and the Tor folks helping to build, but that other people can be a part of too, which is great.

CINDY COHN: Yeah, I think sometimes people envision privacy tools as the domain of people who are dark and worried and, and wanting to be self-protective all the time. And what was so refreshing about this, and refreshing about the way Isa and Tor operate in the world, is they're working with some pretty serious issues for people, but they're hopeful, they're building a future, they're very positive, and they have a vision of what the world looks like if we build privacy and security into everything. And, and in some ways it was a really light interview about something that protects people from very dangerous situations.

JASON KELLEY: Yeah. Yeah. And she talked a lot about, you know, what got her into free software. For her, it was kind of the necessity of having to write code on paper and not being able to buy software.
But I think we're coming to have that, for some people, that same necessity, again, for a lot of different reasons, you know, the software is bloated, it's enshittified, as Cory would say. Um, it's, you know, often monopolied in some way and, not that these are good things, but if it gets people back to the point she made where you realize that you can build the things yourself, that you don't have to accept the software that you're given and, and the tech that you're given, you can make your own and edit it and things like that. I think that would be a great outcome, and it sounds like that's already happening.

CINDY COHN: I think the other pieces were just, you know, really emphasizing the community, the need for community and how important community is, both in terms of entry into this, but also in the supporting and maintaining and developing of things and in, in how people use Tor. Right. You know, the Tor project operates because of nodes all across the country that volunteer to hold, you know, to carry other people's things. EFF has has done a Tor challenge a few times where we've tried to get more people to run nodes, whether they're in the middle or in the end. But that community is kind of infused in the way Tor works and it's infused in the vision that she has for a better future too. And that's just so consistent with, you know, what we've heard from people over and over again about how we, how we fix the internet.

JASON KELLEY: And that’s our episode for today – thanks so much for joining us.
If you have feedback or suggestions, we'd love to hear from you. Visit EFF dot org slash podcast and click on listener feedback. While you're there, you can become a member, donate, maybe even pick up some merch and just see what's happening in digital rights this week and every week.
Our theme music is by Nat Keefe of BeatMower with Reed Mathis
And How to Fix the Internet is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's program in public understanding of science and technology.
We’ll see you next time.
I’m Jason Kelley…

CINDY COHN: And I’m Cindy Cohn.

MUSIC CREDITS: This podcast is licensed creative commons attribution 4.0 international, and includes the following music that is licensed creative commons attribution 3.0 unported by its creators: Recreation by Airtone. Additional beds and alternate theme remixes by Gaetan Harris.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 04 June 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02370-6

Author Correction: Explaining the adaptation gap through consistency in adaptation planning

The accumulation of microplastics in the environment, and within our bodies, is an increasingly worrisome issue. But predicting where these ubiquitous particles will accumulate, and therefore where remediation efforts should be focused, has been difficult because of the many factors that contribute to their dispersal and deposition.

New research from MIT shows that one key factor in determining where microparticles are likely to build up has to do with the presence of biofilms. These thin, sticky biopolymer layers are shed by microorganisms and can accumulate on surfaces, including along sandy riverbeds or seashores. The study found that, all other conditions being equal, microparticles are less likely to accumulate in sediment infused with biofilms, because if they land there, they are more likely to be resuspended by flowing water and carried away.

The open-access findings appear in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, in a paper by MIT postdoc Hyoungchul Park and professor of civil and environmental engineering Heidi Nepf. “Microplastics are definitely in the news a lot,” Nepf says, “and we don’t fully understand where the hotspots of accumulation are likely to be. This work gives a little bit of guidance” on some of the factors that can cause these particles, and small particles in general, to accumulate in certain locations.

Most experiments looking at the ways microparticles are transported and deposited have been conducted over bare sand, Park says. “But in nature, there are a lot of microorganisms, such as bacteria, fungi, and algae, and when they adhere to the stream bed they generate some sticky things.” These substances are known as extracellular polymeric substances, or EPS, and they “can significantly affect the channel bed characteristics,” he says. The new research focused on determining exactly how these substances affected the transport of microparticles, including microplastics.

The research involved a flow tank with a bottom lined with fine sand, and sometimes with vertical plastic tubes simulating the presence of mangrove roots. In some experiments the bed consisted of pure sand, and in others the sand was mixed with a biological material to simulate the natural biofilms found in many riverbed and seashore environments.

Water mixed with tiny plastic particles was pumped through the tank for three hours, and then the bed surface was photographed under ultraviolet light that caused the plastic particles to fluoresce, allowing a quantitative measurement of their concentration.

The results revealed two different phenomena that affected how much of the plastic accumulated on the different surfaces. Immediately around the rods that stood in for above-ground roots, turbulence prevented particle deposition. In addition, as the amount of simulated biofilms in the sediment bed increased, the accumulation of particles also decreased.

Nepf and Park concluded that the biofilms filled up the spaces between the sand grains, leaving less room for the microparticles to fit in. The particles were more exposed because they penetrated less deeply in between the sand grains, and as a result they were much more easily resuspended and carried away by the flowing water.

“These biological films fill the pore spaces between the sediment grains,” Park explains, “and that makes the deposited particles — the particles that land on the bed — more exposed to the forces generated by the flow, which makes it easier for them to be resuspended. What we found was that in a channel with the same flow conditions and the same vegetation and the same sand bed, if one is without EPS and one is with EPS, then the one without EPS has a much higher deposition rate than the one with EPS.”

Nepf adds: “The biofilm is blocking the plastics from accumulating in the bed because they can’t go deep into the bed. They just stay right on the surface, and then they get picked up and moved elsewhere. So, if I spilled a large amount of microplastic in two rivers, and one had a sandy or gravel bottom, and one was muddier with more biofilm, I would expect more of the microplastics to be retained in the sandy or gravelly river.”

All of this is complicated by other factors, such as the turbulence of the water or the roughness of the bottom surface, she says. But it provides a “nice lens” to provide some suggestions for people who are trying to study the impacts of microplastics in the field. “They’re trying to determine what kinds of habitats these plastics are in, and this gives a framework for how you might categorize those habitats,” she says. “It gives guidance to where you should go to find more plastics versus less.”

As an example, Park suggests, in mangrove ecosystems, microplastics may preferentially accumulate in the outer edges, which tend to be sandy, while the interior zones have sediment with more biofilm. Thus, this work suggests “the sandy outer regions may be potential hotspots for microplastic accumulation,” he says, and can make this a priority zone for monitoring and protection.

“This is a highly relevant finding,” says Isabella Schalko, a research scientist at ETH Zurich, who was not associated with this research. “It suggests that restoration measures such as re-vegetation or promoting biofilm growth could help mitigate microplastic accumulation in aquatic systems. It highlights the powerful role of biological and physical features in shaping particle transport processes.”

The work was supported by Shell International Exploration and Production through the MIT Energy Initiative.

Approaching San Diego’s first annual review of the city's controversial Flock Safety contract, a local coalition is calling on the city council to roll back this dangerous and costly automated license plate reader (ALPR) program.

The TRUST Coalition—a grassroots alliance including Electronic Frontier Alliance members Tech Workers Coalition San Diego and techLEAD—has rallied to stop the unchecked spread of ALPRs in San Diego. We’ve previously covered the coalition’s fight for surveillance oversight, a local effort kicked off by a “smart streetlight” surveillance program five years ago. 

In 2024, San Diego installed hundreds of AI-assisted ALPR cameras throughout the city to document what cars are driving where and when, then making that data accessible for 30 days.

ALPRs like Flock’s don’t prevent crime—they just vacuum up data on everyone who drives past. The resulting error-prone dragnet can then chill speech and be weaponized against marginalized groups, like immigrants and those seeking trans or reproductive healthcare. 

Despite local and state restrictions barring the sharing of ALPR with federal and out of state agencies, San Diego Police have reportedly disclosed license plate data to federal agencies—including Homeland Security Investigations and Customs and Border Patrol.

Also, despite a local ordinance requiring city council approval before deployment of surveillance technology, San Diego police have reportedly deployed ALPRs and smart streetlights at Comic-Con and Pride without the required approval.

The local coalition is not alone in these concerns. The San Diego Privacy Board recently recommended the city reject the Surveillance Use Policy for this technology. All of this costs the community over $3.5 million last year alone. That is why the TRUST coalition is calling on the city to reject this oppressive surveillance system, and, instead, invest in other essential services which improve day-to-day life for residents.

San Diegans who want to push back can get involved by signing the TRUST Coalition’s  petition, follow the campaign online, and contact their council members to demand the city end its contract with Flock and start respecting the privacy rights of everyone who lives, works, or visits through their community.

New reporting has revealed that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is attempting to create the Intelligence Community’s Data Consortium–a centralized online marketplace where law enforcement and spy agencies can peruse and buy very personal digital data about you collected by data brokers. Not only is this a massive escalation of the deeply unjust data broker loophole: it’s also another repulsive signal that your privacy means nothing to the intelligence community.

Imagine a mall where every store is run by data brokers whose goods include your information that has been collected by smartphone applications. Depending on your permissions and what applications are on your phone, this could include contacts, behavioral data, financial information, and even your constant geolocation. Now imagine that the only customers in this mall are federal law enforcement officers and intelligence agents who should be going to a judge, presenting their evidence, and hoping the judge grants a warrant for this information. But now, they don’t need evidence or to justify the reason why they need your data. Now they just need taxpayer money, and this newly centralized digital marketplace provides the buying opportunities.

This is what the Office of the Director of National Intelligence wants to build according to recently released contract documents.

Across the country, states are trying desperately to close the loophole that allows the government to buy private data it would otherwise need a warrant to get. Montana just became the first state to make it illegal for police to purchase data, like geolocation data harvested by apps on smartphones. At the federal level, EFF has endorsed Senator Ron Wyden’s Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act, which closes this data broker loophole. The bill passed the House last year, but was rejected by the Senate.

And yet, the federal government is doubling down on this very obviously unjust and unpopular policy.

An ODNI that wants to minimize harms against civil liberties would be pursuing the opposite tact. They should not be looking for ways to formalize and institutionalize surveillance loopholes. That is why we not only call on the ODNI to reverse course and scrap the Intelligence Community’s Data Consortium–we also call on lawmakers to finish what they started and pass the Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act and close the databroker loophole at the federal level once and for all. We urge all of our supporters to do the same and help us keep the government accountable.

Stanley Fischer PhD ’69, MIT professor emeritus of economics and a towering figure in both academic macroeconomics and global economic policymaking, passed away on May 31. He was 81. Fischer was a foundational scholar as well as a wise mentor and a central force in shaping the macroeconomic tradition of MIT’s Department of Economics that continues today.

“Together with Rudi Dornbusch and later Olivier Blanchard, Stan was one of the intellectual engines that powered MIT macroeconomics in the 1970s and beyond,” says Ricardo Caballero PhD ’88, one of Fischer’s advisees and now the Ford International Professor of Economics at MIT. “He was quietly brilliant, never flashy, and always razor-sharp. His students learned not just from his lectures or his groundbreaking work on New Keynesian models and rational expectations, but from the clarity of his mind and the gentleness of his wit. Nearly 40 years later, I can still hear him saying: ‘Isn’t it easier to do it right the first time than to explain why you didn’t?’ That line has stayed with me ever since. A simple comment from Stan during a seminar — often offered with a disarming smile — could puncture a weak argument or crystallize a central insight. He taught generations of macroeconomists to prize discipline, clarity, and policy relevance.”

Olivier Blanchard PhD ’77, the Robert M. Solow Professor of Economics Emeritus at MIT and another advisee, explains that Fischer “was one of the most popular teachers, and one of the most popular thesis advisers. We flocked to his office, and I suspect that the only time for research he had was during the night. What we admired most were his technical skills — he knew how to use stochastic calculus — and his ability to take on big questions and simplify them to the point where the answer, ex post, looked obvious. When Rudi Dornbusch joined him in 1975, macro and international quickly became the most exciting fields at MIT.” Within a decade of his joining the MIT faculty, “Stan had acquired near-guru status.”

Fischer built bridges between economic theory and the practice of economic policy. He served as chief economist of the World Bank (1988-90), first deputy managing director at the International Monetary Fund (IMF, 1994-2001), governor of the Bank of Israel (2005-13), and vice chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve (2014-17). These leadership roles gave him a rare platform to implement ideas he helped develop in the classroom and he was widely praised for his successes at averting financial crises across several decades and continents. Yet even as he moved through the highest circles of global policymaking, he remained a teacher at heart — accessible, thoughtful, and generous with his time.

At MIT, Fischer is best remembered for inspiring generations of graduate students who moved between academics and policy just as he did. Over the course of two decades before he began his active policy role, he was primary adviser for 49 PhD students, secondary adviser to another 23, and a celebrated teacher for many more. 

Many of his students became important macroeconomic policymakers, including Ben Bernanke PhD ’79; Mario Draghi PhD ’77; Ilan Goldfajn PhD ’95; Philip Lowe PhD ’91; and Kazuo Ueda PhD ’80, who chaired the Federal Reserve Board, the European Central Bank, the Banco Central do Brazil, the Reserve Bank of Australia, and the Bank of Japan. Students Gregory Mankiw PhD ’84 and Christina Romer PhD ’85 chaired the Council of Economic Advisors; Maurice Obstfeld PhD ’79 and Kenneth Rogoff PhD ’80 were chief economist at the International Monetary Fund; and Frederic Mishkin PhD ’76 was a governor of the Federal Reserve. Another of his students, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers ’75, explains that “no one had more cumulative influence on the macroeconomic policymakers of the last generation than Stanley Fischer … We all were shaped by his clarity of thought, intellectual balance, personal decency, and quality of character. In a broader sense, everyone who was involved in the macro policy enterprise was Stan Fischer’s disciple. People all over the world who never knew his name lived better, more secure, lives because of all that he did through his teaching, writing, and service.”

Fischer grew up in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), living behind the general store his family ran before moving to Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) at the age of 13. Inspired by the quality of writing in John Maynard Keynes’ “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money,” he applied for and won a scholarship to study at the London School of Economics. He moved to MIT for his graduate studies, where his dissertation was supervised by Franklin M. Fisher. After several years on the University of Chicago faculty, he returned to MIT in 1973, where he stayed for the remainder of his academic career. He held the Elizabeth and James Killian Class of 1926 professorship from 1992 to 1995, serving as department chair in 1993–94, before being called away to the IMF.

Fischer’s intellectual journey from MIT to Chicago and back culminated in his most influential academic work. Ivan Werning, the Robert M. Solow Professor of Economics at MIT notes, “his research was pathbreaking and paved the way to the modern approach to macroeconomics. By merging nominal rigidities associated with MIT’s Keynesian tradition with rational expectations emanating from the Chicago school, his 1977 paper on ‘Long-Term Contracts, Rational Expectations, and the Optimal Money Supply Rule’ showed how the non-neutrality of money did not require agent irrationality or confusion.” The dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models now used at every central bank to evaluate monetary policy options are direct descendants of Fischer’s thinking.

Fischer’s influence goes beyond what has become known as New Keynesian Economics. Werning continues, “Fischer’s research combined theoretical insights to very applied questions. His textbook with Blanchard was instrumental to an entire generation of macroeconomists, showing macroeconomics as a rich and evolving field, ripe with tools and great questions to study. Along with Bob Solow, Rudi Dornbusch, and others, Fischer had a huge impact within the MIT economics department and helped build its day-to-day culture, with an inquisitive, open-minded, and friendly atmosphere.”

Macroeconomics — and MIT — owe him a profound debt.

Fischer is survived by his three sons, Michael, David, and Jonathan, and nine grandchildren.