READS: Bill of Rights (US) – Anarchist’s Cookbook – Preface to Transgression –
VIDEOS: The Birth of a Tool, The Birth of a Wooden House, Basque Axes,
- 6/23/2026 Kyle Kulinski Show Trump HIDES HEALTH CRISIS, Gets ‘SECRET TREATMENT’ At Camp David?!!by Keith Preston on June 23, 2026 at 11:42 pm
Good people out here without healthcare, and millions spent to save the worst of us. The post 6/23/2026 Kyle Kulinski Show Trump HIDES HEALTH CRISIS, Gets ‘SECRET TREATMENT’ At Camp David?!! first appeared on Attack the System.
- Ro Khanna says Elon Musk must be PROBED over DOGE (Plus: Trump WAIVES Iran oil sanctions) | RISINGby Keith Preston on June 23, 2026 at 10:09 pm
0:00 Democrats gloat about plan to arrest Elon Musk! Robby Soave | RISING 11:38 Trump: Iran agrees to ‘infinity’ nuclear inspections, agrees to keep Hormuz Strait open | RISING 21:37 AI Super PACs pouring millions into NY race, seeking to bend policy: Lindsey Granger | RISING 34:01 Trump The post Ro Khanna says Elon Musk must be PROBED over DOGE (Plus: Trump WAIVES Iran oil sanctions) | RISING first appeared on Attack the System.
- Democrats GLOAT About Plan to ARREST Elon Musk! Robby Soave | RISINGby Keith Preston on June 23, 2026 at 9:56 pm
OPINION: Robby Soave delivers his radar on Elon Musk’s new trillions, and Democrats’ promises to both rein in his wealth and prosecute him once they return to power. #ElonMusk #RoKhanna #RobbySoave The post Democrats GLOAT About Plan to ARREST Elon Musk! Robby Soave | RISING first appeared on Attack the System.
- 6/23/26: Mearsheimer on Iran & Ukraine, Tucker Says He’s Done With GOP, Housing Crisis, Israel’s Nuclear Blackmailby Keith Preston on June 23, 2026 at 6:11 pm
Krystal and Saagar discuss John Mearsheimer on Iran war and Ukraine, Tucker says he is done with the GOP, affordability crisis on home ownership, Israel’s nuclear blackmail plot. John Mearsheimer: https://www.mearsheimer.com/ Blowback Podcast: https://blowback.show/ Timestamps: (00:00)Intro (2:03)John Mearsheimer: Trump LOST, Iran Gets Spoils With Sanctions Relief (21:12)SLIPPERY SLOPE The post 6/23/26: Mearsheimer on Iran & Ukraine, Tucker Says He’s Done With GOP, Housing Crisis, Israel’s Nuclear Blackmail first appeared on Attack the System.
- Tucker To GOP: ‘I’m Outta Here!’by Daniel McAdams on June 23, 2026 at 4:38 pm
Watch today’s Liberty Report here. The post Tucker To GOP: ‘I’m Outta Here!’ appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Trump Nukes “ABC Fake News” – Says Lawsuits Being Prepared for False Reportingby Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. on June 23, 2026 at 4:36 pm
—– Click here: Gateway Pundit The post Trump Nukes “ABC Fake News” – Says Lawsuits Being Prepared for False Reporting appeared first on LewRockwell.
- New Study Shows MMR Vaccines Linked to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. on June 23, 2026 at 4:34 pm
—– Click here: G. Edward Griffin The post New Study Shows MMR Vaccines Linked to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Prof. John Mearsheimer : Netanyahu and Israeli Declineby Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. on June 23, 2026 at 4:21 pm
The post Prof. John Mearsheimer : Netanyahu and Israeli Decline appeared first on LewRockwell.
- The Historical Rhyme of Ruinby Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. on June 23, 2026 at 3:40 pm
— Click here: Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH The post The Historical Rhyme of Ruin appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Origins of Christian Zionism, How It Corrupted American Christianity and Why It’s Finally Collapsingby Keith Preston on June 23, 2026 at 2:56 pm
Theologian JD Hall on the corrupting lie of Christian Zionism. J.D. Hall is a Christian commentator, author of the best-selling book Hyphenated Heresy, and a leading voice on issues of faith, culture, and free speech. Known for his unapologetic defense of biblical orthodoxy and criticism of institutional corruption The post Origins of Christian Zionism, How It Corrupted American Christianity and Why It’s Finally Collapsing first appeared on Attack the System.
- Neocons Move to Merge CIA & Mossad While Netanyahu Desperately Begs Trump Not to Leave His Sideby Keith Preston on June 23, 2026 at 4:33 am
Trita Parsi has a rational, pro-American view of the Iran war, so naturally Bari Weiss tried to get him deported. Trita Parsi is an award-winning foreign policy expert and author specializing in U.S.–Iran relations and Middle East diplomacy. He is the 2010 recipient of the Grawemeyer Award and The post Neocons Move to Merge CIA & Mossad While Netanyahu Desperately Begs Trump Not to Leave His Side first appeared on Attack the System.
- Your Car Was Never the Targetby Martin Armstrong on June 23, 2026 at 4:01 am
For years, governments assured the public that license plate readers were simply tools to catch stolen vehicles, fugitives, and dangerous criminals. That was always the sales pitch. Now the mask is coming off. According to reports, a new surveillance platform called SignalTrace is being marketed to law enforcement and government agencies that goes far beyond reading license The post Your Car Was Never the Target appeared first on LewRockwell.
- ‘Israel Picking Up the Pieces of Its Deep-Seated Hubris’by No Author on June 23, 2026 at 4:01 am
Trump’s Iran deal shatters Israel’s 40-year dream of regime change. The Iran-U.S. de-escalation framework has been signed. As always, getting a framework agreed is one thing, but preserving it from disruptive actors or malicious distortion of the text is quite another. Who knows how long it will survive intact? The MoU nonetheless constitutes an important phase – The post ‘Israel Picking Up the Pieces of Its Deep-Seated Hubris’ appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Be on the Right Sideby Eric Peters on June 23, 2026 at 4:01 am
Most everyone wants to be on he right side of things; the problem is discerning which is the wrong side to be on. The COVID debacle is an example. It was difficult for many people to discern which side was the right side. Many probably thought they were on the right side, by siding with The post Be on the Right Side appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Wither Away the Iran Deal?by No Author on June 23, 2026 at 4:01 am
On 21 June 2026, I was on Tom Switzer’s podcast — “Switzerland” — with Trita Parsi. We focused almost exclusively on the negotiations between Iran and the US, which had begun earlier that day in a resort near Lake Lucerne in Switzerland. It is fair to say those negotiations got off to an inauspicious start, The post Wither Away the Iran Deal? appeared first on LewRockwell.
- West Says Ukraine Is Now ‘Winning’ and Why It Is Lying (Again)by No Author on June 23, 2026 at 4:01 am
A recent article published in the Kyiv Independent titled “Is Ukraine starting to win the war again?” tests the maxim that if you need to ask, the answer is probably “no.” As the collective Western media has done since 2022, the Kyiv Independent cites “flatlined” Russian territorial gains and expanding drone strikes deep inside Russian territory (the article attributes them to The post West Says Ukraine Is Now ‘Winning’ and Why It Is Lying (Again) appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Congress Is Preparing to Surrender American Sovereignty on the Eve of America’s 250th Anniversaryby No Author on June 23, 2026 at 4:01 am
The United States Congress, on the very eve of the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, is preparing to formally diminish American independence and sovereignty through a proposed merger and long-term integration of executive functions throughout the government, coordinated by the Department of Defense. Treacherous provisions in the 2027 National Defense The post Congress Is Preparing to Surrender American Sovereignty on the Eve of America’s 250th Anniversary appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Has President Donald Trump Finally Capitulated to the Iranians?by Ron Unz on June 23, 2026 at 4:01 am
Over the last few weeks I’d been paying less and less attention to our continuing Iran War mostly because less and less seemed to be happening. Every few days President Donald Trump would loudly announce that a peace agreement was about to be signed that would fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker The post Has President Donald Trump Finally Capitulated to the Iranians? appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Hidden Systems, Synthetic Memory, and the Century That Lost Sight of Realityby No Author on June 23, 2026 at 4:01 am
History is often remembered through visible catastrophes. Wars redraw borders, economic collapses destroy fortunes, pandemics alter demographics, and revolutions replace one political order with another. Yet historians have long noted that some of the most consequential transformations occur beneath the threshold of public awareness, advancing gradually enough to avoid resistance while fundamentally altering the structure The post Hidden Systems, Synthetic Memory, and the Century That Lost Sight of Reality appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Terminate All Foreign Aid to Israel, Immediately and Permanentlyby Jacob G. Hornberger on June 23, 2026 at 4:01 am
Saddled with defending President Trump’s “peace agreement” with Iran, Vice President J.D. Vance is lashing out at Israeli officials who are criticizing and condemning the agreement. He stated, “My message to them would be twofold. No 1: Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the The post Terminate All Foreign Aid to Israel, Immediately and Permanently appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Trump’s Attempt To End the Iran War Infuriates the Unipartyby Ron Paul, MD on June 23, 2026 at 4:01 am
Against the odds, the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the US and Iran appears to be holding, after threats and counter-threats. It may collapse, but it has survived a first round of talks between the two sides in Switzerland over the weekend. President Trump started a war on Iran against all sober guidance and in The post Trump’s Attempt To End the Iran War Infuriates the Uniparty appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Buying Pastors & Stalking Churchgoers: Israel’s Longtime Heist on the Christian Church Exposedby No Author on June 23, 2026 at 4:01 am
Comments open on YouTube The post Buying Pastors & Stalking Churchgoers: Israel’s Longtime Heist on the Christian Church Exposed appeared first on LewRockwell.
- True Spirituality Confronts The Abuses of the Empireby No Author on June 23, 2026 at 4:01 am
A spirituality that is uninterested in ending war, genocide, poverty and injustice is a dead spirituality. If you hold your time on the meditation cushion as something separate from the weeping mother clutching a small body in Lebanon, you’re wasting your time. A spirituality that is uninterested in ending war, genocide, poverty and injustice is The post True Spirituality Confronts The Abuses of the Empire appeared first on LewRockwell.
- 6/22/2026 Kyle Kulinski Show Trump PANICS & Threatens To K*LL NEGOTIATORS, Iran SHUTS HORMUZ & ENDS TALKS!!by Keith Preston on June 23, 2026 at 1:16 am
Iran shouldn’t be negotiating with terrorists. The post 6/22/2026 Kyle Kulinski Show Trump PANICS & Threatens To K*LL NEGOTIATORS, Iran SHUTS HORMUZ & ENDS TALKS!! first appeared on Attack the System.
- Kamala Harris says Trump DOJ should be held ACCOUNTABLE, SUGGESTS Electoral College REFORM | RISINGby Keith Preston on June 23, 2026 at 12:56 am
OPINION: Former Vice President Kamala Harris indicates she would support prosecution of Trump administration officials in the future, and suggests Electoral College reform in viral interview with Don Lemon. #DonLemon #KamalaHarris #DOJ #ElectoralCollege The post Kamala Harris says Trump DOJ should be held ACCOUNTABLE, SUGGESTS Electoral College REFORM | RISING first appeared on Attack the System.
- Tulsi Gabbard allegedly influence by ‘guru’ of cult-like group while in Congress: WaPo | RISINGby Keith Preston on June 23, 2026 at 12:40 am
OPINION: The Washington Post alleges in a new article that former DNI Tulsi Gabbard was taking orders and advice from a cult-like religious leader during her time in congress and beyond. #TulsiGabbard #HareKrishna #Wapo #ChrisButler #Guru The post Tulsi Gabbard allegedly influence by ‘guru’ of cult-like group while in Congress: WaPo | RISING first appeared on Attack the System.
- Keir Starmer announces RESIGNATION (Plus: Trump FEUDS with Giorgia Meloni) | RISINGby Keith Preston on June 23, 2026 at 12:39 am
0:00 I went to Ukraine and saw Russia’s war with my own eyes: Robby Soave | RISING 13:59 Keir Starmer resigning as UK Prime Minister; Trump bashes him on way out | RISING 21:06 Trump must end Iran war, defy Netanyahu regime’s push for Lebanon aggression: Niall Stanage The post Keir Starmer announces RESIGNATION (Plus: Trump FEUDS with Giorgia Meloni) | RISING first appeared on Attack the System.
- 6/22/26: Iran Talks Nearly Collapse, Neocons Try To Tank Deal, Mythos AI Hacking, Trump Reflecting Pool Meltdown, Zohran Vs AIPAC & MORE!by Keith Preston on June 22, 2026 at 7:32 pm
Krystal and Saagar discuss Iran talks nearly collapse, neocons try to tank deal, Americans want war to end, Mythos AI hacked entire NSA in hours, Trump reflecting pool meltdown, Zohran smeared for AIPAC criticism. Jeremy Scahill: https://x.com/jeremyscahill?s=20 Darializa Avila Chevalier: https://www.darializaforcongress.com/ Claire Valdez: https://clairevaldezforcongress.com/ Timestamps: (00:00)Intro (1:43)Iran Talks The post 6/22/26: Iran Talks Nearly Collapse, Neocons Try To Tank Deal, Mythos AI Hacking, Trump Reflecting Pool Meltdown, Zohran Vs AIPAC & MORE! first appeared on Attack the System.
- US To Buy Iranian Oil – First Time In Decades!by Daniel McAdams on June 22, 2026 at 4:41 pm
Watch today’s Liberty Report here. The post US To Buy Iranian Oil – First Time In Decades! appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Trump claims there are ‘no limits’ on his powerby Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. on June 22, 2026 at 3:34 pm
—– Click here: RT News The post Trump claims there are ‘no limits’ on his power appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Prime Minister Keir Starmer Resigns As UK Faces 7th Leader In A Decadeby Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. on June 22, 2026 at 12:05 pm
—– Click Here: Zero Hedge The post Prime Minister Keir Starmer Resigns As UK Faces 7th Leader In A Decade appeared first on LewRockwell.
- 6 Choices That Build Value and Wealthby James Anthony on June 22, 2026 at 4:01 am
In “6 Hacks to a Better Government,” I described the best actions that individuals can take to increase everybody’s freedom. Governments are big, urgent problems. But even after all the takings for government spending and regulation compliance, we the people still control close to 50 percent of GDP, together with the vast majority of our many other unmeasured actions. The post 6 Choices That Build Value and Wealth appeared first on LewRockwell.
- The Iran War Is Dismantling the American Empireby Chuck Baldwin on June 22, 2026 at 4:01 am
Avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. George Washington “Overgrown military establishments” now define the United States. For the U.S., war has little to do with defense and everything to do with The post The Iran War Is Dismantling the American Empire appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Strait of Hormuz Closed Again: This ‘War’ Was/Is a Pre-Plotted Scamby Gary D. Barnett on June 22, 2026 at 4:01 am
“When I consider Life, ‘tis all a cheat; Yet, fooled with hope, men favour the deceit; Trust on, and think to-morrow will repay: To-morrow’s falser than the former day; Lies worse; and while it says, we shall be blest With some new joys, cuts off what we possesst.” ~ John Dryden, Aureng-Zebe No U.S. war, and few The post Strait of Hormuz Closed Again: This ‘War’ Was/Is a Pre-Plotted Scam appeared first on LewRockwell.
- What If the Work We’re Busy Automating Is Needless?by Charles Hugh Smith on June 22, 2026 at 4:01 am
The problem with durable, low-maintenance, low-operating cost technologies is self-evident: they’re not as profitable as planned obsolescence or extracting monthly fees from owners. Many of the topics I address are met with silence because they question the quasi-religious beliefs that underpin our entire way of life: the belief that Progress is inevitable because technology inevitably drives The post What If the Work We’re Busy Automating Is Needless? appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Russia Vindicated as Top U.S. Intel Confirms Lethal Pentagon-Funded Biolabs in Ukraineby No Author on June 22, 2026 at 4:01 am
The Western cover-up of the biolabs in Ukraine is part of the wider cover-up of the entire U.S. and NATO-led war in Ukraine. The highest American intelligence official, Tulsi Gabbard, revealed that the Pentagon and other federal agencies have been supporting more than 40 laboratories in Ukraine involved in producing dangerous pathogens and diseases. This is exactly The post Russia Vindicated as Top U.S. Intel Confirms Lethal Pentagon-Funded Biolabs in Ukraine appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Another Week From Hellby Philip Giraldi on June 22, 2026 at 4:01 am
The week started on a positive note with President Donald Trump uncharacteristically declaring that a “memorandum of understanding” (MOU) had been achieved by US and Iranian negotiators assisted by Pakistani and Qatari mediators to suspend military action and begin sixty days of discussions in pursuit of a peace agreement. The move was based on a The post Another Week From Hell appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Pentagon Integrating Commercial Cloud Networks and AI To Speed Up Military Opsby No Author on June 22, 2026 at 4:01 am
The commercial sector will effectively serve as a “digital guinea pig” for the Pentagon. The contract with Parallel Works demonstrates continued integration of the US military with the civilian sector. The report admits that “it combines traditional supercomputing resources with commercial cloud services as AI models and data-intensive applications continue to increase computing requirements across The post Pentagon Integrating Commercial Cloud Networks and AI To Speed Up Military Ops appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Blame It All on Fauciby No Author on June 22, 2026 at 4:01 am
On the eve of her last day in office at 10:10 PM last night, DNI Tulsi Gabbard tweeted this ODNI Press Release, these declassified documents and this video statement, transcribed below. Anthony Fauci is being blamed for lying about the “lab leak origins” of the COVID pandemic, as if this immuno-suppressive bioweapon hadn’t been planned since the late 1950s and The post Blame It All on Fauci appeared first on LewRockwell.
- The Greater Israel Project Is a Fraudby No Author on June 22, 2026 at 4:01 am
“Greater Israel” according to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, is a Jewish State stretching “’From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.’ “The “Promised Land” extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon. Thus “from the Nile to the Euphrates.” In the 21st Century: “Greater Israel” is portrayed as a The post The Greater Israel Project Is a Fraud appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Every White Ethnicity Faces Demiseby Paul Craig Roberts on June 22, 2026 at 4:01 am
In every Western country intellectuals and governments have elevated a multicultural tower of babel above an ethnic-based nation state. In the past few days, the Lowe Report in Britain has made clear some of the adverse consequences for the white ethnicities that once comprised the European nations, now towers of babel and no longer nations. The abolition The post Every White Ethnicity Faces Demise appeared first on LewRockwell.
- Israel Planning False Flag “10 Times Worse than 9/11”?by Keith Preston on June 22, 2026 at 12:00 am
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Truth Jihad Radio Israel Planning False Flag “1… 0:00 56:48 Listen now Israel Planning False Flag “10 Times Worse than 9/11”? Plus: False Flag Weekly News remembers Cat McGuire Kevin Barrett Jun 21 READ IN APP Rumble link The post Israel Planning False Flag “10 Times Worse than 9/11”? first appeared on Attack the System.
- Repeat After Meby Keith Preston on June 21, 2026 at 11:59 pm
Sponsored by William Bruce Lectures Today in The New York Review of Books: Adania Shibli examines indifference to Palestinian pain; Liana Fink writes a dialogue; Christopher Benfey reflects on the friendship between Hannah Arendt and Randall Jarrell; and, from the archives, Darryl The post Repeat After Me first appeared on Attack the System.
- Some Guy Broke Into My Houseby Keith Preston on June 21, 2026 at 11:58 pm
Caitlin Johnstone Jun 20, 2026 Reading by Tim Foley: Some guy broke into my house and set up residence in the study room. He says his great-grandparents used to live in this house and now he won’t leave. My family and I tried to kick him out but The post Some Guy Broke Into My House first appeared on Attack the System.
- Cult-Building, Sex and WWIII: Leak Exposes Peter Thiel’s Secret Societyby Keith Preston on June 21, 2026 at 11:56 pm
The Corbett Report Jun 20, 2026 by James Corbett corbettreport.com June 21, 2026 As a dedicated researcher of conspiracy reality, you’re surely familiar with the Bilderberg Group. And, as a veteran rabbit hole diver, you’ve doubtless uncovered the truth about the Round Table Group. And, as an acolyte The post Cult-Building, Sex and WWIII: Leak Exposes Peter Thiel’s Secret Society first appeared on Attack the System.
- Police Chased the Wrong Man, Then Shot Him and Watched as He Bled Outby Keith Preston on June 21, 2026 at 11:55 pm
Most Read Police Chased the Wrong Man, Then Shot Him and Watched as He Bled Out Akela Lacy Sheriff’s deputies in Michigan fired 27 shots at John Jenuwine. “He was not the guy that they were supposed to be chasing,” said the victim’s father. Read More → Israel The post Police Chased the Wrong Man, Then Shot Him and Watched as He Bled Out first appeared on Attack the System.
- “The Struggle to Harvest Olives in Palestine”by Keith Preston on June 21, 2026 at 6:11 pm
Green Party Event 5 pm PT, 6 MT, 7 pm CT, 8 pm ET, Mon June 22, 2026 In-Person and Zoom: Time to REGISTER! As an activist with the Center for Jewish Nonviolence, Jacqueline Dauria spent six weeks in occupied Palestine during the fall of 2025. While there, she The post “The Struggle to Harvest Olives in Palestine” first appeared on Attack the System.
- African-American crimeby Keith Preston on June 21, 2026 at 3:20 pm
The dynamics of locality interact with reactive aggression. Lorenzo Warby Jun 19, 2026 This is a response to this blog post, which I was not able to provide a comment on directly. It is one of a series of blog posts arguing that racism explains the (much) higher The post African-American crime first appeared on Attack the System.
- Queers are Everywhere You Bombby Keith Preston on June 21, 2026 at 1:10 am
By Nicky Reid aka Comrade Hermit Exile in Happy Valley There is a narrative running through the western zeitgeist and slowly trickling out to its various victims in the Third World that ‘Queer’ or at least ‘LGBTQ’ is somehow synonymous with colonialism and imperialism; that queerness in and The post Queers are Everywhere You Bomb first appeared on Attack the System.
- Iran Deal On Brink Of COLLAPSEby Keith Preston on June 21, 2026 at 1:05 am
Episode 283 with Murtaza Hussain Krystal Kyle & Friends Jun 19, 2026 Hello, readers and listeners! This week on KK&F we bring you a new conversation untangling the murky details of the MOU (memorandum of understanding) that Trump signed earlier this week (on June 15) and acknowledging how The post Iran Deal On Brink Of COLLAPSE first appeared on Attack the System.
- Figuringby Keith Preston on June 21, 2026 at 12:03 am
In the “At the Galleries” column from our June 25, 2026, issue, Lovia Gyarkye writes about an exhibition of work by the British artist Lynette Yiadom-Boakye at the Jack Shainman Gallery in New York. Yiadom-Boakye is most known for painting solitary, serene figures that nonetheless possess, as Gyarkye writes, “a The post Figuring first appeared on Attack the System.
- Meditations on the ‘Unnatural’by Keith Preston on June 21, 2026 at 12:01 am
Troy Southgate Jun 20, 2026 I WAS thinking about the monism that Spinoza describes in the opening section of the Ethics (1677), whereby everything is said to be part of the One. The optical division of this ultimately indivisible Substance appears before us in the form of infinite The post Meditations on the ‘Unnatural’ first appeared on Attack the System.
- A Red Cross trick to help you cool down quickly, even in blazing heatby Keith Preston on June 21, 2026 at 12:00 am
June 17, 2026 | Read online Why suffer when you can simmer down in high temperatures? A Red Cross trick to help you cool down quickly, even in blazing heat Cooling your pulse points lowers your body temperature from the inside out. By Patrick Hamilton Summer The post A Red Cross trick to help you cool down quickly, even in blazing heat first appeared on Attack the System.
- The Battle That Looked Like a Defeatby Keith Preston on June 21, 2026 at 12:00 am
Bunker Hill and the cost of underestimating Americans Jun 17, 2026 June 17, 1775 Technically, the British won the Battle of Bunker Hill. But in reality the victory deeply troubled them. Most battles are sometimes reduced to a simple question: Who held the ground when the shooting stopped? The post The Battle That Looked Like a Defeat first appeared on Attack the System.
- 6/20/26 2pm Eastern Round-Table #155: The History of the Term Libertarianby Keith Preston on June 20, 2026 at 3:28 pm
Join Keith, Florian, and Todd for a discussion on the evolution of the term Libertarian. My Contact Info: Locals: https://praiseoffolly.locals.com/ X: / pofpodcast Telegram: t.me/PraiseOfFolly_1511 Facebook: / praiseoffollypodcast BuyMeACoffe: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/PraiseOf… Subscribe Star: https://www.subscribestar.com/PraiseO… Substack: https://substack.com/profile/40985862… Email: tertullian155@protonmail.com The post 6/20/26 2pm Eastern Round-Table #155: The History of the Term Libertarian first appeared on Attack the System.
- Teenage American Maoists – Why Do They Exist?by Keith Preston on June 20, 2026 at 4:55 am
ORDER THE BOOK: “Imperialism & Anti-Imperialism: Key Writings and Lectures” https://amazon.com/dp/B0H2F6L19H JOIN THE CENTER FOR POLITICAL INNOVATION: https://www.cpiusa.org/join-cpi Why are teenage Maoist organizations appearing across the United States? In this livestream, Caleb Maupin examines the growing number of youth Maoist groups, communist organizations, and revolutionary political formations that The post Teenage American Maoists – Why Do They Exist? first appeared on Attack the System.
- ‘LIAR!!’: Italy PM ERUPTS AT TRUMP; Reflecting Pool Is NEON GREEN & CRUMBLING!! Israel CRASHES OUTby Keith Preston on June 20, 2026 at 12:14 am
The Reflecting Pool is aptly named. With corruption in the White House, the pool reflects America’s filth. The post ‘LIAR!!’: Italy PM ERUPTS AT TRUMP; Reflecting Pool Is NEON GREEN & CRUMBLING!! Israel CRASHES OUT first appeared on Attack the System.
- How the Kyoto School Thinkers Are Routinely Labelled ‘Fascist’by Keith Preston on June 20, 2026 at 12:02 am
Troy Southgate Jun 17, 2026 ONE contemporary scholar who has written extensively about the Kyoto School is Graham Parkes of University College Cork, including books dealing with the influence of both Nietzsche and Heidegger on Asian thought in general. However, one of his chief interests is the way The post How the Kyoto School Thinkers Are Routinely Labelled ‘Fascist’ first appeared on Attack the System.
- The Dual Nature of Land Acknowledgmentsby Keith Preston on June 20, 2026 at 12:01 am
June 17, 2026 Dear Readers, There’s no shortage of thought-provoking reading in this week’s roundup. From contested questions about history and public symbolism, to regulatory failures in health policy, to the institutional framework of the final frontier—you won’t want to miss these sharp contributions to public discourse. First, The post The Dual Nature of Land Acknowledgments first appeared on Attack the System.
- What did ancient humans do all day before ‘work’ was invented? It wasn’t all about survival.by Keith Preston on June 20, 2026 at 12:00 am
June 16, 2026 | Read online Ancient humans didn’t spend as much time on survival activities as we might think. What did ancient humans do all day before ‘work’ was invented? It wasn’t all about survival. A viral video offers a peek into our ancestors’ uniquely The post What did ancient humans do all day before ‘work’ was invented? It wasn’t all about survival. first appeared on Attack the System.
- Jared Taylor: A Comparative Look at Europe and the United Statesby Keith Preston on June 19, 2026 at 11:59 pm
Jared Taylor and Arktos Journal Jun 19, 2026 In this compelling interview, American identitarian thinker Jared Taylor discusses his advocacy for white interests and offers a sharp critique of multiculturalism and diversity ideology. He explores the biological realities of race, the shared civilizational heritage between Europe and the The post Jared Taylor: A Comparative Look at Europe and the United States first appeared on Attack the System.
- Rep. Thomas Massie Sparks USS Liberty Awarenessby Keith Preston on June 19, 2026 at 11:56 pm
At a Crucial Historical Moment in American History Kevin Barrett Jun 19, 2026 Quick question for my readers: Should I cheer for the US in its World Cup match today? Why or why not? Leave a quick comment and I’ll evaluate both the quality and quantity before deciding The post Rep. Thomas Massie Sparks USS Liberty Awareness first appeared on Attack the System.
- Bibi Tearing Up the Dealby Keith Preston on June 19, 2026 at 11:55 pm
Bibi Tearing Up the Deal Plus: Knicks appreciation, justice startup to watch the watchmen, M&Ms go natural, and more… LIZ WOLFE Is the deal blowing up? “Planned U.S.-Iran talks in Switzerland on Friday were cancelled as fighting flared in Lebanon, creating new uncertainty about the timing of negotiations The post Bibi Tearing Up the Deal first appeared on Attack the System.
- International Monetary Fund restores ties with Venezuela in economic turning pointby Keith Preston on June 19, 2026 at 11:55 pm
Sponsored by Stay ahead with essential business and finance insights Morgan Stanley is warning investors to brace for a leaner, quieter Fed under Warsh, while a Middle East peace deal is already resetting gas prices in real time. Two signals worth reading together. Meanwhile, a new breed of The post International Monetary Fund restores ties with Venezuela in economic turning point first appeared on Attack the System.
- Krystal Ball Joins Public Citizen’s Informed Resistanceby Keith Preston on June 19, 2026 at 11:54 pm
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Watch now Krystal Ball Joins Public Citizen’s Informed Resistance A recording from Krystal Kyle & Friends and Lisa Gilbert’s live video Krystal Kyle & Friends and Lisa Gilbert Jun 19 READ IN APP Get more from Krystal Kyle & Friends in The post Krystal Ball Joins Public Citizen’s Informed Resistance first appeared on Attack the System.
- Tulsi Gabbard DROPS COVID docs, alleges Fauci LIED, FUNDED Wuhan lab with taxpayer dollars | RISINGby Keith Preston on June 19, 2026 at 11:52 pm
OPINION: Outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released new documents which she says show that Dr. Anthony Fauci tried to hide the origins of COVID-19 and lied to Congress under oath. #TulsiGabbard #Fauci #COVID The post Tulsi Gabbard DROPS COVID docs, alleges Fauci LIED, FUNDED Wuhan lab with taxpayer dollars | RISING first appeared on Attack the System.
- The UK’s New Under-16 Social Media Ban Will Cause More Harm Than It Preventsby Paige Collings on June 19, 2026 at 9:45 am
This week, politicians in the UK pushed forward with plans to eviscerate privacy and free speech on the internet by announcing a ban on social media for users under 16 that is set to take effect in Spring 2027. The UK government continues to falsely characterize this policy as a necessary response to growing concerns about online harms for young people. In reality, much like the Online Safety Act, it will cause more harm than it will prevent. Users of all ages are burdened with proving their age before accessing content, with social media platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X included in the ban. There remains no reliable, privacy-preserving method of verifying the age of every internet user and methods vary from one platform to the next. Young people will not simply be protected from being contacted by adults or endlessly scrolling—they’ll also lose access to educational videos on YouTube, local events on Facebook, and potentially cut off from distant friends and family. Public policy must be effective, proportionate and respectful of fundamental rights. Young people deserve better than a policy built on panic, and all internet users deserve a safe and free internet. A social media ban generates headlines, but it will not solve the problem. A Brief History of Age-Gating in the UK Age restriction proposals in the UK date back to a decade ago, when the proposed Digital Economy Bill was put forth to (among other things) restrict young people from accessing pornographic websites. While the Digital Economy Act of 2017 passed without age-based restrictions, it laid the groundwork for later age verification measures. Over the next few years, age checks for porn websites were announced then delayed several times. But it wasn’t until a consultation under the 2016-2019 May government and the 2020 publication of the Online Harms Whitepaper that age verification became a broader idea. In 2023, the UK passed the controversial Online Safety Act, establishing powers that could weaken privacy protections and freedom of expression for internet users worldwide. In July 2025, the government implemented age assurance measures on sites hosting “harmful” content. And despite politicians affirming repeatedly that the Online Safety Act would solve all of the problems with online safety, this year they decided it in fact did not go far enough. American social psychologist and The Anxious Generation author Jonathan Haidt—who has called for age-related social media bans around the world, despite significant scientific doubt about his research—met with the UK Health Secretary in February to push for the ban. In March, politicians introduced plans for a social media ban into the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to “prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users” of “all regulated user-to-user services,” to be implemented by “highly-effective age assurance measures”—effectively banning under-16s from social media. When this proposal came before the House of Commons, MPs defeated and proposed their own amendment: enabling the Secretary of State to introduce provisions “requiring providers of specified internet services” to prevent access by children, under age 18 rather than 16, to specified internet services or to specified features; and to restrict access by children to specified internet services which ministers provide. But the social media ban does not stop there. The provision also requires internet service providers to limit the time kids spend online, and has rules about who can contact them online. These extreme rules will take decisions about using technology away from families and put them in the hands of government regulators. The history of this proposal shows that the UK government has repeatedly returned to the same flawed idea: restricting access to online services by requiring age checks for everyone. But the fundamental problems have not changed. There is still no widely available way to verify age online without compromising privacy—but even if there were, broad restrictions on social media will inevitably limit access to lawful speech, and valuable online communities, and arts and culture.
- EFF Joins 60+ Groups Urging the UK to Halt Face Estimation at the Borderby Paige Collings on June 19, 2026 at 9:35 am
This week, EFF joined Foxglove, Human Rights Watch, and 60 other organizations in writing to the UK’s Minister of State for Border Security and Asylum, Alex Norris, raising serious concern about the Home Office’s decision to deploy Facial Age Estimation (FAE) to assess asylum-seeking children from 2027. The letter points to four key concerns: Discrimination As with most face estimation and recognition tools, there is ongoing bias in the deployment of these technologies. With FAE, many have highlighted its baked-in failures and discrimination, particularly in relation to women and people of color. Evidence shows that FAE is most accurate for estimating the ages of Eastern European men, but even then it consistently produces errors. The Home Office itself noted “that FAE performance can vary depending on ethnicity” and skin tone. Inaccuracy The Home Office has admitted that FAE systems are imprecise for analyzing 16-to 18-year-olds, with even the “top systems” having an “error margin of around 2.5 years here.” This is exactly the age range for which the Home Office has chosen to deploy this technology. And this error margin will be widened yet further because children seeking asylum often suffer from trauma-induced aging. Lawfulness of Use of Children’s Data Major concerns exist around the lawful basis on which the Home Office, or its chosen third-party FAE vendors, could have sought consent to collect and process photographs or data from asylum-seeking children to train this system. Further, there is no clarity on the images and/or data that this technology has been trained on. Lack of Necessary Disclosure The Home Office claims “extensive testing has already been carried out across diverse groups, including different ethnicities, genders and age ranges, indicating promising performance and accuracy.” But these purported “promising” results have not been published, nor have any Equality or Data Protection Impact Assessments. The letter continues by requesting clarification on several key questions regarding these concerns. EFF and partners have provided the UK government 21 days for a response, and we urge the Home Office to take on this uphill task in good faith and release the information. You can read the letter in full here.
- Canada Is Forging Ahead with Its Dangerous Surveillance Billby Thorin Klosowski on June 18, 2026 at 10:34 pm
With no serious debate, including on proposed amendments, Canada is blazing full speed ahead with Bill C-22, which would threaten encryption and increase surveillance. Also known as the Lawful Access Bill, Bill C-22 is currently moving forward quickly to a vote despite the many, many criticisms civil liberty groups and the tech industry have hurled at it. As we’ve discussed before, Bill C-22 is dangerous on multiple levels. It pushes for requirements for metadata retention, expands information sharing with foreign governments, and establishes a mechanism that allows Canada’s Ministry of Public Safety to demand that companies create backdoors, effectively breaking encryption. That mechanism was a key facet of Part 2 in Bill C-22, and the government prevented it from being independently debated. In a deep analysis of the bill, Citizen Lab and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association detail every one of flaws of this proposal, concluding that most elements are unsalvageable. A wide range of tech companies agree. Signal, Apple, Google, and several VPN providers oppose the bill, and some have said they’d likely be forced to either cut Canadians off from certain features or shut down services in Canada altogether. The Canadian government wants this dangerous, complicated, overreaching bill passed before June 19. Bill C-22 is riddled with privacy problems that affect millions of people. It should be debated and studied fully, not jammed through on an arbitrary deadline. OpenMedia is offering a tool for Canadians to contact their elected representatives about the bill. Actions taken on OpenMedia's website are governed by OpenMedia's privacy policy, not EFF's.
- EFF Thanks SerpApi For Helping Us Protect Free Speech Onlineby Tierney Hamilton on June 18, 2026 at 9:56 pm
EFF is grateful for SerpApi’s generous support, helping us fight for your rights to speak and access information online. SerpApi has been giving to EFF every year since 2018, and alongside our 32,000 individual donors, their gift is critical to keeping up the fight. Whether in the courts, halls of power, or broader policy debates, we appreciate the work this support has made possible over the years. Some examples: We sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Department of State to stop an unconstitutional social media surveillance program to identify and punish individuals who express viewpoints the government disagrees with. We helped develop the Santa Clara Principles, a framework to reign in overbroad content moderation so that all users are treated fairly and offered consistent tools for recourse if their speech is censored by tech companies. In the whitepaper Unfiltered: How YouTube’s Content ID Discourages Fair Use and Dictates What We See Online, we pushed back on YouTube for silencing individual creators in the interest of protecting a small number of giant copyright holders. We stood with whistleblowers and dissidents persecuted for their online speech. We continued the fight to protect Section 230. We live in an era when lawful speech and the right to access information are being targeted by Big Tech and governments around the world that are hostile to dissent. Free speech online is core to EFF’s mission, and SerpApi’s support will help us continue the fight to protect everyone’s right to free expression.
- Call for Submissions: Digital Prideby Paige Collings on June 18, 2026 at 7:46 pm
This Pride season, join EFF and the Queer Arts Collective in building a creative space at the intersection of digital justice and artistic expression. We’re looking for fresh, untold, historically censored takes on digital liberation. Whether it’s pointing the lens towards an issue you feel is underrepresented in digital justice efforts; sharing personal accounts of joy, pleasure, or sorrow under surveillance; painting your widest imagination for our communities using technology for good instead of carcerality and doom—we want to see it and we want it to expand our own understanding of what’s important and beautiful. We’re going to be curating between five and nine art pieces across writing (fiction, nonfiction, poetry) and visual arts (photography, drawing, painting). We welcome fluidity in medium and genre, and cross-genre works of all kinds, such as graphic storytelling and collaborations. We are looking for works that convey the importance of digital liberation and ways of achieving it, particularly from under-represented perspectives. Pieces will be selected based on interpretation of the theme, emotional resonance (does it surprise, move, frighten, delight?), and overall curatorial cohesion for each issue. Submissions that adhere to the following length guidelines are preferred: (NON)FICTION - max 1500 wordsPOETRY - max 2 poems VISUAL ARTS - max 1 artwork, which can be a serialized collection. Please submit to paige+pride@eff.org by June 30, 2026, including your piece as an attachment and a short bio in the body of the email, alongside anything else we should know about your submission. You can expect to hear back from us around July 31, and we aim to have the first issue published in September. If we select your submission for publication on both EFF and Queer Arts Collective websites, we will compensate you between $25 - $50, depending on the number of pieces published. There is no fee for entry. Please only submit one piece or a contained series for this call, and wait for us to get back to you before submitting again. If you plan to submit both individually and as part of a collective, one submission in each of these categories applies. Your submission must be your original work and you must have the legal right to authorize us to publish it, but it need not be created specifically for this project; you may submit a work you have published previously. Please disclose any use of AI in a note in your application—this will not disqualify your entry, though we value transparency of labor exchange. As attempting to witness art is a highly subjective endeavor, please don't consider not being selected as anything other than circumstantial. We are looking to foster a community of artists working for digital justice, and would love to see more from you in the future. You will retain all legal rights to your work, but agree to provide EFF and Queer Arts Collective with a non-exclusive and non-time-limited license to publish your work on their websites and other promotional materials, such as in zines. Meet the Judges Kit Walsh is an EFF attorney who works to protect the rights of activists, journalists, researchers, and dissenters in order to build a better world. She is also a Nebula-award-winning author and is best known for her tabletop roleplaying game Thirsty Sword Lesbians. Paige Collings is an EFF activist working to dismantle systems of oppression and advance collective liberation. Her work focuses on highlighting how state surveillance and corporate restrictions stifle marginalized communities and perpetuate historic injustices and harm. She works with activists across the globe to facilitate systemic change by speaking truth to power and creating spaces for alternative imaginations. The Queer Arts Collective is an NYC-based collective run by queer and racialized artist-activists, looking to make space for art that is deliberately disruptive of structural hierarchies that power the status quo.
- A New Bill Takes Aim at Government Pressure to Silence Lawful Online Speechby India McKinney on June 18, 2026 at 7:38 pm
Last week, Senators Ted Cruz and Ron Wyden introduced the Justice Against Weaponized Bureaucratic Overreach to Networked Expression, or JAWBONE Act. The bipartisan legislation creates a federal cause of action against government officials who coerce or attempt to coerce broadcasters, interactive computer services, or AI providers into taking actions against lawful, First-Amendment-protected speech, and establishes a transparency system for government communications with those intermediaries about user expression. We thank the Senators for their leadership on this important issue. Jawboning occurs when the government pressures private companies to censor speech protected by the First Amendment, and it’s not always obvious to the public or to the victims what has actually happened. Deleting posts or cancelling accounts because a government official or agency demanded it or even made threats in making those demands—just like spying on people’s communications on behalf of the government—raises serious free speech concerns. Among other things, this bill would provide a new legal right to bring claims against the government in federal court, in addition to what the First Amendment provides. At EFF, we’re continuing to fight back on behalf of those censored by government coercion. One recent example: we represent the creator of ICEBlock, an app that allows the public to report immigration enforcement activity in their communities. In June 2025, high-ranking federal officials began threatening to investigate and prosecute the creator of ICEBlock, Joshua Aaron. In October 2025, the U.S. Attorney General demanded Apple remove ICEBlock from the App Store, and the company complied. The government’s coercion violated Aaron’s First Amendment rights. We’ve also filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the same government agencies that threatened Aaron and other services that provided forums to report ICE activity. The lawsuit seeks the disclosure of the government’s communications with Apple, Google, and Meta that forced the services to remove lawful speech. When federal officials pressure private companies into censoring protected speech, it can violate the First Amendment. But, not every communication from a government agency to a platform is unconstitutionally coercive. Treating legitimate communication and information-sharing between the government and private actors as though it were always unconstitutional would chill the valuable, good-faith engagement that supports a healthier and safer internet and nation for all Americans. This is a complex issue, and one that is important for Congress and the courts to get right. Finally, contrary to what many in Congress have been saying, social media platforms and other internet intermediaries have their own First Amendment rights to decide how they moderate users’ speech. They are not “state actors” and do not have an obligation under the First Amendment to allow all user speech on their platforms. EFF filed an amicus brief setting out our position in 2018, and we’ve said it in many cases since. The Supreme Court recognized again in the Netchoice cases that these services have a right to curate and edit their users’ speech, whether or not it aligns with the government’s position. And, it’s important to defend that First Amendment right so that governments cannot dictate how to edit a company’s site according to the government’s wishes and desires. To prevent jawboning by default, companies must be free to curate their platforms as they wish. EFF applauds Senators Cruz and Wyden for taking this critical issue seriously, and we look forward to working with Congress on this bipartisan bill as it moves through the process. We hope it lands on the right balance to provide additional protections for everyday users around freedom of expression.
- Court Records Should Be Freeby Joe Mullin on June 18, 2026 at 7:36 pm
Court records belong to the public. Yet anyone seeking access to federal court filings through PACER, a government software system that stands for Public Access to Court Electronic Records, is usually required to pay hefty fees to search for and view documents. PACER’s fees have long acted as a barrier that makes it hard, especially for low income people, to see and understand the work produced by our own public servants. That's why EFF joined a broad group of organizations supporting the Open Courts Act of 2026, legislation that would modernize the federal courts' electronic filing systems and eliminate PACER fees. Public access to the courts is a cornerstone of democratic accountability. The bill would replace the aging PACER and CM/ECF systems with a modern, unified platform designed to improve public access, strengthen cybersecurity, and reduce long-term costs. Supporters note that PACER currently collects more than $150 million annually in fees from the public, despite court records being public documents. The Open Courts Act would also make court records easier to find, access, and understand. The legislation builds on a similar proposal, also supported by EFF, that previously won bipartisan support in the Senate Judiciary Committee but did not become law before the end of the congressional session. This is not a new issue for EFF. More than a decade ago, we criticized PACER's paywalls and the removal of some court records from online access, arguing that the public should not have to pay to read the law and the judicial decisions that shape it. The Open Courts Act would move U.S. courts a big step closer to that goal. In addition to EFF, the bill is supported by Fix the Court, the group pushing this bill forward; the Free Law Project, which maintains RECAP, software that has created a large archive of legal opinions and other court records; as well as civil society groups, open government watchdogs, and media groups. Public access to the courts is a cornerstone of democratic accountability. Let’s eliminate unnecessary barriers to court records, and bring the federal judiciary’s tech into the modern era. Read the full letter supporting the Open Courts Act of 2026
- Field Notes from a Year of OPSEC Trainingby Daly Barnett on June 18, 2026 at 7:00 pm
Late last year, as part of our annual “Year in Review” series, we summarized our efforts providing digital privacy and security advice to at-risk communities. OPSEC trainings (short for operational security, a catch-all term we use to describe any kind of workshop, advising session, assessment, or presentation about operational security for individuals and organization) are something we've long provided, but until recently, something we’ve never broadcasted. This has become a critical aspect of our work over the years, keeping us grounded and in touch with the realities of tech-enabled violence as well as evolving resistance strategies used by movement workers. Hoping other security trainers and organizers copy our homework, here’s a more thorough breakdown. NOT TRADITIONAL PENTESTING To be clear, we're not a 'pentesting' company, which refers to the methodological process of testing a person or organization's security and privacy posture, nor an information security (infosec) firm that offers anything within scopes of traditional security assessments. Infosec companies almost always adhere to a cycle of: discovery/reconnaissance; > vulnerability scanning and testing; > exploitation of vulnerabilities found; > and a reportback of recommended mitigation strategies. Such full-spectrum audits can run the gamut of testing network security, physical security, organization posture against phishing or ransomware attacks, web app security, and more. For many organizations, the value of such engagements is immeasurable. Such companies—although equipped with the technical sophistication to do full-spectrum digital security auditing and testing—often lack the critical points of view of human rights defenders and activists. Many human rights defenders and liberation movement workers are critically under-resourced and unable to meet the high costs of engagement with such infosec companies. But that’s not what we offer. Our trainings center the needs of people on the ground, and offer this work pro bono. The cycle of engagement our work tends to take is similar to the lifecycle of pentesting outlined above, but with some key differences better suited to people-powered movements. We begin with a period of discovery about the organization we’re engaging with, learning about their work, the issue space they’re working in, and the types of threats their peers have faced in the past. Relying on our knowledge of known threat actors (state-operated threats, non-state actors, surveillance mechanisms, and more), we conduct a thorough threat modeling and risk assessment exercise, surfacing critical pieces of information about what we ought to prioritize protecting and from what. Sometimes that’s enough for a group to get started on improving their security plans, and we send them on their way. After receiving consent from the group to do so, we may perform some OSINT (open source intelligence) investigation and map out a sketch of their digital footprint. This often looks like some combination of discoverability through public records, data broker ecosystems, and breach databases, as well as risks they may incur through the services they rely on for their web presence. That latter part can be done with typical pentesting reconnaissance tools, as well as our own project Privacy Badger for mapping the trackers on their website, which pose them and their users some amount of risk. Working from this sketch of their digital footprint, opportunities to lessen the reach of their data exposure, or at least the more sensitive areas they ought to be aware of, become apparent. For a more in-depth engagement, we take the information gathered from the guided threat modeling exercises, as well as the digital footprint we’ve developed for them, and we move on to training the participants on what they need to address their threats. Sometimes that looks like a deep dive on encryption and how it can be used to protect data backups and secure communications. Other times it looks like getting very knowledgeable and practiced on the various ways to stay safe from surveillance threats encountered at a protest. Often though, our engagement with those asking for advice on how to strengthen their OPSEC is as simple as presenting materials covered in our Surveillance Self-Defense (SSD) project, but with EFF staff to help apply those lessons to their context. MOVEMENTS AND COMMUNITIES ADVISED Requests for such training mostly arise organically, either via referral, from our participation in external media, or driven by an interest in SSD. Naturally, the demand for accessible OPSEC advice escalates along with the general sophistication and reach of surveillance technology. And as authoritarianism creeps and continues to threaten the movement workers fighting against it, there's a marked urgency for that demand. The types of communities and liberation movement workers that reach out run a wide array of experiences, but some commonalities stick out. Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, we've seen a huge uptick in abortion access activists like clinic escorts and information distribution networks reaching out. So too are providers of criminalized healthcare services, both abortion services and gender affirming care alike. The list goes on: advocates for transgender rights such as art collectives and archivists, sex worker rights activists, survivors of intimate partner violence, climate justice activists, legal defense groups focusing on immigrant justice and Black liberation. And many, many others, often stemming from experiences of distinct marginalization and state-powered violence. We’re dressing the wounds the violence of surveillance inflicts. TAXONOMY OF THREATS When there's a cast of common threat actors that so often emerge during risk assessment (ideologically motivated harassers, lawmakers, cops, negligent leadership at large tech platforms, etc) there is a level of predictability about their capabilities. We use that information to make knowledgeable risk assessments for those we’re working with, determining the means that threat actors have to cause them harm, as well as the likelihood. For community organizers and grassroots activists we most often see concerns around doxxing (and harassment driven by OSINT), social media monitoring, content suppression on tech platforms, and insider threats such as infiltration within trusted communication channels. Often this comes with a tension between publicity and privacy—needing to spread their message and further their cause, while recognizing that digital privacy has a profound impact on their personal safety. Some activists may instead hope to organize other more covert forms of direct action. They're more likely to be concerned about the types of street level surveillance that they may encounter. Small organizations nonprofit and otherwise may share the concerns around doxxing, as well as traditional digital security concerns around their web presence. Website defacement and data exfiltration are particular concerns for organizations that don't have the resources to commit to IT security staff. And for those that do have meager budgets for such things, organizational compliance and ease-of-use regarding privacy and security technologies are a whole other concern. The question then becomes how to manage a system of distributed devices that are uncontrolled by the organization, but operationally necessary for each member of their community. Generally speaking, the threats most commonly encountered in these spaces have to do with the opacity and unchecked reach of surveillance systems. With every single individual or group that we encounter in this type of work, threat modeling comes number one in terms of priority. There is no way to protect against every theoretical threat. Instead, we walk others through the process of identifying and then prioritizing known and perceived threats, based on their specific context and the type of work that they do, before moving on to recommended mitigation and resistance strategies. STRATEGIES OF RESISTANCE Developing a threat model without a course of action often does more to stoke privacy nihilism than remedy the risks communities face. The more we engage with at-risk communities and offer reasonable, accessible OPSEC advice, the greater our instinct develops for recognizing such strategies. At the core of these recommendations lie the backbones of privacy and security fundamentals, such as encryption, access controls, sophisticated backup plans, OSINT skills, and resistance to online tracking. Over the years, we've found it easiest to begin with non-technical recommendations first. These strategies often mesh well with the community's extant organizing procedures, such as designating team roles and thought out contingency plans for specific risks. This may look like identifying those extant plans and tacking on responsibilities like data backups, code words for community vetting, and developing workarounds or contingency plans for if they lose access to specific technologies. Eventually, though, the strategies must become more technical, like switching to more private and secure technology alternatives, developing a sophisticated and encrypted data backup plan, and having technical contingency plans in place for if/when they are deplatformed or their services interrupted. Developing patience and compassion when walking groups through unfamiliar technologies is an essential tool of this work. So too is the habit of checking ourselves, as privacy and security nerds, to know the difference between the most secure technologies and those which will actually be used by at-risk community members. Any step towards more thoughtful OPSEC is better than one too difficult to use. The last thing we want is a recommendation that results in people frustratedly giving up on doing anything at all. After all, the whole point of this is to empower movement workers, not inhibit them. HOLISTIC MITIGATIONS It is painfully obvious how many identified threats could be protected against if there were comprehensive data privacy legislation protecting all people. The lack of such is an existential threat to everyone. Bills that undermine peoples' right to privacy are never clear about what they're doing, and often come wrapped in some paternalistic guise of addressing some other harm elsewhere. They often use confusing, oblique language that preys on the public's interest to correct the course of other social harms. The reality is that when it’s clearly explained, every person online wants better privacy. And as we know, every individual's personal security and wellbeing are entwined with their access to privacy. The capacity with which a person can decide what to share online, rather than have sensitive information non-consensually taken from them by creepy surveillance technologies, is a matter of self-determination. And it's in all our best interests to fight for the right to self-determination. WHAT WE GET BACK An unexpected outcome of identifying so many common threat actors across such varied issue spaces is revealing potential avenues of collaboration and camaraderie. Some movements are already keen on this allyship, such as those focusing on various aspects of bodily autonomy and self-determination. Abortion access activists and trans liberation activists are often in concerted allyship. Other less obvious connections are legal defense groups that offer "know-your-rights" style educational materials and other issue-specific activists who have questions about the legal threats they're facing while fighting for their cause. Recognizing the common threat actors across different issue spaces begins to highlight opportunities for collective action against those threats. As a digital rights organization, this is very much our wheelhouse, and precisely why our technologist team is self-described as one working toward the public interest. It’s also from this point of view that we continue to win. And why it’s critical for lawmakers to pay attention when we say particular pieces of bad legislation are harmful to public safety. And finally, why it is necessary for public interest technologists and digital rights activists to connect with other communities to learn about the specific technology risks they’re worried about. As Mariame Kaba says, “Nothing that we do that is worthwhile is done alone.” This very blog post is in an effort to provoke thought for digital security trainers, so that we as a community don’t work atomized and alone, reproducing the same work, exhausting ourselves and creating unnecessary redundancy. We do what we can to keep up. And thankfully, we participate within an ecosystem of digital security providers that have a keen mind towards fighting for digital rights. We share resources, referrals, and expertise. Our Surveillance Self-Defense project is stress-tested by the experiences shared by the liberation movement workers we engage with and provide this work to. If you’re interested in becoming a digital security resource for your community, start with the SSD. If you’re a human rights defender with questions about how to stay safe, reach out. And if you’re not sure what else to do, you can always help us keep it going.
- AI Regulation Should Be Rational, Not Retaliatoryby Tori Noble on June 18, 2026 at 6:45 pm
The Trump administration’s approach to AI safety, particularly the generative AI models that regularly grab headlines, has been haphazard at best. At worst, it’s unconstitutional. As EFF and our allies explained in an amicus brief, the Pentagon’s actions against one company, Anthropic, violate the First Amendment because they were motivated by the administration’s desire to punish an uncooperative company, not legitimate concerns about national security. By and large, the Trump administration’s AI strategy has minimized regulation in the name of “winning” the global “race” to develop leading frontier models. It has pared back regulations intended to address even the most serious AI threats—like AI-enabled cyberattacks on government systems—to protect AI innovation. Yet it has repeatedly singled out one AI company for arbitrary, heavy-handed rules and sanctions. For years, the federal government relied on Anthropic’s models for use in its classified systems. But after Anthropic resisted the government’s demands to use Anthropic’s models to autonomously kill people or spy on Americans, the government declared war on the “woke” company. It designated the company a “supply chain risk,” effectively banning agencies and government contractors from doing business with the company. A court issued a preliminary injunction preventing these sanctions from taking effect, as EFF and other civil liberties organizations urged it to do in an amicus brief filed earlier this year. But absent judicial action, these sanctions would’ve cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars. Either way, it sent a clear signal that companies must adhere to the government’s wishes or face similar consequences. As we explained in our brief filed today, these sanctions were clear retaliation for the company’s public refusal to allow the Pentagon to use its models to develop fully autonomous weapons and spy on Americans. This kind of retaliation is unconstitutional. In a recent executive order, the Trump administration took its war on Anthropic even further, by imposing “export controls” that ban any foreign nationals from using Anthropic’s new Mythos and Fable models. To comply with this order, Anthropic shut down the models altogether. These extreme measures were purportedly justified by security concerns. The administration said it feared that Anthropic’s Mythos-class models could be used to find and exploit existing vulnerabilities in software code—hardly a new feat for an LLM. Anthropic itself has contributed to public anxieties about its Mythos-class models, initially claiming that Mythos was too dangerous for public release and restricting access to a handful of partners. The company’s CEO called for a pause on AI development, citing fears that the technology was becoming too powerful. But regulators should be cutting through the hype, not feeding it. Even if Mythos’s capabilities were a modest improvement over existing technology, others are already closing the gap. In other words, nothing about Mythos is so uniquely dangerous that it warrants exceptional export controls to protect the public. Yet other LLMs with similar offensive cybersecurity capabilities are not subject to export controls. Instead, the government has embraced a voluntary system in which companies are encouraged to submit models to the government for cybersecurity testing 30 days before releasing them to the public. AI policy should be reasonably responsive to real-world risk, grounded in the realities of the technology, and no more burdensome than necessary to protect the public. But the government’s haphazard decision to impose export controls on Mythos-class models, while subjecting other AI models to nothing more than a voluntary, light-touch framework, meets none of these criteria. As leading cybersecurity experts and executives recently explained in an open letter, these sanctions prevent developers and security teams from using the best models to find and fix vulnerabilities before adversaries, armed with nearly as capable AI, can exploit them. Decades Later, Code Is Still Speech More importantly, export controls on important software tools like LLMs can undermine the free flow of digital communications and technologies that activists, innovators, and ordinary users desperately need. Freedom of expression requires access to these tools. Depriving the public of the best AI threatens our rights without making us any safer. EFF has long opposed government efforts to restrict the publication of non-classified software to the general public. In the 1990s, EFF challenged export controls on encryption software, helping establish the principle that “code is speech,” protected by the First Amendment. Courts recognized that software is not just a functional tool—it’s a means of ideas, knowledge, and technical know-how. And they recognized that the government was overreaching in trying to restrict private developers from sharing their improvements in computer security with the public. While AI models raise new questions, efforts to restrict access to them implicate the same constitutional and speech concerns as older efforts to restrict encryption. Export controls are uniquely susceptible to abuse. And they are especially suspect when they are unilaterally imposed without clear and fair standards. Whether these export controls were another attempt to punish Anthropic or simply a misguided security measure, the public loses. The real cybersecurity risks of advanced AI may ultimately justify limited regulations to protect the public from legitimate threats. But whether the government ultimately chooses to heavily regulate the technology or hold off to promote innovation, its rules must be rational and evenhanded. Read EFF's Amicus Brief in Anthropic v. Department of War
- The Free and Open Web Is Under Attack at the IETFby Tori Noble on June 17, 2026 at 9:26 pm
The ability to access publicly available information using automated tools is a central value and benefit of a free and open internet. Automated access—often called crawling or scraping—powers important, useful tools for locating, preserving, and analyzing online information. For example, crawling and scraping helps journalists, researchers, and watchdog organizations report the news, find security flaws, and investigate discrimination. Crawling the web allows non-profits like the Internet Archive to preserve historical copies of websites. Tools for automated comparison shopping allow consumers to find the best deals on items they want to buy. And so on. Yet the open internet access is increasingly under threat from publishers and Big Tech companies alike. Fearing lost advertising and licensing revenues, website operators increasingly claim that they need to lock down their sites from bots that crawl public web content to train or operate AI models. Some companies are even trying to embed their business models into internet standards by changing Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) technical standards that shape much of the internet. Many of their economic anxieties are understandable. AI bots can strain websites’ infrastructure, in some cases, degrading site performance or taking them offline altogether. Upgrading systems costs money that some sites may not have. And AI is likely to disrupt the business models many publishers adopted in response to the rise of the internet, if users rely on AI overviews instead of visiting source websites. However reasonable these fears may be, the answer is not to change the IETF standards from neutral protocols that encourage openness to restrictive requirements designed to monetize internet access. The worst of these proposed standards would give websites far greater ability to automatically block legitimate, lawful scraping and crawling. For example, the AI Preferences working group is working on proposals to give publishers a way to express “preference signals” against crawling web data for AI-related purposes, including to train models, generate outputs, and help users search the web. These preference signals would be expressed through robots.txt and could potentially become legally binding in some jurisdictions. Another working group, called Web Bot Auth, is pursuing efforts to protect sites from overly-aggressive bots that strain website resources—a positive goal that could meaningfully improve the internet in the AI era. But Web Bot Auth is simultaneously pursuing a much more dangerous path as well: standards changes that would enable sites to cryptographically identify bots so that they can more easily block anyone they wish—not just “bad” actors, but competitors, dissidents, or anyone who hasn’t paid for the right to access sites using automated tools. If sites restrict crawling to a preapproved list of cryptographically authenticated bots, they could require licensing payments from those wishing to crawl their sites. This would close off the open web to researchers, archivists, and startups without the ability to pay for automated access. Websites may have legitimate reasons to worry about AI’s impacts on their traffic and advertising revenue, but those reasons must be weighed against the benefits of the open web. These proposals would effectively give website operators veto power over a wide range of important uses—from the investigations and archival works described above to accessibility tools for people with disabilities, to research efforts aimed at holding governments accountable. That is why we are fighting back against these threats to open access. EFF and our allies in the open internet community have successfully resisted some of the most dangerous IETF proposals thus far—and won’t stop working to protect the open web from efforts to manipulate internet standards to undermine the right to freely access the internet in any legal way, including with automated tools.
- The NO FAKES Act Could Silence Satire, Commentary, And Newsby Joe Mullin on June 17, 2026 at 8:33 pm
The NO FAKES Act is supposed to target harmful AI-generated impersonations. But in reality, it will make it easier to suppress commentary, satire, and other lawful speech. That's why EFF has signed a letter urging the Senate Judiciary Committee not to advance the bill in its current form. Take action Tell Congress to Say No to NO FAKES In the letter, EFF joins a coalition of civil society groups in pointing out that the bill would import many of the worst features of the DMCA notice-and-takedown system into an even broader range of online expression. Faced with a “heckler’s veto” over legal speech, platforms will have incentives to remove content first and ask questions later. The bill offers no protection for a platform’s judgment about an often difficult question—whether a particular piece of content is satire, parody, commentary, or news. Any platform that guesses wrong faces penalties of up to $750,000 per work. NO FAKES could also undermine the rights of the people it is supposed to protect. The new federal “likeness” right could be licensed or transferred to others, so individuals will lose control over the use of their own face and voice. That’s not theoretical—workers in the entertainment industry are routinely asked to sign broad contracts about the future use of their likenesses. As the letter notes: A background actor who signs a release on set or an ordinary person who clicks through a platform's terms of service could end up with the right to their own face and voice in someone else's hands, for years, with federal enforcement behind it. EFF and the other signatories urge Congress to examine existing legal remedies and pursue narrowly tailored solutions to genuine harms. The last thing we need is a sweeping new intellectual property right that threatens free expression. In addition to EFF, the letter is signed by the Center for Democracy & Technology, the American Civil Liberties Union, Fight for the Future, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the Organization for Transformative Works, Public Knowledge, the R Street Institute, The Future of Free Speech, and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation. Read the full letter here. Take action Tell Congress to Say No to NO FAKES
- Onward, Friendsby Cindy Cohn on June 16, 2026 at 6:56 pm
After 26 years, today is my last day at EFF. It's been a terrific and wild ride — the organization has grown from a tiny band of fighty people trying to plant a flag for freedom and justice in the coming digital world into a large, established band of fighty people doing, well, much the same. The world around us has changed enormously. Our core values haven't budged. I'm proud of what we've achieved: freeing encryption, defending coders, pushing to rein in government and corporate surveillance and ensure the right to have a private conversation online, standing up for free speech and anonymous speech, fighting for network neutrality and safe voting machines, busting stupid patents, and making sure copyright didn't become the one law that rules the internet. That's only the start. We've stopped more bad legislative, regulatory, and legal ideas than I can count, built tools that millions rely on to protect their privacy, and helped encrypt the web. I've long said EFF is the plumber of the internet — finding the clogs and barriers that prevent technology from serving freedom, justice, and innovation for everyone. In addition to presenting cases in courts across the land, testifying in Congress and in California, in the European Parliament and at the United Nations, I went onto the internet with Stephen Colbert and engaged in a healthy disagreement with Jon Stewart. I wrote a lot of it down in a book, hoping to recruit others to the cause. The work has been hard and often frustrating at times. But looking back, the fun parts are what I remember most. None of it would have been possible without EFF’s stalwart members. More than 30,000 people, some with big wallets and some with small ones, give us what we need to stand up to bullies and fight for the long haul. EFF has always served as a beacon for people who know that for technology to support freedom, justice, and innovation for all the people of the world, we need a dedicated band of folks working overtime on behalf of users, innovators, and creators. There's still plenty left to do. We haven't killed the third-party doctrine, tamed the surveillance business model, or gotten metadata the constitutional protection it deserves. Stupid patents persist as does the overreach of DMCA section 1201 and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The government is now the largest purchaser of data from shady brokers, communities everywhere are fighting license plate readers and other street-level surveillance, and we haven't reined in NSA and FBI spying nearly enough. Meanwhile, the rise of AI is supercharging problems we've fought against for years. But I'm proud of what we've built together. I'm grateful to every EFFer — past, present, and future — who threw in with us when the odds were long and the pay was much better elsewhere. I'm grateful to the EFF Board and especially to my mentors and friends Pam Samuelson and Shari Steele, along with my longtime partner in justice, Lee Tien, who has been working with me since the Bernstein case. Fighting for justice is easier when you have a posse: coworkers, co-counsel, coalitions, interns, volunteers, and the heroic clients who trusted us to steward their cases in ways that bent the law toward everyone's benefit. Twenty-six years later, EFF is part of a global diaspora of organizations defending internet freedom — and I'm proud of that too. I'm stepping down because good leaders should make way for new ones, and the time feels right. EFF is strong and full of fight. My successor Nicole Ozer — a longtime friend and collaborator — is exactly the right person for this moment. She understands EFF's role and values at a deep level and will protect them while helping the organization rise to meet what's coming. As for me, I'm not going far. After a few months off to reflect and walk dogs, I plan to get back into the fight for justice — likely heading back into the courtroom. And I'll be watching, cheering, donating, and wearing the merch from EFF, just like the rest of you.
- EFFecting Change: LGBTQ+ Solidarity Against the Tide of Surveillanceby Melissa Srago on June 15, 2026 at 11:35 pm
LGBTQ+ communities are facing an escalating wave of censorship and targeted surveillance, but we can push back through mutual solidarity. Join us live to learn how safer virtual spaces get built, how platform policies and government pressure are reshaping the digital landscape, and what platform accountability actually looks like. Our panel will share ideas for direct action and concrete strategies you can bring back to your community. Whether you’re an activist, an ally, or just paying attention, this conversation is for you. Join the livestream online followed by live Q&A. EFFecting Change Livestream Series:LGBTQ+ Solidarity Against the Tide of SurveillanceWednesday, June 17th9:00 am - 10:00 am Pacific - Check Local TimeLivestream followed by Q&A This event is LIVE and FREE! About the Speakers Paige CollingsAs a lawyer, digital policy activist and community organizer, Paige works to dismantle systems of oppression and advance collective liberation. Her work focuses on highlighting how state surveillance and corporate restrictions stifle marginalized communities and perpetuate historic injustices and harm. She has worked with activists across the globe to facilitate systemic change by speaking truth to power and creating spaces for alternative imaginations; and her writing on digital justice has been featured in Wired, Politico, Teen Vogue, the Daily Beast and more. Jillian C. YorkJillian is EFF's Director for International Freedom of Expression, based in London. Her work examines state and corporate censorship and its impact on culture and human rights, with a focus on historically marginalized communities. At EFF, she organizes coalitions, writes about and researches topics related to freedom of expression, leads the Speaking Freely interview series, and contributes to various other areas of the organization's work. Jillian is the author of Silicon Values: The Future of Free Speech Under Surveillance Capitalism (Verso, 2021), a contributor to several academic volumes, and has written for MIT Technology Review, The Guardian, and WIRED, among others. She is also a visiting professor at the College of Europe Natolin in Warsaw, and a regular speaker at global events. Soatok DreamseekerSoatok Dreamseeker is a gay furry security engineer. He blogs about applied cryptography on his blog, Dhole Moments, and is developing key transparency to enable end-to-end encryption on the Fediverse. His puns are 100% whole groan. Luísa Franco MachadoLuísa Franco Machado is an award-winning international expert in digital rights and data justice. She has also been a technical advisor in data governance and AI ethics for governments, NGOs, and international organizations worldwide, including the UN, OECD.AI, GIZ, and others. Luísa has carried on policy research at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and Sciences Po Paris on the intersection between technology and socio-economic development. In 2022, the United Nations recognized them as a global Young Leader for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) among more than 6,500 advocates. In 2025 she was featured in Apolitical's Government AI 100 list as a rising star.
- Victory! 702 has Expired!by India McKinney on June 12, 2026 at 11:49 pm
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act lets US intelligence agencies collect communications from foreigners abroad without a warrant, and routinely sweeps in Americans’ emails, messages, and calls in the process. The authority for this program is set to expire Friday, June 12th, 2026, at midnight. As we wrote earlier this week, Congress has been kicking the ball down the road for months now—temporarily postponing the expiration of the mass surveillance authority Section 702 of FISA in hopes that some consensus on a longer reauthorization could be reached. EFF has said for decades, every time this program is up for renewal: Section 702 should require a warrant before the Federal Bureau of Investigation can look at digital communications collected from Americans. If not, we should let the whole thing expire. And this time, it has, at least for a little while. Ironically, we have Bill Pulte to thank for this (probably temporary) reprieve. Earlier this month, Trump on Tuesday named Pulte – currently director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – to replace current DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who announced her resignation last month. As has been widely reported, Pulte lacks any intelligence, military, or congressional experience. Senate Democrats responded by refusing to move forward with their version of a bill to reauthorize Section 702. Similarly, the House refused to approve even a short-term renewal of the program. However, the potential for abuse of this program is not limited to one individual or one administration. And if Congress is this concerned about one particular individual having access to Americans’ most sensitive information, the responsible thing to do is to put more transparency, accountability, and oversight into the structure of this program. Members on both sides of the aisle understand this. As we have seen several times this year already, the appetite for reform is stronger than ever. We hope to continue to see strong bipartisan opposition in Congress to renewing Section 702 without a warrant requirement for backdoor searches. Until then, the authority for this program should remain expired.
- Yes to California's Bill to Ban Surveillance Pricingby Adam Schwartz on June 11, 2026 at 7:56 pm
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.
- ‘News’ Site Keeps Hallucinating EFF Staffersby Josh Richman on June 11, 2026 at 5:20 pm
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.
- LGBT Q&A: We’re Back With Season 2! by Paige Collings on June 11, 2026 at 11:20 am
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.
- Congress Just Rushed Through a Disastrous Copyright Office Overhaulby Joe Mullin on June 10, 2026 at 10:54 pm
In a voice vote earlier this week, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6028, the “Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act.” The legislation is presented as a technical reorganization of some government agencies, but it’s much more than that. H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office, and not in a good way. The bill removes the Library of Congress’ current supervisory role over the Copyright Office, transfers several powers directly to the Register of Copyrights, and makes the Register a presidential appointee, confirmed by the Senate. These changes would make an office that’s already hugely influential in copyright and tech policy much more political. EFF first explained why that’s a terrible idea when it came up nearly a decade ago. This bill, like the older one, weakens the few public-interest checks and balances that do exist. We hope the Senate promptly rejects this bill. The Copyright Office Doesn’t Need More Politics—Or More Power The Copyright Office's main responsibilities are administrative and advisory. It registers copyrights, maintains records, grows the Library of Congress’s collections, and provides expertise to Congress on copyright law. But over the past two decades, the Office has also become increasingly influential in copyright policy debates that affect free expression, libraries, educators, competition—and everyday internet users. Unfortunately, it has not been a neutral advocate. The office’s recent report on the role of AI severely bungled the issue of fair use, prioritizing private licensing market “solutions” over user rights. Going further back, the Copyright Office supported one of the most infamous anti-internet proposals of all time—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a disastrous internet censorship proposal that sparked one of the largest online protests in history. The Office has repeatedly advanced positions that favored large entertainment-industry interests over the public interest. The Office also plays a major role in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Section 1201 rulemaking process, which determines when the public may lawfully bypass digital locks for activities such as security research, repair, preservation, or accessibility. EFF has used this process repeatedly to mitigate some of the worst harms of the DMCA. H.R. 6028 would move rulemaking authority over 1201 from the Librarian of Congress to the Register of Copyrights, further consolidating power within the Copyright Office itself. The bill also makes the Register of Copyrights a presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate. Each administration will be pressured to pick nominees aligned with their own policy preferences, and the powerful copyright owning industries will invest even more heavily in lobbying to get their way, and influence the selection. This position should be focused on administrative ability and actual expertise, not lobbying and politics. The Copyright Office Should Stay Connected To The Library of Congress H.R. 6028 would do more than change who appoints the Register of Copyrights. It would sever the Copyright Office from Library of Congress supervision and transfer many Librarian powers directly to the Register. The supervisory relationship exists for good reason, as the nation’s libraries have pointed out for years. The Library, while far from perfect, at least has the mission of preserving and providing access to knowledge. That should be an important public-interest counterweight in copyright debates. Congress has not explained how weakening the ties between the Library and the Copyright Office would serve the public better, or even seriously inquired about it. This Bill Was Rushed Through Back in March, EFF joined Public Knowledge, the Center for Democracy and Technology, library organizations and tech groups, urging Congress not to fast-track this legislation. We told them changes to the Copyright Office will have major consequences for the “speech rights, educational opportunities, and creative freedoms of all Americans.” Yet Congress moved forward without any hearings on the bill, and without meaningful examination. H.R. 6028 creates a years-long separation of the Copyright Office from the Library of Congress, transfers significant legal authority, and restructures the appointment process for the nation’s top copyright official. Changes like that deserve hearings, debate, and public scrutiny. H.R. 6028 got none of that. The Senate Should Stop This Bill Copyright law exists to serve the public and “promote the progress” of science and learning. The institutions that administer copyright law should do the same. H.R. 6028 would move the Copyright Office further away from that goal. Congress should be strengthening public-interest oversight of copyright policymaking, not looking for ways to concentrate more authority in a single presidentially appointed official. The Senate should reject H.R. 6028. The Copyright Office should serve the public—not presidential administrations, and not industry lobbyists.
- The 702 Ultimatum: Warrant Requirement or Bustby Matthew Guariglia on June 10, 2026 at 7:25 pm
For months now, Congress has been kicking the ball down the road—temporarily postponing the expiration of the mass surveillance authority Section 702 of FISA in hopes that some consensus could be reached. Now, with the deadline looming, the stakes have never been higher. Nearly every time the statute has come up for renewal, the people demanding privacy and civil liberties have had to compromise, but with current negotiations seemingly at an impasse, it’s time for surveillance maximalist lawmakers to come to the table. We say to the Intelligence Community crowd: Section 702 should require a warrant before the Federal Bureau of Investigation can look at digital communications collected from Americans. If not, we should let the whole thing expire. This is a serious proposition. The intelligence community can keep a useful national security surveillance tool if and only if they make FBI agents get a warrant signed by a judge before they sift through and read out private communications. A warrant requirement is not the only demand EFF has been making for changing Section 702, but it is the most important reform and it should happen before there is any more reauthorization of the policy. For too long, the FBI has been able to piggyback on a major national security tool as an unconstitutional backdoor way of reading Americans’ communications. 702 collects communications going to, from, or between people in other countries—including when they are contacted by people in the United States. Mass surveillance is just that—mass. It’s lacking any of the individualized suspicion that our legal system is based on. Take action TELL congress: 702 Needs Reform So, what’s been happening? On one side are surveillance hawks and intelligence community-devotees who think the mass surveillance of Americans is an acceptable, even valuable, product of this authority. This bipartisan coalition of privacy deniers think that 702 should be extended without any change, and they seem to be willing to let the authority expire rather than compromise with the lawmakers and public that are demanding common-sense reforms. They’ve been given a number of chances to pass bills that would implement some key incremental reforms, but those opportunities have not moved the needle. On the other side of the debate is a bipartisan coalition of people who understand that this authority can no longer operate as is. Section 702 is rife with problems, loopholes, and compliance issues that need fixing. The National Security Agency collects full conversations being conducted by and with overseas targets—including conversations by and with Americans in the U.S.—and stores them in massive databases. The NSA then allows other agencies, specifically the FBI, to access untold amounts of that information. In turn, the FBI takes a “finders keepers” approach to this data: they reason that since it's already collected under one law, it’s OK for them to see it. If the FBI wanted to get that data on their own, it would require them to get a warrant signed by a judge certifying that there is probable cause. Instead, under current practice, the FBI can query and even read the U.S. side of that communication without a warrant. What’s more, victims of this surveillance won’t know and have very few ways of finding out that their communications have been surveilled. Complicating this matter more is that the Trump administration has announced Bill Pulte as the new Director of National Intelligence, whose job it will be to oversee and direct U.S. intelligence agencies. This is particularly concerning because of Pulte’s history of using private information held by the government as a political weapon. In his FHFA role, he has accused several of the President’s political foes and targets—including New York State Attorney General Letitia James, U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook—of mortgage fraud based on private data held by his agency. Because of his looming appointment, many Democrats have vowed not to reauthorize Section 702 unless he is removed from the position. They shouldn’t stop there—they should use that leverage to demand a warrant requirement. The integrity of the people in charge of a program should not be the only thing that stands between Americans and violations of their civil liberties. What happens if 702 expires? As the New York Times reports, “The law, however, has a built-in safety net for a temporary lapse that allows the surveillance program to endure until annual certifications issued by the nation’s intelligence court expire, though such a scenario could invite legal challenges. The court recertified the program in March, meaning the N.S.A. could continue to operate the program through March 2027 even if the statute were to expire.” If Section 702 does stay expired past March 2027, the United States government will likely revert to using other programs and authorities to justify the surveillance of overseas national security targets, namely 12333, a shadowy executive order from the 1980s that gives the U.S. government nearly unlimited power to spy on people overseas. Even if this does come to pass, standing our ground on warrant requirements and allowing Section 702 to expire is important for several reasons. First, just because the government continues surveillance under a different authority does not mean it is legally justified in doing so—this was the lesson of the post 9/11 Presidential Surveillance Program, which was only retroactively immunized by Congress. Second, seeing how the government responds to the end of Section 702 might give us opportunities to push for transparency in other parts of information collection and better understand how the inner workings of the intelligence apparatus pivot and adapt as new legal authorities take precedence. Where do we go from here? Every few years, for almost two decades now, we’ve been fighting to reform Section 702 so that it will no longer enable the warrantless mass surveillance of Americans. A bipartisan coalition in Congress supports this goal, but the White House and Congressional leadership won’t listen. It’s past time we make at least one serious reform to a mass surveillance law that has been abused for decades. Tell your elected official: Put a warrant requirement in Section 702 or let it expire. Take action TELL congress: 702 Needs Reform
- Enshittification Merch That Actually Fights Enshittification by Cory Doctorow on June 10, 2026 at 5:34 pm
Enshittification isn't just a sweary word to describe the accelerating decay of the online platforms, apps, and services that we rely on. It's a framework for understanding the structural incentives that make tech companies enemies of their own users over time—the surveillance business model, the erosion of privacy, the monopoly power that eliminates alternatives, the regulatory capture that prevents accountability. SUPPORT EFF GET LimITED EDITION MERCH + FIGHT ENSHITTIFICATION These are some of EFF's core fights and have been for over 35 years. EFF sues. EFF advocates. EFF codes. And EFF wins. EFF is the most profound and powerful disenshittifying force on the planet Earth, and I’ve been proud to fight alongside them for nearly 25 of those years. One of the lessons you learn in battles with very long timelines against very powerful actors is that these battles are deeply serious, and because of that they must also be fun. “Enshittification” took off as a shorthand in part because of the minor license to vulgarity it confers. It's slightly crass for a reason: getting people to engage with the abstract issues of tech policy can be hard at the best of times. No one knows this better than my colleagues at EFF, who consistently surprise me with their ability to make complex, technical concepts concrete, memorable, and sometimes even joyful. Words matter, but so do visuals. For the cover of the U.S. edition of my book, Enshittification, designer Devin Washburn of No Ideas studio created an iconic variation of the "pile of poo" emoji, with angry eyebrows and a grawlix-scrawled censor bar over its mouth. It instantly became the symbol of enshittification I’d been looking for. I liked it so much I ordered a couple hundred enamel pins and a couple thousand vinyl stickers and handed them out to people I met on my 33-city book tour. Even when giving them away, I was inundated with requests to buy more of them. I've since bought out Devin's rights to the image and released it under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license—free for anyone to use, remix, or build on, including commercially, with attribution. The high-resolution files are on Wikimedia Commons, Flickr, and the Internet Archive (including a PSD with an ink-density adjustment layer). It belongs to the commons now. But I made sure EFF had first crack at the design for their “official merch,” and they've done right by it. There are two items available now in the EFF shop, and all proceeds go directly to EFF's work defending digital rights. I’ve spent years admiring EFF’s merch and consistent, creative visual identity, so it fills me with pride to see this more-than-a-mere-poop-emoji in their shop. A recognizable visual shorthand is a genuine organizing tool. When someone sees the enshittification emoji, they know what the conversation is about. When you wear the pin or slap the sticker on your laptop, you're signaling that you understand what's happening to the internet, and that you know we can do better. You can get a $5 sticker: Or a $10 pin: Because the design is CC-licensed, you don't have to buy one. You can make your own merch, your own swag, your own illustrations. I made a lawn flag for my front garden. But if you do want to buy a sticker or pin, you can do so while supporting the most profound and powerful disenshittifying force on the planet Earth—the Electronic Frontier Foundation. SUPPORT EFF GET LimITED EDITION MERCH + FIGHT ENSHITTIFICATION
- 🔊 Mass Surveillance for… Loud Music? | EFFector 38.11by Hudson Hongo on June 10, 2026 at 5:29 pm
Across the country, surveillance companies have spun a vast web of tens of thousands of license plate cameras. The people selling this tech want you to believe that it's for your safety, but how are authorities really using automated license plate readers (ALPR)? In this week's EFFector newsletter, we're looking at how these powerful surveillance networks have become universal people-trackers used for noise complaints and other low-level investigations. JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER For over 35 years, EFFector has been your guide to understanding the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and the law. This week's issue covers a victory for facial privacy, EFF's testimony to Congress about AI and surveillance, and troubling new examples of ALPR mission creep.Prefer to listen in? EFFector is now available on all major podcast platforms. This week, we're chatting with EFF Associate Director of State Affairs Rindala Alajaji about what she uncovered about police use of ALPR. And don't miss the EFFector news quiz. You can find the episode and subscribe on your podcast platform of choice: %3Ciframe%20height%3D%22200px%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%2F733a5637-dec4-4949-8c0f-976a5222c48a%3Fdark%3Dfalse%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from simplecast.com Want to stay in the fight for privacy and free speech online? Sign up for EFF's EFFector newsletter for updates, ways to take action, and new merch drops. You can also fuel the fight against online surveillance when you support EFF today!
- How and Why to Fight Back Against Social Media Bansby Molly Buckley on June 9, 2026 at 10:51 pm
Several U.S. states are pushing to ban young people from social media entirely. This marks the latest wave of censorship bills masquerading as “children’s online safety” measures, with states like Massachusetts, Idaho, Minnesota, North Carolina, South Carolina, Illinois, and EFF’s home state of California leading the charge. Just a few years ago, lawmakers supporting age-gating laws insisted their efforts were narrowly targeted at limiting young people’s access to adult content. At the time, we warned that they would not stop there: once the government established the authority and built the infrastructure to collect and “verify” massive troves of user data, it would inevitably sweep broader and broader categories of lawful speech into this mass surveillance and censorship system. Unfortunately, our predictions came true. As legislators across the country advance proposals that would block all young people from accessing the “modern public square,” the Overton window has shifted dramatically towards mass censorship—and the speed of this shift should concern all of us. This primer breaks down this dangerous wave of social media bans: how they work (and why they don’t), who they harm, and how we can fight back. How to Spot a Social Media Ban The details of these bills vary from state to state. Some (like California’s AB 1709) are a flat-out social media ban for all young people under a certain age, while other states (like South Carolina and Minnesota) allow access to young users who hand over even more data to show verifiable parental consent. Many bills regulate certain social media features, too, including by setting default privacy settings, time limits, or notification preferences for all accounts that fail the age-gate. As for the age-gating mechanism itself, most proposals fall into two broad categories: age verification bills and behavioral age estimation bills. Age Verification Bills require online services to collect highly sensitive data, including government ID and biometric information, from all users before either restricting or allowing them access. For example, take California’s social media ban (AB 1709). Starting in January 2027, operating systems will be required to collect enough information from users to sort them into age groups, or “brackets.” Under AB 1709, social media apps would then use that age bracket information to completely block anyone under 16, while supposedly letting everyone else through. By contrast, Florida’s law (HB 3) takes a more aggressive route by forcing platforms to verify users' identities directly, usually by contracting with private third-party companies to perform verification services. Behavioral Age Estimation Bills, on the other hand, are a more recent innovation of states like Minnesota (HF 1438) and South Carolina (H 4591). These bills require platforms to estimate the ages of users based largely on data that they already collect, including self-attested age, behavioral information, and account history and activity. In practice, these bills enable tech companies to use algorithms and/or AI to analyze our online behavior and estimate age based on that. Proponents of behavioral age estimation bills claim that their proposals avoid the massive security risks that come with mandatory age verification bills. However, much of the data that social media platforms collect from us “in the ordinary course of operation” is collected in order to serve us targeted behavioral ads. If we force platforms to use this imperfect data to make more important judgments about who can access their services, we risk entrenching those insidious data collection practices. Surely we don’t want to give social media companies more reasons to justify and sustain their reliance on this exploitative business model. If you want to dig into the nuance here, our terminology guide sheds more light on the technical differences between age verification and age estimation bills. Overall, it’s a lose-lose scenario: either platforms collect new forms of our most sensitive and immutable data, or they unleash their AI and algorithms on our existing behavioral data to make creepy guesses about who we are and what we deserve to see. No matter which age-gating method your state chooses to execute its social media ban, there will be lots of error at the margins—and lots of users who will be blocked or chilled from access to lawful online speech. Why Social Media Bans Are So Dangerous Social media bans are unconstitutional, discriminatory, and deeply misguided. They reinforce existing structures of oppression, and they are broadly unsupported by young people, whose voices are conspicuously absent from this conversation. They undermine parental decision-making and replace tailored family-level solutions with a one-size-fits-all band-aid. And, in the places we have seen social media bans go into effect, early reports show that they don't even work. For example, in Australia, where a social media ban has been in effect since late 2025, a majority of young people can still access social media, those who can’t have lost their access to the news, and crisis helplines are reporting skyrocketing numbers of calls from youth left stranded without online community or resources. We could go on and on about all of the inherent harms here, but we’ll try to keep this short as we walk through some of the major issues. 1. Security Risks and Privacy Harms In order to ban some users, social media platforms first must confirm the ages of all users, regardless of age. Bans thus incentivize companies to force users of all ages to hand over government IDs, face scans, and other sensitive information. When parental consent is required, companies must collect even more verification data and often create explicit links between child and parent accounts—further destroying users’ anonymity. Both of these databases create massive data "honeypots" that invite identity theft and permanent surveillance. We’ve already seen repeated data breaches involving age- and identity-verification services. Yet these laws would force both adults and the youth they claim to protect to feed their most sensitive data into this growing surveillance ecosystem. If we don’t trust tech companies with our private information now, we shouldn't pass laws that force us to give them even more of it. 2. Disproportionate Harm to Vulnerable Communities Age-verification technology is deeply flawed and prone to discrimination. These systems frequently misidentify or lock out people of color, people with disabilities, and trans or gender-nonconforming individuals whose IDs may not match their appearance. Where these bills require parental consent, they impose disproportionate access barriers on low-income, non-traditional, and immigrant families. These sorts of families are more likely to share a single family device or have strong reasons to not want the government to track family associations and ID documents. Beyond the technical failures, these bans cut off a vital lifeline. For LGBTQ+ youth, foster kids, and those stuck in unsupportive home environments, social media is often the only place to find community, explore their identity, or access life-saving resources. Forcibly removing young people isolates those who need connection the most, while creating massive new barriers for adults. You can read a breakdown of the diverse groups vulnerable to these laws here. 3. Based on Shoddy Science The current legislative push to ban young people from social media relies heavily on the idea that the "great rewiring" of the adolescent brain is a proven fact. This simply isn’t true. Social science indicates that moderate internet use is a net positive for teens’ development, and negative outcomes are usually due to either lack of access or excessive use. For LGBTQ+ and marginalized youth in particular, social media offers an essential space to access support they might lack offline. By forcing youth into digital isolation, these bans cut off vital access to political news, community, and health resources. They also completely ignore the calls of young people themselves who favor digital literacy and education over restrictive government control. Instead of cutting off these lifelines, we should support measures that arm all youth (and the adults in their lives) with the knowledge they need to navigate online spaces safely. 4. Reckless Free Speech Violations for Users of All Ages No matter your age, the First Amendment protects your right to speak and access information. Blanket social media bans immensely and unconstitutionally chill all users’ exercise of this right. They cut off young people’s access to lawful speech, or ruin their privacy in the home by mandating parental consent and sometimes even parental access to their account activities and settings. They force all users (adults and young people alike) to hand private information over to tech companies before speaking or accessing information on social media platforms, imposing annoying obstacles on lawful online expression and wrongfully blocking some adults outright. Critically, these bans destroy our right to online anonymity—a cornerstone of our right to free expression that protects whistleblowers, journalists, activists, immigrants, and everyone who has ever used a private browser or account to ask the internet an embarrassing question. How to Fight Back Social media bans weaponize parents’ concerns about children’s safety to justify unprecedented levels of surveillance and censorship. In the process, these laws deny young people their rights, threaten online anonymity for everyone, expose our sensitive personal data to breach and abuse, and replace parental decision-making with state authority. This is a battle over the future of the open, private, and free internet, and we must act now to protect it. Here’s how you can help us fight back: Talk to your community (including young people!) about what’s at stake. If you’re a parent, lean on open conversations and platforms’ existing tools to tailor your child’s experiences instead of handing that power over to the government. And no matter where you live, contact your government representatives and tell them clearly that social media bans are not the answer to kids’ online safety.
- Tell Congress: Just Say No to NO FAKESby Katharine Trendacosta on June 9, 2026 at 9:00 pm
The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to consider and vote on the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act (NO FAKES). Instead of targeting the real privacy harms posed by AI-generated replicas, this law would create another layer of internet censorship on top of the already existing legal and voluntary takedown systems. Congress should reject NO FAKES. Take action Tell Congress to Say No to NO FAKES As currently written, NO FAKES proposes to tackle the problems of misleading AI-generated replicas by creating a broad property right in someone's look, voice, and general style. However, there are all kinds of First Amendment-protected expression that would be swept under the NO FAKES regime—think about parody, news, criticism. NO FAKES also does a laughable job of protecting artists from use of their image in misleading ways. It doesn’t create a privacy right, but rather a property right that can easily be signed away—as major studios and record labels are almost certain to require in their contracts with artists. As a result, NO FAKES actually creates a new avenue for the exploitation of artists by companies instead of protection from misleading replicas. The bill also makes it trivially easy for protected speech to be censored. It is a supercharged version of the already flawed copyright takedown regime. It would essentially require platforms to institute filters that don't just look for exact matches of copyrighted material, as current filters do, but anything that might be a digital replica. Even though the latest version of this bill adds some forms of redress for bad faith takedowns, those provisions lack the teeth required to deter a malicious actor. NO FAKES targets speech, tools, and innovation instead of focusing on the real concern posed by these replicas: privacy. This bill was a bad idea when it was introduced, and got even worse when it was amended last year. Tell Congress to just say no to NO FAKES. Take action Tell Congress to Say No to NO FAKES
- VICTORY: Meta Strips Facial Recognition Code From Smart Glasses App After Public Outcryby Cooper Quintin on June 8, 2026 at 11:32 pm
Just days after a damning WIRED report exposed that Meta had quietly embedded facial recognition technology (FRT) code into millions of phones, the tech giant has quietly acquiesced in demands to reverse course. Last week, researchers identified code in Meta AI, a companion app for its line of smart glasses, that could convert images of faces into unique biometric signatures to identify strangers in public. EFF’s Threat Lab verified these findings through static analysis, and reminded consumers to think twice before buying or using Meta’s surveillance glasses. Just as quietly as Meta embedded this code, the app’s June 5th app update appears to have quietly removed all those features and systems. Gone is the face-recognition technology, the code meant to trigger “Person recognized” alerts, and the machine learning models and databases designed to detect, digitize, and store the biometric signatures of people users engage with. When WIRED broke the news last week, Meta’s executives immediately went on the defensive. Yet, their actions speak louder than their tweets: less than 48 hours after the public caught wind of their plans, Meta quietly launched an update to scrub nearly all traces of the FRT system from their app. But this quiet deletion of code does not equal a permanent change of heart. Meta previously used face recognition, and stopped only after it faced the legal and financial consequences. Now the company has refused to answer WIRED’s inquiries on whether it plans to bring the NameTag system back in the future, or what they did with any data they may have already collected during internal testing. There are billions of reasons not to turn Meta’s customers into a distributed surveillance machine. This whiplash behavior proves exactly why we cannot rely on the "good will" of Big Tech to protect our digital rights. We need robust, enforceable consumer privacy laws, complete with a private right of action that allows everyday people to sue companies that violate their biometric privacy. While we won this round, Meta's FRT ambitions probably aren't going away. EFF will keep watching.
- Cheers to the Winners of EFF’s 18th Annual Cyberlaw Trivia Night! by Joe Mullin on June 8, 2026 at 7:12 pm
On a warm June evening in San Francisco, attorneys and other legally-minded friends of EFF gathered for our 18th Annual Cyberlaw Trivia Night, an annual test of tech-related legal knowledge, and the ability to remember some deeply obscure facts under pressure. Returning Quizmaster Kurt Opsahl once again guided competitors through six rounds of trivia covering everything from intellectual property and free speech to privacy, security, and artificial intelligence. Teams wrestled with questions about geofence warrants, AI copyright disputes, the SOPA/PIPA internet blackout, Section 230, and even a Senate hearing featuring a contestant who was herself present at cyberlaw trivia. The judges’ table made it obvious that 2026 was a notable year. Weighing in on the toughest close calls were three folks with a deep history at our org: outgoing EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn and new Executive Director Nicole Ozer both sat at as judges, joined by new cyberlaw judge Mike Masnick, founder of Techdirt and a recipient of an EFF Award in 2020. The food was hot, the drinks were cold, and the competition was fierce. Teams including Shady Docket, Byte Club, Flock U, This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Precedent, Nicky's Angels, and Betamaxxers battled through six rounds of challenging questions. When a question about Afroman's successful legal battle against Ohio sheriff's deputies came up, members of Byte Club offered to do more than name his most popular album: they offered to perform a rendition of “Lemon Pound Cake” (also the album name—tricky!) for the judges. This won no sway with the 3-judge Cyberlaw Judiciary, and the offer was politely declined. The teams racked their collective law-noggins about some of the details of recent legal battles over digital rights, and a round entitled “You Can Call Me AI.” After the IP round, which rewarded folks in the audience who could answer details about the server test, the trivia moved onto newsier questions, with questions about ICE apps, anti-ICE apps, recent defamation cases involving our sitting president, and the slogan of a mineral company that you might've heard on terrestrial radio anytime between the early aughts and this week. You don't have to wear a morning coat to win Supreme Court arguments, but knowing who did for 4 years might have helped you win the IP round. By the end of regulation play, the cyberlaw trivia competition was closer than we could have imagined. For the first time in Cyberlaw Trivia history, three teams finished tied for first place, sending the contest to two tiebreaker questions. The final question noted that Google had received more than 287,000 government information requests in the first half of 2025, and asked teams to estimate how many were received by OpenAI during the same period. Every team guessed over, but it was the victors, Shady Docket, who guessed the lowest: 260. (The real answer is 146.) As Shady Docket team member Erin Simon explained after the win: "As much as we love EFF, what we love even more is crushing other trivia teams." In second place were Nicky’s Angels. Rounding out the virtual podium in 3rd were the Betamaxxers, who jumped ahead early with a home-run run in the Free Speech round, getting every question correct. Each summer, EFF's Cyberlaw Trivia Night brings together the legal community that helps defend privacy, free expression, innovation, and digital rights. We want to especially thank this year Morrison Foerster, Fenwick, Wilson Sonsini, and Public Resource for supporting EFF's legal intern program. Are you an attorney interested in defending civil liberties in the digital world? Consider joining EFF's Cooperating Attorneys list. This network helps EFF connect people to legal assistance when EFF is unable to provide direct assistance. Fighting for first place at EFF’s Cyberlaw Trivia Night helps us fight for your rights online! Sponsor one of our annual events and join the movement for digital privacy, free speech, and innovation. Please visit eff.org/thanks or contact tierney@eff.org for more information.
- Internet Age Gates Are a Growing Global Threatby Paige Collings on June 5, 2026 at 7:28 pm
The internet is an essential resource for young people and adults to access information, explore community, and find themselves—both inside countries and across continents. Yet governments around the world continue to introduce and implement legislation requiring all online users to verify their ages before accessing the digital space. In some cases, politicians are going further, putting forth proposals to ban social media for younger users. In late 2025, Australia’s government rolled out the first complete ban on users under 16 from having social media accounts. In this sweeping regime, platforms are required to introduce age assurance tools to block under-16s, demonstrate that they have taken “reasonable steps” to deactivate accounts used by under-16s, and prevent any new accounts being created, or face fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($32 million USD). The 10 banned platforms—Instagram, Facebook, Threads, Snapchat, YouTube, TikTok, Kick, Reddit, Twitch, and X—have each said they’ll comply with the legislation, which led to young people losing access to their accounts overnight. Reddit is currently challenging the law in Australian courts on constitutional grounds. Recent research notes how the ban is preventing teenagers from accessing news in the country. In the United Kingdom, rules took effect in mid-2025 under the Online Safety Act that require all online services available in the country to assess whether they host content considered harmful to children; if so, these services must introduce age checks to prevent children from accessing such content. Online services are also required to change their algorithms and moderation systems to ensure that content defined as harmful, like violent imagery, is not shown to young people. This approach is reckless, short-sighted, and we’ve already seen it introduce more harm to the young people that it is trying to protect. The UK’s scramble to find an effective age verification method shows us that there isn't one, and we’ve spent years urging UK politicians to abandon any measures that require platforms to collect data or remove privacy protections around users’ identities. Earlier this year, Indonesia’s Communications and Digital Affairs Minister, Meutya Hafid, announced that users under 16 would have their accounts on “high risk” platforms deactivated from 28 March. The platforms subject to this ban are YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, Bigo Live, and Roblox; with Hafid noting how this policy would make Indonesia “the first non-Western country to delay children's access to digital spaces according to age.” Similarly, the Malaysian government has recently pushed forward with plans to ban users under 16 from having accounts on social media platforms with at least 8 million users in Malaysia, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. Users under the age of 16 are being told to download or transfer their data from these platforms in one month before the restrictions are applied. Platforms failing to comply with the ban may face penalties of up to $2.5 million USD. In Latin America, Brazil approved a new law in 2025 establishing that providers of information technology products and services directed to children and teenagers, or likely to be accessed by them, must conduct age checks when their products and services offer risks to underage users. Regulation requires age assurance for products and services that are not allowed for children and adolescents in accordance with Brazilian legislation. App stores and operating systems are required to provide age signals for other providers. While the law is already in force, full compliance with its obligations is expected for early 2027, after the approval of further regulations and a transition period, and the authority responsible for enforcing the law is the Brazilian National Data Protection Agency. The list of concerns regarding the implementation of the law include: the wide scope of products and services that may fall within age-check obligations, how these obligations can affect non-proprietary operating systems and free software projects, and how effective the law's crucial data protection safeguards will be in a context of likely widespread age checks for accessing content online. Similarly, the European Union has taken large steps towards mandatory age verification that could undermine privacy, expression, and participation rights for everyone. Politicians are promoting an EU-wide approach to age verification through its age verification “app,” which will be fully interoperable with the Digital Identity Wallet. While this mini-app has been announced as technically ready to be rolled out “for citizens to use,” it comes with its own realm of potential privacy and security concerns, such as long-term identifiers (which could result in tracking) and over-exposure of personal information. The European Commission also supports age verification in various legislative initiatives, from proposals that would allow or mandate companies to scan our communication (“Chat Control”) to non-binding guidelines of existing laws, such as the Digital Services Act. The EU Parliament, too, has proposed an EU digital minimum age of 16 for access to social media, a move that aligns with EU Commission’s president Ursula von der Leyen’s recent public support for measures inspired by Australia’s model. To all these initiatives EFF has provided one consistent response: mandatory age verification measures are not the right way to protect young people. These proposals restrict the fundamental rights of young people to speak to each other and to access information. They also force all internet users, not just those under a certain age, to upload private data—like a face scan or passport—in order to access a website or service. In considering the vast scope of privacy issues pertaining to the collection, storage, and sharing of this personal information, the problems of age verification in restricting free speech are compounded by these reckless and harmful approaches to verification. The problem of censorship and surveillance goes far beyond the borders of the internet. EFF continues to explore support for legislative and litigation challenges that recognize how these laws harm everyone’s rights to privacy, free expression and due process.
- LGBT Q&A Season 1 Recap: Staying Safer Onlineby Paige Collings on June 5, 2026 at 5:01 pm
Last year during LGBTQ+ Pride month, we launched an LGBT Q&A where we answered your most pressing digital rights questions on EFF’s Instagram and TikTok accounts. Ahead of LGBT Q&A Season 2 launching next week, we’re posting a recap with some of the questions we answered. Check them out below. You wanted to know: How to stay safe when dating online. You asked: I'm a 17 year old trans woman and my address is public on the Internet. What steps can I take to mitigate this risk? You wondered about: Tips for staying safe at Budapest Pride. You questioned: Why does homophobic content I report on social media not get removed? You asked: What pictures are safe to use on dating apps? You wanted to know: Is it safe to have gay, trans, and Palestinian flags in my bio? 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.
- California’s AB 412 Still Demands Developers Do The Impossibleby Joe Mullin on June 4, 2026 at 10:56 pm
California lawmakers are again considering A.B. 412, a bill that would require AI developers to identify and disclose copyrighted works used to train generative AI systems. The problem this year is the same as last year: it’s practically impossible to comply with this law. The bill demands information that often does not exist, and cannot realistically be obtained. EFF submitted an opposition letter to the California Senate Privacy Committee explaining why we continue to believe A.B. 412 is simply unworkable. To the extent developers do follow this law, it will have the effect of locking in the power of the largest companies in AI. A Burden That Can’t Be Met A.B. 412 sounds simple: just have AI developers create and keep a list of all the registered copyrighted works they use in AI training. That may seem straightforward. In practice, it’s anything but. There is no machine-readable “list” of copyrighted works at the U.S. Copyright Office. And many copyright holders can get a copyright without even depositing a publicly viewable sample of the work—for example, software companies may register copyright on proprietary code without revealing it to the public. And on the open internet, copyright information is often incomplete, unavailable, or impossible to verify. One image may be registered with the copyright office, while the next is licensed under a free Creative Commons license (like the images that EFF creates), and the next is public domain. A message forum user might post an original story, photograph, or poem without any indication of ownership or registration status. The bill effectively asks developers to continuously cross-reference massive batches of online data against a copyright system that simply wasn’t designed to do so. If California passes A.B. 412, its impact will go far beyond the large AI companies we read about in the headlines. Not Just Big Tech Supporters often frame this bill as a way to help creative workers have some leverage against Big Tech, but the bill reaches much further than the big AI companies. Its definition of “developer” extends to anyone who makes a generative AI model available to Californians. That includes indie developers tinkering with an existing model, open-source initiatives, nonprofits, and other non-commercial efforts. Recent amendments added exemptions for universities and government entities, which is important, but that still leaves out a vast swathe of non-commercial tech work that’s done by people without full-time jobs in government or academia. Large companies will hire compliance teams and lawyers to navigate these requirements. Smaller organizations and independent developers usually can’t. The result will be fewer opportunities for startups and new entrants. Faced with this massive compliance burden, some won’t even try. Courts Are Already Deciding These Questions The bill is premised on the idea that copyright owners currently don’t have good remedies if they’re mistreated by AI companies. That simply isn’t true. And the growing wave of federal court filings in this space prove it. Content companies that want to sue tech companies, large or small, have no problem doing so. Those courts are still working through important questions about fair use and transformative use. Some courts have already concluded that many AI training activities qualify as fair use. Others continue to evaluate the issue. California lawmakers should not rush to impose new state regulation while those questions remain unresolved. This is why copyright is governed at the federal level: both creators and fair users benefit from a single set of nationwide rules. At this point, the bill remains a solution in search of a problem. Rights holders already have powerful tools to protect their interests under existing federal law. What this bill adds isn’t clarity or transparency, but a costly and essentially impossible compliance burden that will discourage small developers and researchers. California has been able to support both artistic creativity and tech innovation for decades now. But A.B. 412 does not strike the right balance. If you are a California resident and interested in speaking out about this bill, you can find and contact your representatives through this website.
- Pulte Appointment Underscores Need to Reform Section 702 Spyingby Josh Richman on June 4, 2026 at 9:18 pm
President Trump’s highly politicized appointment of an entirely unqualified acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) underscores why the government’s warrantless mass spying power must be reformed. Congress now faces a deadline of Friday, June 12 to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, an unconstitutional program rife with problems, loopholes, and compliance issues. Section 702 allows the National Security Agency to collect communications from targets overseas – including communications with Americans in the U.S. – and stores them in massive databases. The NSA then allows other agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to access untold amounts of that information. Under current practice, the FBI can query and even read the U.S. side of that communication without a warrant. What’s more, victims won’t even know and have very few ways of finding out that their communications have been surveilled. EFF and other civil liberties advocates have been trying for years to know how data collected through Section 702 is used in domestic investigations and prosecutions. Our advocacy to reform Section 702 has been consistent across administrations, including when the federal Intelligence Community was run by people with experience in the relevant agencies. In fact, the 2004 law creating the position of DNI – which coordinates America’s 18 spy agencies – requires those who hold it to have “extensive national security expertise.” Enter Bill Pulte. Trump on Tuesday named Pulte – currently director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – to replace current DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who announced her resignation last month. Pulte lacks any intelligence, military, or congressional experience. “William has deep experience managing the most sensitive matters in America, the safety and soundness of the Markets, and over 10 Trillion Dollars at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, a substantial increase from where it was just 12 months ago,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. Pulte isn't a qualified intelligence administrator. He does, however, seem to be unquestioningly loyal to President Trump and willing to use his position to attack and smear the President’s political foes. Because Trump named him acting DNI, Pulte isn’t subject to Senate confirmation. And under the Vacancies Act, Pulte could remain in the role for about seven months. This is particularly concerning because of Pulte’s history of using private information held by the government as a political weapon. In his FHFA role, he has accused several of the President’s political foes and targets – including New York State Attorney General Letitia James, U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook – of mortgage fraud based on private data held by his agency. All these targets and others have denied wrongdoing. A federal criminal complaint filed against James in Virginia imploded after a judge found prosecutor Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully appointed, and prosecutors twice failed to convince a grand jury to indict James. Pulte’s accusations against Schiff, Cook, and others have not led to criminal charges. Pulte also used his FHFA pulpit to attack then-Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and dismantle internal oversight. Pulte isn't a qualified intelligence administrator. He does, however, seem to be unquestioningly loyal to President Trump and willing to use his position to attack and smear the President’s political foes. As acting DNI, Pulte would have access to every scrap of classified information the Intelligence Community holds, and under Section 702, that includes massive amounts of information about Americans. Even lawmakers who are typically friendly to the intelligence community acknowledge that this is a disaster in the making. U.S. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., who is the Senate Intelligence Committee’s ranking Democrat, told NPR that Pulte has "no experience in the military, no experience in Congress, no experience in the intel community or law enforcement" and was chosen because he is "100% loyal to doing anything and everything President Trump demands." And Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters “we don’t need a weaponized” national intelligence director. Asked about fears that Pulte might pursue Trump’s political opponents, Thune said: “We need professionals there.” Congress already has had trouble reauthorizing Section 702 as Freedom Caucus Republicans and many Democrats joined forces to demand reforms including the common-sense requirement that federal agencies get a probable cause warrant from a judge before searching any data involving Americans. Pulte’s appointment exemplifies why no administration should have the power granted by Section 702 without the independent judicial review required in seeking a warrant.
- EFF Testifies to Congress on Protecting Americans’ Rights from Government AIby Josh Richman on June 4, 2026 at 8:52 pm
Governments must not adopt emerging and powerful AI technologies without also adopting strong and clear safeguards to protect Constitutional rights, EFF Senior Policy Analyst Dr. Matthew Guariglia testified today to the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection. During the hearing on “The AI Security Landscape: How Frontier Models, Agentic AI, and AI Coding Tools Are Reshaping Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Resilience,” he explained that the use of generative AI for the purposes of mass government surveillance would supercharge unconstitutional violations of civil liberties. He also highlighted how government secrecy, in addition to the black box of for-profit proprietary technology, prevents the public and lawmakers from knowing when AI models make mistakes, including errors that seriously impact the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure and the lives of individuals. “AI also has a track record of getting things wrong—from false citations on legal briefs to a major AI mistake that sent DHS recruits to the field without proper training. There are likely more consequential examples that we do not even know about because of classification that would prevent a more thorough accounting," he said in his opening remarks. %3Ciframe%20width%3D%22560%22%20height%3D%22315%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2F5K_0etAPDxA%3Fsi%3Dw-RLGRR_I788C4Nh%26autoplay%3D1%26mute%3D1%22%20title%3D%22YouTube%20video%20player%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20allow%3D%22accelerometer%3B%20autoplay%3B%20clipboard-write%3B%20encrypted-media%3B%20gyroscope%3B%20picture-in-picture%3B%20web-share%22%20referrerpolicy%3D%22strict-origin-when-cross-origin%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from youtube.com “At this level the question is not how do we rein in AI, it’s how do we rein in the agencies that would unleash AI on the American public,” Matthew said in response to a question by Subcommittee Ranking Member Delia Ramirez, D-Ill. You can read his full testimony as prepared here.
- Move Fast, Surveil Thingsby Cooper Quintin on June 4, 2026 at 8:08 pm
Update, June 8, 2026: Following widespread public scrutiny and WIRED’s critical reporting, Meta has stripped the unactivated facial recognition code from its latest Meta AI app update. Meta has deployed facial recognition code to millions of their always-on surveillance glasses, according to new reporting by Wired. EFF’s Threat Lab was able to confirm that the facial recognition code is present through static analysis of the application. This dangerous new Meta functionality stores faceprints as a series of 2,048 numbers uniquely representing the positioning of a person’s facial features. When this feature is activated, it will convert every new face in the sightlines of the surveillance glasses into a series of numbers, and compare it to all the existing faceprints in the user’s database. Wired and EFF confirmed that the code is present and active, though not yet exposed to consumers. Another researcher confirmed that when they manually added a face to the app database by connecting the phone to a computer in debug mode and issuing a few commands, the glasses would subsequently detect that face when it came into view. Meta has already paid $650 million to settle a BIPA lawsuit challenging mass facial recognition of every photo posted to its platform, a feature which it has since shut down. Despite the billions of reasons not to, Meta seems to have created the capacity to turn their customers into a distributed surveillance machine. This is just one more reason to think twice before buying or using Meta’s surveillance glasses. Considering that Meta previously wrote in an internal document that they want to launch facial recognition “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns," this invasive new feature doesn't come as a surprise. But Meta's surveillance plans won't escape public scrutiny that easily, and we'll be watching if this feature is rolled out to the public.
- We're Fighting Mass Surveillance Tech—and Winningby Dave Maass on June 2, 2026 at 4:41 pm
EFF is on the front lines of the fight against tech-enabled tyranny, but we aren't alone. Our team depends on your help to fight back against the surveillance state. JOIN EFF People around the world are pushing back against the mass surveillance that undermines privacy and free expression for everyone. You can help during EFF's spring membership drive. One of the people who joined the fight for digital rights is EFF client Will Freeman. Will created the website DeFlock.me to reveal the dangers of automated license plate readers (ALPRs)—cameras that collect location data on every vehicle they see and upload that to a massive nationwide police database. Deflock.me turns the tables by enlisting ordinary people to track the locations of tens of thousands of ALPR cameras. But when the police spy-tech company Flock Safety went after Will's website with legal threats citing trademark law, he saw it for what it was: an attempt to silence critics and dim the light on mass surveillance. The company will try everything it can to downplay the criticism, but EFF will be right there demanding accountability. "I was totally unprepared to receive a cease & desist letter. I can see how most people would be bullied into submission by a threat like that. That's when I remembered Dave Maass from the EFF introduced himself via email several weeks before, so I reached out for help," Freeman says. And that's when EFF stepped in. Recognizing DeFlock.me as a quintessential expression of grassroots advocacy and a form of criticism protected by the U.S. First Amendment, EFF's lawyers helped Will fight back. And the Big Surveillance Tech flinched. But these battles against Flock's Spying tools rage on. In cities around the country, privacy advocates are pressuring officials to block or end contracts for ALPRs—and winning. The company will try everything it can to downplay the criticism, but EFF will be right there demanding accountability. Get the new Claw Back member t-shirt featuring a fierce feline swatting at community surveillance. You might empathize with him, but there’s a better way. Let’s end the law enforcement contracts, harmful practices, and twisted logic that enable mass spying in the first place. "I'm really grateful the EFF was able to step in and help. Without them, free speech would be only for those wealthy enough to defend themselves against billion dollar companies. We've grown a lot since then and are expanding our efforts to expose and push back against mass surveillance on our streets," Freeman says. Support the movement stop mass surveillance tech today when you join EFF ____________________ EFF is a member-supported U.S. 501(c)(3) organization. We've received top ratings from the nonprofit watchdog Charity Navigator since 2013! Your donation is tax-deductible as allowed by law.
- Welcome New EFF Executive Director Nicole Ozerby Josh Richman on June 1, 2026 at 2:25 pm
EFF welcomes our new Executive Director Nicole Ozer today! Nicole is a legal expert on privacy and surveillance, artificial intelligence, and digital speech who previously served as the inaugural executive director of the Center for Constitutional Democracy at UC Law San Francisco. From 2004-2025, she was founding director of the Technology and Civil Liberties Program at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. Nicole has long been a partner of EFF’s in the fight to defend civil liberties in the digital world. Many of us already know her, and she’s basically as close to EFF “family” as someone can be without actually having worked here. Over her more than two decades leading public interest technology work, Nicole has: spearheaded passage of the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act – working with EFF to enact the nation’s strongest electronic surveillance law, requiring a warrant for government access to electronic information; modernized California law to protect reading records in the digital age by helping, along with EFF, to craft the Reader Privacy Act, requiring a “super warrant” for government access; created a groundbreaking model law for local democratic oversight of surveillance systems which inspired 25 laws across the country that help safeguard the rights and safety of more than 17 million people; litigated civil liberties cases, including work with EFF on the NSA cases, and drafted influential amicus briefs on technology issues at all levels of state and federal court, including the U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court; and developed multi-year campaigns to strengthen the anti-surveillance policies related to social media surveillance and face recognition of major technology companies and foster stronger privacy and free expression protection for billions of people worldwide. And that's just the TL;DR! You can read more about her bona fides here. EFF’s work to ensure technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation is more urgent than ever. And with Nicole’s decades of leadership in public interest technology work, EFF is poised to be stronger than ever to meet this moment and build for the fights ahead. Nicole succeeds Cindy Cohn, who has been with EFF for more than 25 years and served as executive director since 2015. Cindy is leaving EFF later this month – not to retire, but to find a role that puts her back in the courtroom doing what she does best: suing the government! She’ll still be part of the EFF community. We are living digital lives, using technology to connect, communicate, and mobilize for change. And we need you in these critical fights to defend and advance rights in the digital world – so join EFF today, and sign up for our EFFector newsletter to make sure you’re updated on the latest EFF news including upcoming events to help you get to know Nicole. Welcome Nicole!
- One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: CA's AB 1856 Exempts Open Source But Expands Age-Gatingby Molly Buckley on May 29, 2026 at 8:15 pm
After public outrage, California lawmakers are moving closer to exempting open-source operating systems from the sweeping age-bracketing regime mandated by last year’s Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043). Nonetheless, the current bill still jeopardizes internet users’ speech, privacy, and security. While the open source exemption, if passed, would improve the law, the remaining amendments proposed by AB 1856 would require all web browsers and websites to request and collect users’ ages. This is an expansion of last year's AB 1043's age-bracketing system that compounds its constitutional harms to users’ speech, privacy, and security. As AB 1856 moves on to the Senate, EFF will continue fighting for amendments that reduce those harms. AB 1856 Extends AB 1043’s Age-Gating Regime Last year, California passed AB 1043, which requires all operating systems and app stores to create age-bracketing systems that segment users based on their ages. As we’ve written, that regime is a recipe for censorship: it creates unnecessary and unconstitutional barriers to accessing lawful online speech, threatens our right to anonymity, and pressures online services to collect troves of valuable and sensitive user data. On top of that, A.B. 1043’s wide-sweeping compliance burdens impose disproportionate harms on the open-source ecosystem that underpins much of the modern web. Given these flaws, lawmakers introduced AB 1856 this year as a supposed “clean-up” bill for AB 1043. But instead of sticking to fixing AB 1043’s unique and serious harms (like its impact on open-source operating systems), AB 1856 also expanded the regime even further—extending its age-bracketing requirements beyond operating systems and app stores to browsers and websites. EFF opposed AB 1856 on two grounds, which we explained in our opposition letter to the Assembly: The harms that age-gating regimes pose to users’ speech, privacy, and anonymity; and The disproportionate harms that this particular regime imposes on open-source developers. Open Source Concerns Somewhat Alleviated By Amendment On May 28th, AB 1856 passed the Assembly in a nearly unanimous vote (68-1). Before that vote, however, AB 1856 was amended to relieve the compliance burden on open-source operating systems. This is a meaningful improvement and a welcome relief for open-source developers, who have been loud and clear about how much of an existential threat A.B. 1043’s age-gating mandate would pose. The new exception reads: “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.” EFF understands this amendment to exempt open-source operating systems from the requirement to collect and transmit users’ age-bracket data. That is a definite win for open-source developers. The bill is narrower now than it was before, and lawmakers clearly responded to concerns raised by EFF and the broader open-source community. Some important questions still remain—for example, it is unclear how the law would apply when an open-source operating system is incorporated into a commercial product or service. And, given the structure of where the exemption is placed under the “operating system provider” definition, lawmakers could stand to clarify that the exemption applies to open-source operating systems and applications. Nonetheless, that ambiguity aside, this amendment does substantially reduce the threat that AB 1043 could have on many open-source developers. AB 1856 Still Expands the Problematic Age-Bracketing Regime Don’t get us wrong—if this bill passes, we will be very happy that AB 1043 does not pose nearly the amount of harm to our friends behind open-source operating systems. But even after these amendments, EFF remains opposed to AB 1856 because it ultimately expands California’s sweeping age-bracketing framework far beyond the original scope of AB 1043. In AB 1856 and its amendments, the Assembly failed to address the core problem with AB 1043’s age-bracketing regime: mandated age-gating systems threaten users’ speech, privacy, anonymity, and security. Even after these amendments, EFF remains opposed to AB 1856 because it ultimately expands California’s sweeping age-bracketing framework far beyond the original scope of AB 1043. Even though AB 1043 does not explicitly require companies to perform age verification, it nonetheless imposes a liability structure that strongly pressures companies to verify users’ ages anyway. In practice, that could lead to more ID checks, more biometric scanning, more invasive data collection and risk of breach, and more barriers to adults’ and young people’s lawful speech. In fact, instead of narrowing AB 1043’s wide net, AB 1856 expanded it to add browser providers and website operators to the list of entities that must comply with its age-bracketing requirements. This dramatically broadens the scope of AB 1043 and pulls more services, developers, and users into an anonymity- and privacy-destroying data collection framework that has not yet been implemented or evaluated. The result would make it nearly impossible for regular internet users to avoid AB 1043’s age gates. The Fight Moves to the Senate On those grounds, EFF will continue to oppose AB 1856. Though it has passed the Assembly, the fight is not over. As the bill moves through the Senate, we’ll continue to push for amendments that actually “clean up” and narrow the scope of AB 1043, and offer more protection to users from the harms of age-gating systems.
Lew Rockwell, EFF,































