In today’s digital world, the internet is an essential resource for young people to access information, explore community, and find themselves. But we know that this often comes alongside fears of experiencing online harms like doxxing, grooming, or bullying.

Trying to protect your family from everything all the time is impractical and exhausting, but some thoughtful planning can help families devise a workable plan that meets their needs and addresses their concerns.

That’s why this Digital Parent Week, we’re sharing easy tips on how parents and their children can work together to co-curate a digital safety plan that helps all members of the family enjoy the benefits of technology while protecting their online privacy and safety. 

Start with Open Conversations

Online safety begins with communication, not just restrictions. Talk with a young person about how they use the internet: their favourite apps, games, and social media platforms for example. Creating a supportive environment helps young people feel comfortable asking for help if something goes wrong online.

Together, you can think about:

1. What do we want to protect? e.g., I want to protect a young person’s privacy and mental health when they’re playing Roblox. They love Roblox and use it to communicate and hang out with their best friend, so we’d like to find a way to make it as safe as possible.
2. Who do we want to protect it from? e.g., messages from strangers, staying up too late playing, wasting money on pointless digital junk in games.
3. How bad are the consequences if we fail? e.g, losing some money on a scam or having creepy conversations with strangers that could escalate into something more nefarious or dangerous.
4. How likely is it that we will need to protect it? e.g., I don’t know the likelihood of a stranger messaging you on Roblox because I’m not sure how communication works on the platform, but I’ve heard from their friends that strangers message them all the time in some games.
5. How much trouble are we willing to go through to try to prevent potential consequences? e.g., I’m willing to learn from my child how the game works, play the game with my child, and learn how to work the parental controls. 
6. Who are our allies? e.g., my partner, our parents, as well as a young person’s best friends and their parents.

It's easy to think of a young person's experience on the internet as being totally disconnected and different from your own. But now is a great time to also interrogate your own internet habits, like the sorts of sites you engage with, tools you use, and privacy settings you've set. These questions are as valuable to help you as a parent as they are just an internet user.

Sometimes even just figuring out what conversations are worth having can take some effort, we've put together some ideas to get you started in our guide.

Make Privacy a Family Priority

Digital security training can feel overwhelming but this is why a community-oriented approach helps. In speaking with your family and friends, you can build out digital security practices that work for you. This makes it more likely that your privacy practices will become second nature to you and your loved ones.

Use secure messaging services for every communication: Choosing a secure service ensures that your privacy is protected from government and corporate surveillance. If you can convince your family to get on board, options like Signal provide the most extensive privacy protections out of the box through its use of end-to-end encryption and limited data collection. But we understand that sometimes it's easier to stick with whatever the family already uses for a group chat, like WhatsApp, Apple's iMessage, or Google Messages, so take the time to familiarize yourself with the limits of WhatsApp and RCS encryption.

Consider the content posted online: It's easy to accidentally share personal information through photos, messages, and other content. Children and adults may unknowingly share personal information through photos, messages, location settings and app permissions. Take time together to review privacy settings, check which apps can access the camera or location, and discuss why personal details should be shared carefully. Make sure you have family agreement about when and where to post photos of each other or your home.

Create incident response plans: Developing a plan for if or when something bad happens is a good practice for anyone, but especially with younger people. It’s important to strategize with your family around what to do in the event of such things happening, and doing so before an incident occurs is much easier than when you’re presently facing a crisis.

Alongside this, simple steps like using strong and unique passwords on all devices, including those that are shared in the family, can make a real difference. Regardless of age, there’s no time like the present to get started on good security hygiene, and for many that starts with a password manager and two-factor authentication.

How to Think About Parental Controls

Many sites permit parents to control features such as personalization, algorithmic feed, autoplay, endless scroll, reactions, notifications, and time limits. Talk as a family about which features are important and useful and which are problematic. The conversations above around boundaries and digital literacy are a more effective way to prepare youth for accessing the internet. To develop true autonomy, young people need the privacy to discover the world for themselves without their parents monitoring the contents of every conversation they have.

Explore new apps together and revisit family rules as they grow. These decision points where you’re exploring with a young person what you’re both comfortable with can be good moments to “find your way to a yes” for whatever feature or tool or game they’re asking about. The questions they ask, along with your responses, provide a road map for what to look for in privacy controls that can get you to a place where everyone is comfortable engaging with that technology. 

Small Steps = Big Difference

There is no one size fits all to the tech questions and concerns a parent will face, and keeping young people safe online is not about removing every risk and monitoring every click. This Digital Parenting Week, you can start to focus on what’s important for your family and how to best achieve those goals. 

If you're still not sure where to start, installing EFF’s Privacy Badger on every computer in your household is a great starting point to protecting everyone's privacy.

For more detailed information on all these tips and more, visit EFF’s Online Privacy Guide for Parents and Youth.

In the most recent update to Apple’s devices, iOS 27.2, the company has introduced a new setting to “Exclude Apps” from Siri AI, fulfilling one of our asks from our Encrypt It Already campaign earlier this year.

One of our main concerns with new AI features on devices is how those features interact with end-to-end encrypted content, particularly with secure messaging apps. Many AI features require cloud processing, and despite privacy protections engineered into these systems, the content of secure messaging apps may leave a user’s device without their knowledge. That changes the privacy concerns around using those tools. In a perfect world, users would be able to put a barrier up to ensure data from certain apps doesn’t leave the device. Here was our initial ask:

You should be able to tell the operating system’s AI to not access an app, even if that comes at the “cost” of missing out on some features. The setting should be straightforward and easy to understand in ways the Gemini and Apple Intelligence controls currently are not.

At launch, we found the settings to control Siri AI’s app access behavior pretty confusing. You had to toggle several options to block Siri AI off from accessing an app, or disable Siri AI entirely. Turning off Siri AI and reverting to Siri Classic is, for now, still a good option if you’d prefer to use the older version.

The most recent update is far more clear and does more to protect your data. And, just as expected, it comes at the cost of some features. That’s a good thing, actually. The features not working shows that the new setting is effective. 

Here’s how to add apps to the exclusion list, once you’ve updated to 27.2:

• Open Settings > Siri > Excluded Apps
• Tap “Add Apps” and select any apps you’d like to add to the exclusion list

Now Siri AI cannot access the contents of the app. Excluding an app also means you may lose some features. For example, if you exclude the Apple Messages app, you will no longer be able to have Siri AI read or respond to messages for you. Even the “onscreen awareness” feature, where you invoke Siri and ask it for information about what you’re currently looking at, will not work anymore. For example, if you exclude Signal, you cannot invoke Siri and ask it to discern any information in the Signal app. You’ll just get these messages:

What’s the State of This on Android?

This update from Apple is also a good excuse to check in on the process on Android. It has improved a little, but is not as straightforward as Apple’s new settings, and lacks the ability to set the screen context feature per-app. But you do have some control over what Gemini can access: 

• Open up the Gemini app
• Tap your user photo, then Settings > Personal Intelligence > Connected Apps
• Revoke access to any apps you do not want Gemini to have access to

This process seems to work well enough for some data and we like that it’s opt in, but it’s not exactly intuitive. For example, Signal doesn’t appear there because Signal doesn’t support Gemini’s app access feature at all. That means Gemini can’t access the content of Signal directly, which is good. 

But Gemini can read notifications if you’ve enabled the “Device Assistance” Connected App (which you likely have, since that also enables basic features, like setting a timer—check under Settings > Personal Intelligence > Connected Apps), and it can use screen context unless you’ve disabled the Device controls > Screen context > “Use screen and app data” option in the Gemini Settings. These two features may access the contents of the Signal app or notifications, if you choose to use them. We’d prefer a more hard-lined approach that reduces the chances of user error here: Google should give users the ability to turn these features off per app.

Apple clearly understands that some users want stronger controls over what Siri AI can and cannot access. But we think they should go further and offer the option to only use “on device” AI features, similar to what Samsung offered with its Galaxy AI. We’re happy to see this change and think all operating systems need to consider similar controls moving forward.

A federal appeals court should curb the government’s abuse of grand jury subpoenas to unmask social media users who criticize lawless immigration enforcement.

That is the message from the ACLU, EFF, and other civil liberties and trade groups who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a sealed case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The case involves the government’s investigation of an anonymous Reddit user who commented on a post about an immigration officer in Minnesota. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) first issued an administrative subpoena to Reddit to unmask the user. When the user challenged the subpoena in court on free speech and statutory grounds (as many others have), DHS withdrew it. But then the government obtained a separate grand jury subpoena—a subpoena issued by a prosecutor to gather evidence to present to a grand jury before any criminal charges are filed—for much of the same information. The user then challenged the grand jury subpoena too, and the case is currently being appealed.

The right to speak anonymously is essential. It preserves privacy and shields critics from government retaliation. In the past year, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued grand jury subpoenas to social media companies for their users’ personal data. This is frequently done for improper purposes and without really showing that social media users have committed any crime. These subpoenas have the effect of intimidating and chilling critics, as immigration authorities have engaged in invasive, unconstitutional, and sometimes violent conduct.

As the amicus brief makes clear, courts should not defer to the government’s claims regarding the legitimacy of using grand jury subpoenas to unmask internet users. Instead, the subpoenas must receive proper First Amendment scrutiny. Like many other types of legal processes, grand jury subpoenas are issued by federal officials without prior court approval. And they too can be abused to harass or retaliate against people critical of the government.

The amicus brief was filed in early September and recently unsealed. The brief was signed by the American Civil Liberties Union of DC, EFF, the Center for Individual Rights, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the Cato Institute, and NetChoice.

It is notable that NetChoice signed the amicus brief. It is a trade group that represents many companies who have received similar subpoenas including Reddit, Google, Meta, PayPal, among others. EFF has called on these companies to do more to defend their users’ speech and privacy rights in the face of these subpoenas.

When we give our private information to the government to pay taxes, apply for a job, or vote, we should be able to trust that our data won't later be used against us. But in a betrayal of that trust, the federal government has been pooling the information it has about us on an unprecedented scale—and using it for purposes we never agreed to.

EFF and other groups are fighting back. In our latest EFFector newsletter, we're talking about a recent victory in our lawsuit against the government for sharing federal workers' confidential personnel files with DOGE.

JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER

For over 35 years, EFFector has been your guide to understanding the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and the law. This issue covers our free tracker blocker coming to Safari, a call to action for net neutrality in California, and a big win in our lawsuit against the DOGE data grab.

Prefer to listen in? EFFector is now available on all major podcast platforms. This time we're talking to EFF's F. Mario Trujillo about the dangers of government data grabs—and what defenders of privacy are doing to stop it. 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%2F59368254-4a09-4fcf-89fc-911a7c26dcc9%3Fdark%3Dfalse%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from simplecast.com

   

Want to protect your right to digital privacy? Sign up for EFF's EFFector newsletter for updates, ways to take action, and new merch drops. You can also fuel the fight for privacy and free speech online when you support EFF today!

Everyone knows, or should, that perfect (balanced, targeted, transparent, swift and swiftly appealable) content moderation at scale is impossible. That doesn’t mean powerful social platforms don’t have to try to get at least reasonably close, especially when access to good information can have a profound effect on political participation and speech.

That’s why so many people, including the Meta Oversight Board, criticized Meta for suspending a major political Instagram account for hours during a huge early voting push on October 17; and for allegedly boosting one candidate in Brazil’s recent presidential election. Meta denies deliberate interference in either instance, blaming “mistakes” in its automated content moderation systems (including AI tools that can’t tell the difference between enthusiastic follower engagement and a bot attack).

Mistakes or not, with early voting in the U.S. midterms already underway, these events serve as a stark reminder that all major social media platforms need to have stronger systems in place to ensure that they serve, rather than impede, democratic communication.

Access to good information can have a profound effect on political participation and speech.

This is not inherently an “AI” problem: automated systems can process content at a scale that humans never could, potentially enabling better moderation at scale and alleviating the psychological load on ill-paid moderators whose jobs require them to view incredibly disturbing content. But automated systems also reproduce existing biases, struggle to understand context, and often make mistakes that disproportionately affect journalists, activists, artists, and other vulnerable and marginalized communities. And moderation errors are even more likely when the language is spoken principally by the global majority. In 2020, leaked document showed that Meta’s algorithms incorrectly deleted nonviolent Arabic-language content 77 percent of the time, while failing to detect hate speech under the company’s own policies in many instances. Where these systems are faltering in Arabic, they’re positively failing in less-resourced languages. As a 2025 report from the Center for Democracy and Technology found, labeled datasets in certain languages and dialects such as Maghrebi Arabic and Kiswahili contain inconsistencies, bias, and inaccuracies due to the limited hiring of annotators who actually speak the languages as well as shifts in the languages themselves. An investigation into ChatGPT’s outputs in several low-resource languages demonstrates the depth of problem.

But language disparities are just one of several concerns as automated moderation becomes more widespread. From the systemic suppression of content from Palestine to the repeated misclassification of LGBTQ+ content as adult or explicit material, these varied examples demonstrate the risks of overreliance on automated moderation—and the need for stronger safeguards.

Fortunately, there is a great deal companies, policymakers, and civil society can do to help ensure that highly automated systems operate in ways that respect human rights, minimize predictable harms, and provide meaningful accountability when they fail. If companies are going to continue relying on automation to moderate users’ speech—and there is little reason to believe they won’t—then accountability must evolve alongside these technologies.

That work should start with publicly committing to the Santa Clara Principles 2.0. Specifically:

1. Automated technologies should help, not replace, human moderators. For example, automated systems can help flag and prioritize content for review, while humans can interpret context, handle sensitive cases, and refine system performance. This investment is particularly important during the weeks immediately before and after an election.
2. Companies must be transparent about when and how automation is used in content decisions.
3. Companies must regularly audit their automated systems for bias, with particular attention to low-resource languages, vulnerable and marginalized communities, and conflict zones.
4. Companies should strengthen personal data protection guarantees and policies. Automated content moderation often relies on personal data and profiling, so companies should think carefully about what data these systems use, what's necessary and proportionate and how their systems shape moderation outcomes.
5. Users must have the ability to appeal, and to provide context when they believe human or automated moderation decisions have wrongfully removed their content. Appeals should be promptly evaluated and decided by human moderators.
6. Companies should regularly assess the human rights impact of their moderation decisions, and issue public statements of the results
7. If they rely on third-party vendors, companies should carefully (and regularly) audit those vendors for compliance with these same principles
8. Lawmakers should avoid promoting and passing legislation that effectively or explicitly mandates automated moderation systems
9. Policymakers should also refrain from attempting to dictate platforms technical and design choices to favor or disfavor particular expression.
10. Policymakers should work to educate the public about how their personal data may be collected and used in electoral contexts.

These recommendations understand that automated content moderation isn’t just a technical problem for clever engineers and product teams to solve. Because content moderation shapes public discourse and fundamental rights, its design and oversight must respond to the concerns of policymakers, civil society, independent researchers, and the communities most affected by these systems.

One other distinct and enduring problem makes transparency, checks, and accountability all the more urgent: too few companies have far too much power over our political communication and organizing. Social media gave people the ability to wrest some control over political messaging away from media oligopolies. But we’ve met the new boss and while it’s not the same as the old boss, the song is pretty familiar. The real promise of the web to democratize communication is not likely to be met by social media oligarchs, no matter how sophisticated their content moderation practice.

New records obtained by EFF expose additional issues with Medicare’s AI-driven prior authorization program and show why we need stronger legal limits around government use of automated decision-making. 

EFF sued the government back in March for information about the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction (WISeR) model, a new Medicare program that uses AI to evaluate prior authorization requests for certain medical services. We previously released records showing that WISeR has resulted in delays and denials of care, operational chaos, and reports of patient harm. Today, we’re publishing over 800 new pages of records, including:

• Requests for information (RFIs) or requests for corrective action plans (CAPs) sent from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to four of the six WISeR vendors, along with the vendors’ responses.
• Applications of 66 companies to the WISeR model, including those of the 6 selected companies. 
• Task orders and contracts for the evaluation, implementation, and monitoring of the WISeR model.

Documents obtained through EFF’s lawsuit are available here.

These newly released documents show that the WISeR rollout was rushed and rocky from the start, highlighting the dangers that arise when governments treat AI like a silver bullet for complex problems. The documents also highlight the need for more transparency about safeguards against inappropriate, AI-driven denials. The public still lacks the information needed to assess whether clinician review is providing meaningful oversight of AI systems and whether appropriate data is being used to evaluate prior authorization requests. 

EFF has long argued that AI has no place in consequential government decisions about peoples’ rights or access to benefits, such as immigration enforcement and policing decisions. That’s because using automated decision-making in these contexts risks decisions that violate people’s rights or deprive them of benefits they’re entitled to based on biased or inappropriate considerations and without proper due process or accountability if there is an error. 

By outsourcing decision-making to private AI companies without sufficient transparency, testing, or legal limits, WISeR jeopardizes seniors’ access to medical care. Congress should step in to place greater legal limits on the use of automated decision-making in Medicare. 

WISeR’s Rollout Was Rushed and Rocky 

CMS launched the WISeR program just six months after announcing it, ignoring calls from medical providers to delay its rollout. In records previously released by EFF, CMS acknowledged this “extremely condensed timeline.” 

New records suggest that WISeR’s unusually rapid rollout contributed to widespread problems in the first few months of the program. CMS did not disclose the extent of these issues to the public, even as agency employees privately contacted vendors about potential noncompliance with program requirements. 

In the first three months of the program, CMS sent RFIs or requests for CAPs to at least four of the six WISeR vendors. These requests, which describe delays, technical failures, and a lack of communication with providers, suggest that widespread problems during the program’s rollout were not limited to one vendor or state. 

These letters underscore the severity of the problems with the program. For example, CMS requested information from one vendor, Virtix, about numerous reported issues, including “determination turnaround times that exceed established guidelines,” “denials that appear inaccurate or inconsistent with applicable criteria,” and “inadequate customer service.” CMS’s RFI to Zyter–a vendor that uses Palantir software infrastructure–observed that the agency had received reports that “Zyter is not issuing determination letters in a timely manner” and communications indicating that it “may lack adequate processes for responding to and escalating provider/supplier concerns.” The vendor Innovaccer received two CAP requests and a “Performance Notice of Non-Compliance” over its failure to implement a fully functional portal for WISeR providers and suppliers.

Excerpts from CMS’ letters to vendors describe problems during WISeR’s rollout:

Excerpt from the RFI for Virtix, March 17, 2026

Excerpt from the RFI for Zyter, February 27, 2026

Excerpt from the Performance Notice of Non-Compliance for Innovaccer, February 20, 2026

Vendors’ responses to CMS provide further evidence that WISeR’s rushed rollout contributed to its problems. Innovaccer claimed it warned CMS months in advance that it might not be ready to provide full portal functionality by the launch date, even before signing a Participation Agreement. Another vendor claimed that “technical and workflow stabilization challenges were encountered due to the compressed implementation timeframe” it faced after joining the WISeR program a month after the other vendors. 

Excerpt from Innovaccer’s Proposed CAP, January 16, 2026

The issues reflected in CMS’s letters to vendors, and the vendors’ responses, illustrate the risks of deploying automated decision-making systems without proper testing or safeguards. While vendors’ responses describe fixes for the problems CMS identified, after-the-fact remedies cannot undo the harms that patients and providers already experienced during WISeR’s rushed rollout. 

More Transparency Needed About AI Safeguards

The public still knows far too little about any safeguards that WISeR vendors may have adopted—in part because the government chose to conceal some of this information. Transparency about these safeguards is critical to protecting patients, especially because WISeR’s payment structure gives vendors, as the government put it, “an incentive to deny as many claims as possible.” 

 Information provided by a vendor about safeguards that it says "ensure the responsible and clinically appropriate application of automation” appears to have been redacted from records released to EFF

The public has limited means to evaluate the effectiveness of even the safeguards that weren’t redacted from records released to EFF. For example, one vendor’s application touts safeguards like “Human-in-the-loop (HITL) workflows,” “Continuous model monitoring,” and “Transparent audit trails.” Yet it remains unclear whether these measures effectively prevent improper prior authorization denials. Some evidence suggests they may not: the company denied more requests than it approved in the first few months of the program, and CMS inquired about “denials that appear inaccurate or inconsistent with applicable criteria.”

Ultimately, the records obtained by EFF raise more questions than they answer about the safeguards used by WISeR vendors. 

Having a Human in the Loop Is Probably Not Enough

CMS has emphasized having a human in the loop as a key safeguard against inappropriate, AI-driven denials. The WISeR FAQ page on the CMS website states that “Non-affirmations will require the review of a human clinician and cannot be performed solely by technology.” But whether human review provides any meaningful protection depends on the details of its implementation, such as whether human reviewers have enough time to evaluate requests and practical authority to override AI recommendations. We still lack many of those details for WISeR vendors. 

A growing body of scholarship points to the substantial limitations of “human in the loop” policies as guardrails for AI systems. AI-generated recommendations can unduly influence human decisions, leading reviewers to over-rely on automated judgements and rubber stamp them as correct. Even worse, at least one health insurance company actively pressured clinical reviewers to accept its AI systems’ recommendations. Another company built a system that allowed clinical reviewers to reject claims without opening patient files; clinical reviewers using this system spent an average of just 1.2 seconds on each case.

Is the Right Kind of Data Informing Companies’ Decisions?

Some WISeR vendors’ applications offer general descriptions of the types of data informing their decisions. But far more details are needed to allow medical professionals to assess whether the data inputs to these AI systems are appropriate for evaluating prior authorization requests. 

Inappropriate training data or input data can lead to biased, unfair, or inaccurate decisions. CMS guidance for Medicare Advantage organizations using AI to make coverage decisions emphasizes the importance of basing decisions on individual patients’ circumstances. It cautions against using “an algorithm that determines coverage based on a larger data set instead of the individual patient's medical history, the physician’s recommendations, or clinical notes.” 

WISeR vendors’ applications reference data sources like “provider behavior,” “patient demographics,” “utilization management datasets,” “provider and payer performance metrics,” and “historical claims data.” Whether these sources could introduce bias or give too much weight to population-level patterns depends on how vendors use them to inform individual decisions. But we don’t yet have these important details about vendors’ data and algorithms. By outsourcing decision-making to private companies’ AI systems, the government has made it harder for the public to evaluate whether decisions are being made fairly.

Next Steps

As the government expands its use of automated decision-making, the potential for consequential mistakes increases rapidly. The records we’ve obtained so far raise questions about the rushed rollout and lack of guardrails for automated decision-making by the U.S. government. EFF urges transparency, oversight, and legal limits to protect people from the harms of automated decision-making in high risk systems.  

Related Cases: EFF v. CMS

A nonprofit service that protects internet users’ privacy is leaving France. Quad9, a free DNS resolver, has said it will reluctantly stop serving users in France on November 24. This follows a French court order that Quad9 must block access to websites that are accused of infringing the copyrights of a sports broadcaster. Forcing a responsible privacy service out of an important market is a predictable result of trying to force infrastructure providers to be copyright police.

When you visit a website, a DNS resolver reads the domain name you type in—like eff.org— and translates it into a numerical IP address that’s used to direct data across the internet. A DNS resolver can see the names of websites you connect to, so its privacy policies are important. Quad9 is an NGO that’s incorporated in Switzerland, in part to protect its users from data demands. The company also helps protect users from malware and phishing by blocking domains that are known to be malicious. Services like Quad9 offer an alternative to the DNS resolvers of local internet service providers and wireless carriers, which are vulnerable to demands from law enforcement, censorship, and commercial surveillance.

In a blog post explaining its decision, Quad9 explains that the French court’s order forces it to make a decision that, either way, is bad for users. It could either “extend French law to the whole world (blocking globally)” or try to identify and block users only in France—something that it can’t do reliably, and a move that could leave the company facing massive fines if it fails to block websites perfectly within France. Quad9 says it is facing about 20 other lawsuits in France seeking similar blocking orders. 

Rather than accept these demands, Quad9 has decided to withdraw its service from France. That is a real loss for French users who rely on the service to protect their privacy and security. It is also the right thing to do, when faced with the alternative: making promises it can’t keep, or abandoning users’ rights worldwide. 

Quad9’s decision will not remove any allegedly infringing material from the internet. The organization doesn’t host websites. Users looking for particular websites can  easily switch to another DNS resolver. So the material targeted by copyright holders will remain online and accessible, even while they drive a privacy-protecting service out of France. 

These events matter beyond the borders of France, and U.S. lawmakers should pay attention. Congress is considering multiple site-blocking proposals, which would require ISPs and other intermediaries, including DNS resolvers, to block access to websites in the name of protecting copyright. These bills threaten speech and our ability to access information online, and they are invitations to abuse. The Quad9 withdrawal shows another cost: if internet services get forced into being copyright cops, users can lose services that they rely on for privacy and security. 

Worse still, if neutral services like Quad9 are forced to build site-blocking systems for the benefit of copyright holders, it becomes far easier for other powerful interests, including repressive governments, to demand the same systems be used to censor speech they dislike, globally. 

Congress should reject site-blocking bills. They’re a threat to the open internet, and don’t help creators or creativity. 

Last week, researchers at Citizen Lab revealed a horrifying new malware campaign, dubbed “AdFection.” It used an ad network to distribute spyware to journalist’s devices to infect them without the target ever needing to click anything. This sort of attack on journalists is dangerous and incredibly concerning, especially since it’s built on the backbone of a technology we already object to: behavioral advertising. Although this type of attack has only been described targeting journalists, you can take a few steps we outline in the next section to mitigate the risk no matter who you are.

A few factors combined to make this attack a noteworthy first-of-its-kind. First, it utilized the surveillance ad-tech ecosystem to specially target the malicious code. Second, the spyware it delivered was so-called “zero-click,” meaning it required no interaction from the user to be infected: all that is required is for the ad to be delivered and code bundled along with it to be run, which happens automatically. Neither malvertising nor zero-click attacks are new on their own. What’s novel about the AdFection attack is combining them, creating a highly targeted, extremely dangerous attack which is difficult to defend against and even harder to detect.

Let’s take a deeper look from the perspective of one of the Windows devices supplied to the researchers from Al Jazeera. Here’s how the report describes the infection happening: 

• Someone browsing the web or using an app on that machine is served an ad created by Discover-Tech, a company exposed in the report as “purporting to be a legitimate advertising company, [but] appears to be a front for large-scale ad espionage abuse.” 
• The ad contains a small snippet of JavaScript code which is automatically executed when rendered in the app or website. 
• This code reaches back out to a Discover-Tech server, referred to as their “NOAS server,” with detailed information about the machine rendering it: its cookie-set advertising ID, IP address, and more.

So far, nothing particularly unusual has happened. Ads that contain JavaScript code and reach back out to their servers with lots of information on your device—and by extension you—are commonplace. It’s all part of the data-driven advertising ecosystem. What happens next is more interesting:

• The NOAS server uses this detailed information to determine it is an Al Jazeera machine requesting the ad. 
• Instead of returning an empty response (as it does most of the time), it responds with a malicious, zero-click spyware payload. That payload was created by Discover-Tech’s partner Candiru/Integrity Labs, a company previously exposed for involvement in sophisticated malware attacks. 
• The payload is then executed and infects the targeted machine.

Companies targeting zero-click malware attacks against journalists might seem like the plot of a blockbuster spy thriller. But this attack was enabled by the everyday practices of ad-tech companies, which unfortunately have extreme latitude in the collection of users’ data. By leveraging the tracking identifiers and data collected on devices for the purpose of delivering targeted ads to specific individuals, mercenary spyware companies can repurpose this data in order to fine-tune who they infect—and hide that they’re doing it from everyone else. 

Most ads are not delivered directly by the ad creators, but rather by intermediaries that facilitate Real-Time Bidding auctions. Nonetheless, winning bidders are given the ability to execute JavaScript code in the browser of the person who receives the targeted ad. This allows for interactive ads to be displayed, but also (as we’ve seen) for the compromise of a device just by delivery of malicious code.

While the different components in this attack chain are not novel on their own, the exposure of this combined attack is significant because it reveals a technique to hyper-target individuals and organizations for infection. Luckily, there are steps you can take to protect yourself from the myriad of dangers presented by the ad-tracking industry. Here’s how.

What You Can Do About It

As we work towards fundamental fixes to the ad ecosystem and banning online behavioral ads altogether, the onus is on all of us to protect ourselves. This is especially important for higher risk individuals or journalists working in states with heavy surveillance. Citizen Lab outlines several steps, depending on your threat model, to take to help protect yourself:

• Take some simple steps to lock down your devices right now.
• Establish strong security fundamentals. Sites like our own Surveillance Self-Defense and Consumer Reports’ Security Planner can help get you started.
• Use a browser extension to reduce tracking. Our Privacy Badger extension is an excellent start. Network-wide ad blocking services are also worth considering if you’re comfortable handling the set up process.
• On mobile phones, disable or reset your AD ID. Here are directions to do so for Android and iPhone.
• Consider using more privacy protective browsers.

These steps can be very helpful in protecting yourself, but there is only so much you can do as an individual. Banning behavioral ads like this would be a good place to start. Behavioral ads aren’t just a privacy nightmare as designed. They are the perfect vehicle for malvertising and similar threats, just as we see here.

The vast amount of information on the open web requires researchers and journalists to adapt with new tools to make sense of it all. Checking facts, gauging public opinion, and other lines of inquiry depend on being able to analyze the overwhelming amount of material posted online every day. Unfortunately, responding to the AI industry’s voracious appetite for data, companies stewarding this public data are looking to cash in and block access to the open web. This makes the web harder to navigate, and threatens all kinds of important research.

Reddit’s lawsuit against SerpAPI and Perplexity threatens to do exactly that.

Reddit was once a very open platform, fostering a community of alternative apps and extensions putting users in control of their experience. Since the rise of AI however, it changed tack. Over the last three years Reddit has closed APIs to users, limited UI features, and otherwise restrained access without login. By making the voices on the platform harder to access, the company has positioned itself as a gatekeeper, and has since struck a lucrative data-sharing arrangement with Google.

SerpAPI, in contrast, is a tool which offers automated access to Google’s search engine results pages. It’s used by Perplexity, an AI-based search tool. Reddit sued to stop SerpAPI and Perplexity from bypassing Reddit’s own arrangement with Google. (Google brought a similar suit, which was dismissed by another court.)

It comes as little surprise that the legal weapon Reddit employed in this case is Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the same “anti-circumvention” law that has caused so much trouble for artists, innovators, and researchers over the years—and that EFF has fought against from the beginning. Reddit’s suit claimed that SerpAPI’s use of widely used techniques to access Google search results amounted to “circumventing” access controls on copyrighted works. 

There are major problems with this argument. 

First, Reddit doesn’t own the copyright in its users’ posts—the users do, and they grant Reddit the right to distribute the posted content freely.

Second, there’s no meaningful copyright infringement going on here. Perplexity functions like a search engine, responding to users’ queries with relevant links and optionally an AI-generated summary. Crawling and indexing the web to create a search engine was long ago ruled a fair use under copyright law.

And third, Google’s efforts to put rate limits on search queries and block some kinds of automated querying aren’t the sort of “access controls” that Section 1201 was written for. The law was passed in 1998 and targeted things like breaking the encryption on DVDs and other digital media. In contrast to physical or paywalled media, Reddit posts are visible to everyone, without a paywall and generally without a login. 

Unfortunately, a federal district judge ruled in July that the suit could proceed, concluding that Section 1201 applied. That’s a dangerous ruling, because it casts a cloud of legal uncertainty over lots of important research, including efforts to study public sentiment through social media and to preserve records of historical events. Without tools that can look at the web at scale, many kinds of research are simply impossible today. But if employing those tools risks Section 1201 liability, only the wealthiest institutions will be able to use them.

We cannot let the internet be rebuilt such that information is divided up among a handful of gatekeepers and sold back to us like cable subscription packages. If our knowledge of the online world comes only through wealthy institutions, the cost of knowledge will only increase and access to unbiased answers diminishes. 

If you use the internet at all, you may have noticed that a large percentage of sites suddenly went down earlier this week—and all your nerdiest friends were talking about "The Vulnerability Apocalypse” and this thing called PHP that powers nearly 70% of the websites on the internet. You may find yourself wondering: what is PHP, what just happened, what is the vulnerability apocalypse, and what do I need to do?  

To find out what you can personally do read the first blog post in this series!  

What Is PHP?  

PHP is a programming language used mainly to create interactive websites. Facebook, Wordpress, Wikipedia, Etsy, and other major sites all use or were originally built on PHP. It is a long-established mainstay of web development. But because it is open-source, maintenance of these critical systems depends on a small number of volunteers working on this in their free time. The disaster scenario that happened this past week is the perfect example of why we need more money and people supporting open-source projects. Corporations should be contributing both. 

What Is the Vulnerability Apocalypse?  

Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) are the way that security professionals file reports about vulnerabilities in software. The National Vulnerability Database (NVD), run by NIST, is the official national database of CVEs. In other words, CVE reports managed by NIST are the closest thing we have to a canonical database of security vulnerabilities in software. The NVD currently has around 400,000 CVEs that have been filed and accepted since 1988. In just the month of October, 13,000 new CVEs have been submitted. This means that 3% of critical software security bugs that have ever been officially logged were found in the last month alone. And it's likely that by the end of the year over a quarter of the software vulnerabilities that have ever been found will be from 2026.  

 

Computer vulnerabilities reported are rising exponentially. Source: CVE Tracker

This research is being driven almost entirely by the cybersecurity capabilities of major AI models from companies like Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google. Historically it has been popularly assumed by cybersecurity experts that finding unknown (zero-day) exploits in any specific project and turning them into exploits was expensive. The knowledge to discover them was not widespread, and it was a hard task even for those initiated into the arcane ways of vulnerability hunting. Google even dedicated an entire team to it.  

But now thanks to major AI models, vulnerabilities are cheap, and anyone of moderate technical skill with a few dollars and access to a frontier AI model can find vulnerabilities in a few minutes. For example, recent vulnerabilities in PHP were found with a prompt to an AI model that literally said "find bad vulnerabilities in PHP."  

What Happened This Week? 

In 2024, a potentially severe vulnerability in PHP was discovered during an external security audit. PHP’s maintainers couldn’t agree on a solution, but more importantly, they couldn’t find a way to exploit the vulnerability. Because it didn’t seem like an active threat, they ended up deprioritizing a fix in favor of working on more urgent security issues. Then, in August 2026, security researchers working with the latest models from OpenAI and Anthropic independently discovered the vulnerability again, and another one—and now, with a way to exploit them.  

We now know that the vulnerabilities were so severe that they would have allowed even moderately inventive hackers to take over any website that uses PHP and then steal customer data, launch further malware attacks, spy on users, take websites offline, or launch a massive denial of service attack.[1] 

Because of the severity of these vulnerabilities, several of the involved researchers got together with the makers of PHP to patch the vulnerabilities and disclose them in a coordinated manner. The idea was that hopefully everyone would get a chance to quietly release and then apply fixes for the vulnerabilities before the whole world found out about it. 

But news already started to leak on October 20th. There was a post on a widely read forum “Hacker News” and other posts elsewhere. One of the researchers accidentally published a video early. Companies reported seeing active exploitation of the vulnerabilities going back as far as October 17th. On October 21st, six hours before the planned press embargo, one company, Chainguard, jumped the gun and released a patch early, essentially giving anyone instructions about exactly where to find the vulnerabilities and how to weaponize them. This sent system administrators everywhere scrambling to patch their systems before they were taken over by hackers. And it’s going to take a long time to patch all these systems. At the time of this writing over 33 million websites are still running on vulnerable versions of PHP.  

The internet is run largely on open-source software, mostly maintained by a small handful of skilled volunteers occasionally getting a small stipend, not by major corporations and highly paid engineers. These are projects you have perhaps never heard of, like PHP, OpenSSL, and SQLite, but these programs run on nearly every computer in the world and are maintained by teams as small as one person. When a vulnerability is found in these projects, it can be devastating.  

PHP isn’t the only critical open-source software with a high severity vulnerability this week either. Other widespread open-source projects like Node.js and GitLab also had severe security bugs reported.  

The small number of already overworked open-source maintainers are now facing a deluge of vulnerability reports, some of which are false, but many of which are very real. Burnout in open source has never been higher.  

We Need Stronger Support for Open Source Projects

Much of the foundation for the modern multibillion-dollar internet industry is built on open-source products that were created and still maintained—for free—by dedicated volunteers in their spare time. It’s an imperfect system, and it can lead to errors.  

One of those critical, under resourced open-source products is PHP. And while vulnerabilities in PHP were privately found years ago, they were left unfixed because they didn’t seem as impactful as other bugs at the time. These same vulnerabilities were recently rediscovered and proved to be trivially exploitable by security researchers using advanced AI models. While in the middle of the widespread, global effort to correct this mistake and deploy fixes, the problem was leaked by some of the security researchers who had gotten early access to the fixes. Unfortunately, this left millions of websites, ranging from personal blogs to government sites, vulnerable to hacking that could result in data theft, malware distribution, and worse.  

Open-source projects like PHP and others are the backbone of the entire internet. If they don’t get the resources they need, they and the internet they power, are at risk of falling apart. Corporations (whose products would not exist without these products) should be actively contributing to their maintenance. 

1. A technical analysis of the vulnerabilities is out of scope for this post and has already been written by the original researchers.

It is a commonly held truth among computer geeks that there is no such thing as bug free software, or a secure computer. Any piece of software that anyone actually uses will have a security vulnerability somewhere in the code. The more complex that software is, the more likely there will be a vulnerability. Fortunately for everyone, finding severe vulnerabilities was generally considered an expensive and difficult task requiring years of training and deep knowledge of how computers and software worked. Until recently there was a steady background hum of vulnerabilities being found and patched, with major vulnerabilities that could cripple the entire internet only happening every few years. Now that is no longer the case.  

You may have noticed your nerdiest friends freaking out about the “Vulnerability Apocalypse” this week and waving their arms in panic about something called PHP. You may have also noticed that some of your favorite websites were down for a bit. In the last two weeks of October alone, there have been multiple, potentially internet-breaking vulnerabilities reported and patched. Many of those vulnerabilities were in the open-source software that is the foundation of the vast majority of the internet.

For more detailed information on what happened, and why supporting open-source projects matters, check out our other blog.

This is all because frontier AI models, such as those created by OpenAI, Anthropic, and others, have made it incredibly cheap and easy to find previously unknown vulnerabilities (zero-days) in open- and closed-source code. Three percent of all software vulnerabilities ever found in history were found just in the month of October. This year alone researchers have found nearly a quarter of all software security issues which have ever been discovered. 

If exploiting critical software is now cheaper and easier than ever, what does that mean for us as individuals and what does that mean for society as a whole? TL; DR: It’s going to get worse before it gets better. But you can protect yourself with basic digital security hygiene that is now more important than ever.  

What Do I Need to Do? 

There absolutely needs to be a bigger conversation about how we got here and how to fix the systemic issues involved, including how corporations that depend on open-source code should contribute to their upkeep, and how big tech should be regulated.  

But for now, this news is a compelling reason to tighten up your digital hygiene. A lot of computers are going to get hacked a lot more often, and unfortunately, it isn’t going to get better any time soon. Thankfully, EFF has compiled a comprehensive set of security advice in our Surveillance Self-Defense guides. To start, we recommend making sure your browser and all applications are always up to date with the latest patches.   

You should also consider installing a tracker blocking tool, like EFF’s Privacy Badger (now on Safari), and remain vigilant for phishing attempts. Additionally, install a password manager and use unique passwords for each website, so that if one site is compromised, the rest of your passwords are safe. You should also be aware that data breaches may now be more likely, and the websites you visit may experience more attacks than usual, which means that some services may be disrupted.  

If you host a blog or other website, make sure that either you or your hosting provider has patched this particular issue.  

For additional tips on protecting yourself and others, head over to our Surveillance Self-Defense site. Additionally, if you’d like to support any of EFF’s open-source projects like Privacy Badger, Rayhunter, and Certbot, visit our donate page. 

Last week, two federal appeals courts issued opinions that will allow Florida and Georgia to start enforcing laws that will age-gate and block young people from accessing social media. The laws do not adequately respect minors’ rights to play, speak, and learn online. More fundamentally, these laws don’t help young people stay safe online—a goal that lawmakers should pursue.

Age-Gated? Email EFF at agegates@eff.org. 

Because of the new laws, some young people will lose their ability to access lawful information, find their online communities, and even engage with school board members. Others will need parental permission to stay online. And adults will face increased demands to prove their age, which will put their privacy at increased risk simply to continue to use the services they already use. 

We opposed these laws because they threaten the free expression and privacy of both minors and adults.  Even though these lawsuits are not over, the injunctions that paused enforcement have been lifted, and the states of Florida and Georgia will now be able to enforce broad restrictions on social media use. 

The restrictions that these states will start enforcing are a setback for the rights of all internet users, but they are not written in stone. That’s why EFF is encouraging internet users - and particularly young people – to start keeping a record of how they are affected. If you are a teenager who loses access to an online discussion, can’t participate in a political campaign, or stop seeking information because you don’t want to upload personal information, document what happened. The same is true for adults who may be mistakenly blocked by age checks, and parents who may encounter obstacles to authorizing their children's use of online services. These experiences matter. They can help us show courts, policymakers, and the public what government restrictions on online expression actually cost the people who live under them. 

Hopefully, with enough proof of the expressive harms these laws cause, we can push lawmakers to rescind them. That’s why we’re encouraging folks to reach out to EFF once they’ve documented these harms. You can write to us about this issue at the email address agegates@eff.org. 

The Decisions

These two opinions, issued by the same panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, allow Florida and Georgia to enforce restrictions on social media accounts for people under 16 years old. The requirements differ by state. 

In Florida, the judges allowed that state’s H.B. 3 to move forward, which requires covered platforms to ban anyone under 14 from opening or keeping accounts—even with parental permission. Teenagers who are 14 or 15 can have accounts only with parental consent. To be covered, a platform has to use algorithms, allow content uploads or the viewing of other peoples’ content, and have at least one feature on a list of features the state considers bad, including livestreaming, engagement metrics, autoplay, infinite scrolling, or push notifications. These requirements effectively apply to every major social media service that young people use.

To the extent there is a silver lining in the ruling on Florida’s law, it’s that the panel recognized that H.B. 3 targets expression protected by the First Amendment. The problem is that the ruling uncritically accepts the idea that a social media service is addictive in a clinical sense, even if just 10% of users under 16 are using the platform for two or more hours per day (the standard set in H.B. 3). The court simply accepts that time spent online is a proxy for harm. The bill doesn’t distinguish doomscrolling or compulsive use from organizing a campaign, making art, or talking with friends. 

In Georgia, S.B. 351 can now be enforced. That law requires parental consent for anyone under 16 to hold an account on social media platforms. It also requires platforms to make “commercially reasonable efforts” to check users’ ages, which creates a hurdle for adults as well as under-16s. 

The ruling acknowledges that S.B. 351 “overwhelmingly applies to platforms that overwhelmingly host protected speech.” But the ruling faults the plaintiffs for not being able to show that “invalid applications substantially outweigh the valid ones.” That asks the groups challenging the law to meet a virtually impossible standard—to make their case, they would have to measure and evaluate the content hosted by all online services affected by the law. 

Both of these cases may be further appealed, and are likely to continue in the lower courts. But people in Georgia and Florida can no longer count on court injunctions to protect their access to the web. What the effects will be going forward depends on how platforms implement these new restrictions, including how they check ages and parental consent, as well as state officials’ views on these efforts. 

If you hit an age-gate while online, check out our blog post about how you might want to proceed, and our age-gating resource hub. If you want to speak out about your experience, you can talk to us at agegates@eff.org.

What is Lost

Some youth who lose their social media accounts will lose contact with friends. Others will lose access to a support group, the ability to speak out on current issues, or an audience for their artwork. More young people will be shut out of discussions about what’s going on in their school and their community. U.S. law has long recognized that people under 18 have their own rights to speak and receive information. These new laws interfere with those rights. 

The Florida opinion suggests that young people can browse the internet without an account, or use a parent’s account. But that doesn’t help those who might participate in a private group, send a personal message, or speak to an audience they have built up. Nor does it recognize the reality that in many households, young people may not have the ability to use a parent’s device, or even have healthy relationships with their parents. For parents of children under 14, the Florida law also overrides parental autonomy—even if parents wanted to allow their child on these services, they cannot do so by law. 

These laws won’t just harm younger kids. Adults and older teens will bear the cost of the new rules. In order to figure out who is young enough to not be able to join, or who needs parental consent to join, services will have to check users’ ages. That likely means asking people to submit ID or other sensitive information. Some people will be mis-classified as too young; others will decide that they’d simply rather stop participating instead of handing over even more personal data. 

Keep A Record

Between the recent Meta settlement and these 11th Circuit decisions, despite widespread opposition, age-gating is becoming a reality for the American internet. As these laws are enforced, we need to understand what they mean for the people who have to deal with them. And we need to create a record of their effects on everyone’s speech so we can push to repeal them.

If you encounter a restriction due to these laws that affects you, keep a record, ideally while the details are still fresh in your mind. Screenshots, along with notes about the date and time, the service involved, and the task you were trying to accomplish, will all be helpful. 

Did you lose an account or can’t participate? Describe what you lost. Were you using a group to organize a club, volunteer in your community, or keep in touch with friends? Did losing your account cut you off from people you wouldn’t otherwise be able to be in touch with? Even if you just used the account to access local news or follow your favorite content creator, that’s still a significant loss of your right to access information online.

Record problems with age checks and parental consent. What information did the service request from you? Were you able to provide it? Did it reject your age proof, or classify you incorrectly? If you’re a parent, were you able to give permission, and what did you have to provide? What promises did the service make about what it did with the data it collected from you? Save explanations given by the platforms or any services they employ to age gate, including any law they cite. If you are to appeal a result and choose to, keep track of those attempts as well. 

You can also document choosing to drop out. If you abandon an account or service because you’re unwilling to provide ID or other personal data, write down what you gave up, and why. You don’t need to submit sensitive information to show that you are burdened by new rules. 

You Can E-Mail agegates@eff.org

If these restrictions affect you, we encourage you to reach out to EFF by emailing agegated@eff.org and telling us more about what happened. 

EFF will continue to oppose laws that prevent adults and minors from expressing themselves online, or that push people to give up their privacy to participate in the digital world. These recent court decisions are setbacks, but they don’t settle the debate. By keeping track of people who lose access, age-check failures, and the online conversations that can no longer happen, we’ll be in a better position to challenge the worst of these restrictions, in both legislatures and courts. 

And in the meantime, EFF will keep fighting for laws that actually make us safer online—like stopping social media companies’  harmful surveillance of all internet users. We’ll continue to push for laws that empower parents, children, and all internet users to have meaningful choice and control over their online services. Those goals can make everyone safer online, while preserving our ability to speak and access information. 

Further Action 

• Email EFF about your experience at agegates@eff.org . 

Further Reading

• 11th Circuit Opinion in Netchoice v. Carr (Georgia)
• 11th Circuit Opinion in CCIA, NetChoice v. Uthmeier (Florida) 
• EFF amicus brief in Florida case
• EFF amicus brief in Georgia case
• EFF’s Age Verification Hub

Canada’s Parliament is debating a massive expansion of surveillance powers that will threaten the privacy and security of millions of people. Bill C-22, also called the Lawful Access Act, has already passed the House of Commons, and is now before the Canadian Senate. 

Canadians still have an opportunity to speak out and stop this dangerous legislation. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) is urging all Canadians to sign its petition opposing the bill. (The petition on CCLA’s website is governed by CCLA’s privacy policy.) 

Take action

Tell the canadian senate to stop C-22

As we wrote earlier this year, Bill C-22 gives the government new powers to force digital services—including telecom companies, messaging apps, and more—to help with government surveillance. Worse, it allows Canada’s Minister of Public Safety to order companies to create a backdoor to their services for law enforcement, as long as it doesn’t lead to a “systemic insecurity.” That’s a clear recipe for weakening the encryption we all rely on. 

It also requires services to retain metadata for up to a year, which reveals who people communicate with, where they go, and what services they use, even when they are not suspected of any crime. 

Researchers at CCLA and Citizen Lab published a detailed analysis of C-22 and its serious constitutional and cybersecurity problems. The analysis points out that the bill needs more than cosmetic changes—it calls for entirely withdrawing Part 2 of Bill C-22, the section that establishes the surveillance and data retention regime. 

Bill C-22 could also expand the sharing of Canadians’ personal data with foreign law enforcement, including the United States. Canada has been negotiating a cross-border data-sharing agreement with the U.S. that would allow American police to get information about Canadian internet users without any Canadian court oversight. 

Some Canadian senators have already expressed concerns about the bill, and rightly suggested, as CCLA and Citizen Lab have, that it may not be compatible with privacy protections in the Canadian constitution. 

If you’re in Canada, read and sign CCLA’s petition opposing Bill C-22 today. Don’t let the Senate allow this dangerous expansion of government surveillance to become Canada’s new reality. 

Take action

Canadians: defend your privacy and security

The internet is a vast and confusing place no matter your age. Trying to help youth engage with it safely and privately is a complicated topic that touches on many different skillsets and ideas. But just because it’s complicated doesn’t mean it’s impossible. We’ve launched our Online Privacy for Parents and Youth Surveillance Self-Defense guide in hopes to provide a framework for finding solutions that work for you. 

EFF rolls out this crucial resource as state and local governments consider ill-advised laws that cut young people off from essential information and experiences. This particularly harms vulnerable youth and marginalized groups who often find safety in supportive online communities they can't access offline. Such laws also entail age gating, which compromises the privacy of all internet users and stifles young users’ ability to learn, grow, and express themselves.

Young people have unique needs and those needs change over time. Trying to protect from everything all the time is an exhausting process, but the security community has long had a solution for this: security planning (also called threat modeling). The idea is to provide a series of questions designed to help you focus on what’s truly important. When it comes to online privacy, this is as applicable for youth and parents as it is for anyone else. 

We used a security plan as our foundation for this guide because deciding what is and isn’t important is the first step we should all take when assessing our privacy risks. But this isn’t a place for quick fixes, and every young person has their unique needs and considerations. There is no single tool or technology fix that can substitute for spending time learning, and then teaching a young person, how the internet works, how to use it, what sorts of harms exist, and how to navigate those harms.

Solutions are rarely about the tools or software you use. It’s about understanding the threats and concerns you have, and then determining what steps you can take to mitigate those risks. We hope our Online Privacy for Parents and Youth guide can help provide the outline to get the conversation started.

Donate Today!

An open internet where people can freely build, share, and remix each other's work is a powerful engine of grassroots innovation we’ve all benefited from. In recent decades, however, corporations have taken control of an increasing share of this work, giving them a greater ability to stifle challengers and limit our choices. When regulators address this by mandating that  tech giants play fair by requiring interoperability, the gatekeepers respond with a tired refrain: Playing fair puts users’ security at risk.

Unfortunately for these trillion-dollar companies, this gotcha isn’t the end of the conversation. Regulators can ensure that meaningful choice and security thrive.

Lawmakers have been catching up, recognizing that the best way to rein in big tech is to require these oligopolies to open up their platforms to independent developers. As we explained six years ago, mandating interoperability helps prevent the misuse of people’s data and enables more privacy-respecting alternatives. Tech giants, in contrast, have been arguing that our data is safer when they have exclusive control.

Tech Giants Claim Interoperability Means Insecurity

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) put interoperability into law under Article 6(7): “gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with” a designated Core Platform Service they operate. The language describes an unambiguous requirement to remediate vendor lockouts and anti-competitive behavior of the major service operators—it is not optional.

Apple claimed that enforcing this obligation in mobile app stores would put their customers at risk and do irreparable harm to trust in their brand. It’s an argument reminiscent of Apple’s fight against the right to repair, and in both instances the company is fighting to maintain its restrictive ecosystem to stop people from finding better deals elsewhere. Apple has long cultivated a more corporate-controlled experience with the iPhone, but this argument is now also being used for the relatively-more-open Android devices from Google.

In the same year Apple argued against the DMA, Epic Games sued Google for its restrictive terms of service and extractive policies for revenue generated in apps. Google predictably alleged that opening up its platform to other app stores it couldn’t vet would allow harmful apps to be installed. The case was ultimately decided this year in the U.S. federal appeals court for the Ninth Circuit, with the court rejecting this argument, dealing a blow to  Google’s feudal security arrangement, and paving the way for third-party app stores to be delivered as apps via the Google Play Store.

Interoperating Secure Systems Can (and Should) Exist

Policymakers cannot take tech giants’ claims at face value. Companies have every incentive to resist interoperability requirements, because interoperability lowers practical barriers and reduces switching costs for consumers adopting competing services. 

Even where companies offer credible claims from internal technical and security experts, independent experts rarely have the access and information they need to test those claims. Companies have selectively made arguments that security is harmed by interoperability, often in contexts which are to their advantage. These companies are happy to let a general misconception flourish which frames security as inherently opposed to interoperability.

This narrative is wrong. We’ve seen that when interoperability and information security are both set as essential and non-negotiable criteria, secure interoperable systems result—systems that don’t sacrifice the rich features we’ve come to expect of the services we rely on. 

The cross-platform rollout of Rich Communication Services (RCS), and now Message Layer Security (MLS) on top of it is a perfect example of this, creating end-to-end secure messaging by default between Android and iOS. For RCS and MLS, Google was conveniently on the other side of the interoperability argument, campaigning Apple to adopt the standard to overcome the diminished “green bubble” experience iPhone users had when texting non-iPhone users. Once Apple finally agreed to interoperate by implementing common standards, all users benefited from improved messaging security. In cases where legitimate security concerns are raised, these can be assessed and remedied on a case-by-case basis, without sacrificing user agency.

Striking the Right Balance

Retrofitting interoperability into already secure closed systems shouldn’t be done carelessly: it requires regulators strike the right balance of pressure and leniency to allow the time and precision necessary to make these renovations. Any components developed with the assumption of privileged access by trusted parties (e.g. your browser engine) are particularly vulnerable to serious security risks when opened up to unaccountable third parties.

By adapting interoperability and information security as essential design principles, we can expect more safety, but also more freedom.

With regard to the DMA, when security concerns are legitimate, we urge the European Commission to work with companies and outside experts to offer guidance in technical implementation and provide clarity on regulatory compliance. This approach paves a path forward that balances the interest of legal oversight and the needs of the companies alike. 

Policymakers wishing to uproot these unfair platforms of control must do so with care and limit the impact this disruption can have. But security concerns must not act as a lever to indefinitely delay compliance. Closed systems should be impartially evaluated, and if concerns are valid, regulators can allow more time and guidance to be given to companies implementing these changes. One possibility is a tiered approach: offering leniency during an initial period where systems need to be retrofitted to abide by new requirements, followed by a subsequent and ongoing stricter observance of fair play.

Once interoperability and information security are adopted as essential design principles, further development with these rights-enhancing principles in mind will more easily follow. The result will be an internet the world deserves—where we can expect more safety, but also more freedom.

The Brazilian National Data Protection Agency (ANPD) plays a pivotal role in the regulation of digital platforms according to new legislation approved in Brazil. Throughout this year, EFF has presented comments, filed submissions, and met with the agency to emphasize crucial guardrails that the enforcement of new regulations should ensure. 

ANPD is responsible for detailing and applying obligations set in Law n. 15.211/2025, which established rules for the protection of children and adolescents in the digital space. While some provisions establish important privacy safeguards, like prohibiting advertising based on profiling of underage users, the law created mandatory age assurance mechanisms for accessing digital products and services. 

We have raised alarms on the privacy and free expression issues around age-gating the internet. Age verification technology is often inaccurate and privacy-invasive. Examples also show how it’s prone to enforcement overreach, resulting in sites blocked beyond legal requirements. In the UK, providers disproportionately restricted several counseling, support and mental health sites under the Online Safety Act. Current age assurance methods risk wrongly walling off adults with no valid IDs, facial differences, physical disabilities, among others. 

We highlighted these concerns in our comments and submissions underscoring that ANPD should avoid a blanket approach to age assurance obligations. Following the legislation, restrictions should apply only to products and services that are inadequate or prohibited to children and adolescents according to categories already set in regulation, with robust protections against subjective and overbroad interpretations. Guarantees such as access to information, freedom to participate in society and meaningful access to technologies also compound what constitutes the best interests of the child.  

Moreover, we stressed that zero knowledge proofs alone fail to ensure strong user privacy, including safeguards that the law itself sought to secure. Our submission explains why other requirements, such as unlinkability, selective disclosure, batch issuance and processing on device, are crucial for achieving greater levels of protection and mitigating privacy harms. Minimum information being shared to the verifier and no “phoning home” to the issuer of a user’s accepted credentials are conditions that prevent actions like collusion and data sharing about the user. 

We also shared inputs about the scope of the law, asking more clarity on which providers are covered by its obligations and the importance of treating differently non-dominant players like federated networks and free software applications. Without that clarity, this could negatively impact beyond gaming and major platforms that are the main target of these regulations. We elaborated on the agency’s regulation of prevention duties, the relevance of modulating them according to the type and structure of providers, and alerted them that their interpretation should not result in general monitoring obligations. 

On another but related front, we sent comments regarding Brazil’s new internet intermediary rules. Here too, ANPD has a critical regulatory role after a Supreme Court’s decision and presidential decrees changed the liability regime initially set in the law known as “Marco Civil.”  

With the turn to notice and takedown mechanisms and duty of care obligations, we emphasized measures to prevent censorship of protected content. These involve ensuring solid means for appeals of restricted posts, avoiding overreliance on AI-based content moderation, strictly tailoring the application of concepts like duty of care and systemic failure, and not normalizing the blocking of platforms and websites.  

We raised concerns about a trend reflected in the new regulation requiring platforms to proactively report user to authorities with unclear guarantees. Finally, we urged the agency to advance essential transparency and accountability measures for enabling greater public oversight over the application of the new regime. 

As we said before, platform accountability under the new rules ultimately hinges on how accountable its enforcement will be by platforms and state institutions. Rigorous commitment to fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, privacy and data protection, is required so that intended protections don’t instead lead to harms. ANPD must uphold this commitment and make sure that new regulations don’t backfire. 

Police agencies across the U.S. have deployed Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) to capture images of passing vehicles along with time, date, and GPS coordinates. While the technology itself isn’t new (ALPRs have existed in various forms for more than 50 years, and in the U.S. since 1998), the surveillance landscape has shifted dramatically. Rapid advances in artificial intelligence and national data sharing have transformed police ALPRs into an interconnected, nationwide tracking network. It is pitched to city councils by law enforcement and private vendors like Flock Safety, Motorola Solutions (Vigilant), and Axon as an essential tool for solving violent crime.

In reality, it is an inherently dangerous infrastructure of mass surveillance.

Since 2012, EFF has worked with others to expose the severe digital rights harms of ALPR systems. For example, we’ve recently documented how these camera networks allow law enforcement to search for immigrants, track peaceful protesters, target Romani communities, and track women seeking reproductive healthcare. Police also routinely use ALPRs for low-level matters like enforcing school residency requirements or investigating noise complaints. Many officers also use ALPR databases to stalk past romantic partners. Recent EFF analysis revealed officers using the system without legitimate justification—logging search reasons like "LOL" and "LMAO."

Understandably, the public backlash to police ALPR technology is accelerating, and state lawmakers across the country are taking action.

New Hampshire enacted the nation’s first state law on ALPR use in 2007, but technological advances and misconduct have driven even more recent legislative action. In 2026 alone, six states enacted laws that limit police use of ALPRs: Connecticut, Kentucky, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington.

This is a good start, but far more is needed. This blog presents a framework for state legislators who want to stop ALPR mass police surveillance:

1. Just ban it. It is incompatible with a free society and cannot be fixed.
2. In the absence of a flat ban, reduce its harms. Most importantly: limit police use of ALPRs to real-time comparison of passing plates to hotlists; require a warrant to place a plate on a hotlist; impose strict limits on the creation and use of those hotlists; and prohibit the storage of ALPR data (and thus prevent the subsequent search and disclosure of that data).
3. In the absence of a prohibition on storing ALPR data, reduce its harms. Most importantly, place strict limits on police storage, search, and disclosure of ALPR data.
4. Ban three especially dangerous police practices: placement of ALPRs near sensitive locations like hospitals; purchase of ALPR data; and use of ALPR data to try to predict crime.
5. Require transparency about ALPR mass surveillance, including: a 30-day public notice before a city procures police ALPRs; a statewide registry of all police ALPRs; and regular, public audits and statistical reports about police usage.
6. Ensure effective enforcement of all new ALPR restraints, including by means of a private right of action and the exclusionary rule.

These policy battles often unfold locally, so state legislators must ensure that state law is a regulatory floor, never a ceiling. State preemption should never force unwanted camera networks onto communities that have chosen to reject them. Local government must retain authority to enact full bans, deny funding, reject contracts, and decommission existing camera networks.

Table of Contents

• The Gold Standard: Statewide Bans on ALPR Mass Surveillance
• Strict Limits on Real-time Use of ALPRs 
  • Limits on creating hotlists
  • Limits on using hotlists
• Strict Limits on Storage, Search, and Disclosure of ALPR Data
  • Storage limits 
  • Search limits 
  • Disclosure limits 
• Transparency 
• Additional Restrictions
• Enforcement 
• Conclusion

A Note on Scope

As in our previous post on ALPR policy, our focus here is ALPR mass surveillance: the continuous dragnet collection and retention of location data on innocent drivers. Different issues are raised by automated traffic enforcement (ATE) systems, such as standalone red-light or speed cameras that solely photograph and ticket specific traffic violations, without building a searchable network about uninvolved drivers. As such, state laws against ALPR mass surveillance should not cover ATE. This is the approach in at least six states: Connecticut, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington. The most common approach is to exclude ATE from the law’s definition of “ALPR.”

Of course, ATE carries risks and demands legal restrictions too. This includes tight limits on data collection, retention, usage, and disclosure—all of which should be addressed in a different statute. Lawmakers must also actively guard against vendor efforts to piggyback mass surveillance tools onto ATE contracts.

The Gold Standard: Statewide Bans on ALPR Mass Surveillance

Statutory limits cannot make ALPR mass surveillance safe. Because the technology relies on the indiscriminate recording of every driver’s movements, the risks are baked into the system itself. Also, innocent motorists will be menaced by police due to false matches, bad actors will misuse location data, and sensitive personal movements will be exposed to broad government overreach. Promising harsher penalties for officer misuse cannot fix an inherently flawed architecture. Thus, state lawmakers should pursue a complete, statewide ban on ALPR mass surveillance.

First, lawmakers should prohibit all state-level law enforcement agencies from acquiring, retaining, accessing, or using ALPRs or any data derived from them.

Second, they must impose the same prohibition on county, municipal, and other local law enforcement agencies.

These prohibitions should require any agency ending an ALPR program (both state and local) to fully decommission the programs within a strict timeframe. This includes requiring agencies to: physically remove all camera hardware; revoke all user, network, and database access credentials; permanently delete all stored location data; and require vendor certification of compliance.

Third, ban the use of state funds for state or local agencies to acquire, maintain, or access ALPR systems. This must include direct appropriations, law enforcement grants, pass-through funds, and state-administered federal funds. In August 2026, Texas Governor Greg Abbott banned state agencies from spending public funds on Flock cameras.

Fourth, ban state and local agencies from installing or operating ALPRs on state-owned highways, roadways, or public properties. In August 2026, Florida’s Department of Transportation  ordered the removal of all ALPRs from the right-of-way on state highways within 30 days. The order revokes all previously approved permits to install ALPRs, and bars future permits.

An outright prohibition is the only effective way to eliminate this mass surveillance. This follows the lead of municipalities across the country that have already enacted bans. However, where there’s political resistance, state lawmakers might consider a moratorium that prevents further expansion of ALPR networks.

Strict Limits on Real-time Use of ALPRs

In the absence of a ban on police ALPR mass surveillance, state legislators must restrict ALPRs to real-time comparison of passing plates to hotlists. ALPR data is simply too dangerous for police to safely store, search, and disclose. An effective way to do this, as in New Hampshire, is to require deletion of ALPR data within three minutes after collection. That means no ALPR data is stored after comparison to a hotlist, and thus that no ALPR data about unmatched cars can be searched or disclosed.

A state legislature must also reduce the harms of police use of real-time ALPRs by strictly limiting the creation and use of law enforcement hotlists.

Limits on creating hotlists

Roughly speaking, there are two kinds of police hotlists. An agency might link its ALPRs to external hotlists created by another agency, such as the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) or a state’s department of motor vehicles. Also, a police agency might link its ALPRs to its own internal hotlist, created by its own officers, of people under investigation. State legislators must strictly limit both.

First, limit the kinds of external hotlists that police agencies may link to. For example, ban police agencies from linking to the NCIC’s “immigration violator” hotlist, which ICE uses to hunt immigrants with the ALPRs operated by police agencies across the country.

Second, if a police agency links to external hotlists, require the agency to update that link every day. Otherwise, drivers may be detained even though they have been removed from the list. This is required by Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Third, forbid officers from adding a plate on a hotlist, absent a warrant from a judge based on probable cause and particularity. Without this judicial check on police power, an officer stalked a potential romantic partner by placing her plate on a hotlist.

As with other laws requiring a warrant (such as the federal Wiretap Act), there should be an exception where: (1) there is an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury to a person; (2) there is no time to acquire a warrant; and (3) there are grounds upon which a warrant could be granted. This exception might apply, for example, when police have probable cause to believe a child has just been abducted. In such cases, the statute must require police to seek a warrant within 48 hours, and if it is denied, to immediately remove the plate from the hotlist.

Minnesota requires a warrant or an emergency to use ALPRs “to monitor or track an individual who is the subject of an active criminal investigation.” In Maine, an ALPR system may use only information based on reasonable suspicion.

Fourth, forbid officers from adding a plate to a hotlist, except in connection with a serious violent crime. This would include investigation of a murder but not pursuit of a traffic scofflaw.

Fifth, forbid officers from adding a plate on a hotlist based, in whole or in part, on: a person’s race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, immigration status, disability, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation; their political beliefs, associations, or participation in First Amendment-protected activity; or their pursuit of reproductive, gender-affirming, or other health care. Connecticut and Washington forbid use of ALPR systems on these grounds, and Virginia forbids tracking a person based on their protected speech.

Sixth, require officers to log their entry of a plate into a hotlist. This must include the officer’s name and agency, the date of the entry, a narrative description of the reasons for the entry, any case numbers, and an upload of the warrant authorizing the entry. Oregon requires an officer to log “the specific law enforcement purpose of the entry,” and the officer’s name.

Limits on using hotlists

First, if the plate of a passing car does not match a hotlist, laws must require immediate deletion of all ALPR data about that car. New Hampshire state law requires deletion within three minutes. This is the most effective way to limit ALPRs to real-time identification of vehicles and drivers of interest to police, as opposed to amassing a dangerous database of the comings and goings of the entire driving public, available later for retrospective search by police.

Second, if the plate of a passing car does match a hotlist, then limit storage, search, and disclosure of its ALPR data to what is strictly necessary to the investigation that placed the car on the hotlist.

Third, require police officers, before stopping a car because of an apparent real-time match, to visually and independently confirm that the car’s plate number, plate issuing state, and other vehicle characteristics in fact do match the car on the hotlist. Many innocent motorists have been detained and menaced by police because of ALPR false positives. Confirmation is required by Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington.

Strict Limits on Storage, Search, and Disclosure of ALPR Data

Again, state legislatures should simply ban police use of ALPRs, or at least police storage of ALPR data. Third best is harm reduction through strict limits on storage, search, and disclosure of ALPR data.

Storage limits

First, limit the storage period for ALPR data to days, not months, and then require deletion. More than 99% of the drivers who pass an ALPR are not on a hotlist. Tracking their movements anyway, just in case they are later relevant to a police investigation, is criminalization of the entire driving population. Thus, four states already require deletion after 21 days: Connecticut, Maine, Virginia, and Washington. Even Flock has reduced its default retention period to seven days.

By “delete,” we mean permanently erase it, so it is impossible for anybody to access it again. It is not enough to merely store it in a way that makes it harder to access, such as archiving it, or transferring it from one database to another. In the words of the Virginia statute: “System data shall be purged … in such a manner that such data is destroyed and not recoverable.”

Second, limit the types of ALPR data that can be stored: just a photo of the plate, the AI-based read of the plate number, the date and time, and the location. Conversely, ban retention of photos of people in the car, and of features of the car beyond the plate as well as AI-based reads of those photos (respectively, “facial recognition” and “vehicle fingerprints”).

Many states have enacted such rules. New Hampshire bans ALPRs from “photographing or recording or producing images of the occupants of a motor vehicle.” Missouri bans integration of facial recognition into ALPR systems. New Hampshire and Montana limit ALPRs to “the sole purpose of recording and checking license plates.” Minnesota provides that “data collected by an [ALPR] must be limited to” plate numbers; date, time, and location; and pictures of plate, vehicle, and surrounding area.

Search limits

First, laws should ban “geofence” searches, which are searches in which police use ALPRs to identify all of the drivers present at a particular time and place, based on police claims that one of them might be the suspect they are looking for. Even a warrant cannot justify such general searches, because the Fourth Amendment requires warrants to “particularly” describe the person or car being investigated. These dragnet searches of stored ALPR data are the modern-day equivalent of the colonial-era “writs of assistance,” against which our founders fought a revolution to end.

Second, laws should forbid officers from searching stored ALPR data, unless they first acquire a warrant from a judge based on probable cause and particularity. The constant revelations of bad police searches of ALPR data demonstrate the need for—at the very least—judicial control over this dangerous surveillance technology. A federal judge in Oklahoma recently held that the constitution requires this judicial control, because ALPR mass surveillance invades reasonable expectations of privacy. EFF has filed lawsuits making this demand in California and Wisconsin, along with local ACLU affiliates: SIREN and CAIR-CA v. San Jose, and Wisconsin Council of Churches v. Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, and Green Bay.

Three states (Minnesota, Vermont, and Virginia) require reasonable suspicion of a crime before searching ALPR data, and a fourth state (California) requires this from its highway patrol. This is a step in the right direction, but not enough: the decider must be a judge, and the test must be probable cause.

Third, officers should be prohibited from searching stored ALPR data, unless they are investigating a serious violent crime. On the flip side, ban searches for immigrants, protesters, or traffic scofflaws.

Some states have moved in this direction. Missouri limits use of ALPR data “criminal justice” and “lifesaving efforts.” North Carolina bans its use for traffic enforcement. Connecticut bans its use based on race and other protected classes, to identify First Amendment activity, for immigration enforcement, or because of access to reproductive or gender-affirming health care. Idaho bans its use for political activity.

Fourth, police officers must be required to log their searches of stored ALPR data concerning a particular car. This must include the officer’s name and agency, the date and time of search, a narrative description of the reasons for search, any case numbers, and an upload of the warrant authorizing the search. The officer must write the narrative in their own words. A drop-down menu of reasons is no substitute, because it is too easy for officers to dodge an explanation of the actual reasons by clicking a pre-written “reason.”

Many states require officers to log their searches of ALPR data, including California, Connecticut, Idaho, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Virginia. In Virginia, this must include an officer’s documentation of both their “specific purpose” to search, and the “associated call for service or case number.”

Disclosure limits

The “disclosure” limits below must broadly address sharing from an agency that collected ALPR data to another entity. This includes an agency opening its database to access and search by another entity. It also includes an agency transferring data from its database to another entity’s database.

First, ban disclosure of ALPR data to any federal or out-of-state agency. Federal and out-of-state agencies often lack the necessary protections of the driving public. Connecticut forbids disclosures to the federal government or agencies in 46 states, unless they have a warrant. California forbids disclosures, unless otherwise permitted by law.

Second, ban disclosure of ALPR data to another agency, unless it follows all of the rules above for an agency’s search of its own data (that is, the ban on geofence searches, the requirement of a warrant, the limitation to investigation of serious violent crimes, and the requirement of an audit trail).

Some states have taken steps in this direction. Utah requires, as a condition of disclosure to a government entity or a defendant in a criminal case, a court order finding reasonable suspicion of crime. Washington forbids disclosure “except as required in a judicial proceeding.” Minnesota and Virginia require the disclosing agency to find reasonable suspicion. Minnesota and Connecticut forbid disclosure unless the receiving agency follows the rules applicable to the disclosing agency.

Third, place strict limits on participation in a multi-agency disclosure network, such as Flock or Vigilant. Connecticut forbids participation “in a system or network that shares” ALPR data, unless it requires all participants to affirm in writing that they will not use or re-disclose that state’s data except in compliance with that state’s laws. Connecticut also forbids “bulk” data disclosure, and Maryland forbids data “upload” to another agency.

Fourth, ban disclosure of ALPR data for purposes of investigating acts and statuses that are lawful in-state. Three states (Illinois, New Jersey, and New Mexico) forbid disclosure to investigate immigration status. Two states (Illinois and New Mexico) forbid disclosure in investigate healthcare that is lawful in-state. One state (New Mexico) forbids disclosure to investigate protected assembly, petition, and speech.

Fifth, ban any sale of ALPR data. Six states do this: Arkansas, Maryland, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. California forbids its highway patrol from doing so. New Mexico forbids any disclosure to a private entity (or indeed to any non-law enforcement agency). Data brokers are a menace to privacy and other human rights.

Transparency

State lawmakers must ensure that the public has access to ample information about the ALPR mass surveillance in their communities. Many people will use this information to resist ALPRs.

First, state laws should require local governments to provide at least 30 days of public notice before spending funds, accepting grants or private donations, or entering into any contract or pilot program for ALPR technology. All proposed vendor contracts and funding sources must be publicly disclosed prior to approval. This helps local officials to exercise their procurement power to reject ALPRs.

Second, laws should mandate the creation of a centralized, public-facing state registry of all police agencies using ALPRs, and the specific locations of all police ALPRs. Sources like DeFlock and EFF’s Atlas of Surveillance include crowd-sourced maps of ALPR technologies, but they are not exhaustive. This was one of the provisions in Minnesota Minn. Stat. § 13.824, which in part, requires police agencies to notify the state within 10 days of installing any ALPR, and requires a state agency to aggregate this information and publish a master list of the locations of all ALPRs (unless a judge determines that disclosure of a particular ALPR’s location poses a genuine security risk).

Third, mandate regular, independent, public audits of agency ALPR use, access logs, and query justifications to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and policies. Five states (Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Virginia, and Washington) require regular audits, ranging in frequency from monthly to biennial. Three states (Idaho, Maryland, and Washington) require audits of access logs. Minnesota requires an independent auditor and public access to the results.

Fourth, laws must require each agency operating an ALPR system to publish regular reports on its website detailing key operational metrics. Six states require such reports annually: Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont. Arkansas requires them twice per year, and Oregon requires them monthly. These states variously require reporting of: the number of ALPRs, and a list of the locations of fixed ALPRs; the number of hotlists used, and a list of them; the number of plates scanned; the number of apparent matches to hotlists, and how many were actual matches; the number plate reads stored; and the number of searches of stored data, broken down by the purpose and agency of search.

Finally, any new ALPR legislation must maintain a proper balance between transparency and privacy in the use of public record acts (PRAs) to obtain ALPR information. Public records and public scrutiny of ALPR programs have shown that people are harmed by these systems. So lawmakers should not cut off access to public records that document these abuses. For example, the public should have access to operational policies, audit logs, vendor communications, and aggregate statistics. EFF opposes blanket exemptions from PRAs that block public oversight of APRs—such as recent bills in states like Arizona. The better approach to protecting individual location privacy is a flexible, case-by-case balancing test already provided by many PRAs. Also, when a document contains both exempt and non-exempt information—like an audit log that contains both motorists’ plate numbers and officers’ search reasons—open records laws should require disclosure of the latter while withholding of the former.

Additional Restrictions

State lawmakers should adopt three additional bans to curtail the footprint of police ALPR surveillance.

First, ban the placement of ALPRs or the collection of ALPR data near healthcare facilities, immigration services, schools, places of worship, courthouses, food banks, and other sensitive locations. Washington and Connecticut do this.

Second, ban police from purchasing ALPR data. Utah and Washington do so. Also, prohibit police from acquiring ALPR data from a private entity, except by means of a warrant. Washington does so. Utah took a step in this direction, requiring a court order based on reasonable suspicion. Absent this type of rule, police evade limits on seizing data from third parties by simply purchasing it from brokers.

Third, ban police and their vendors from using ALPRs or stored ALPR data to power predictive policing technology. EFF opposes such technology and urges state legislatures to ban it. ALPR companies have been providing law enforcement clients with an “analytics” feature, which ingests data from across police agencies, and produces a report of alleged crime trends, hotspots, and corridors. State legislators should prohibit this dangerous use of ALPR systems and data.

Enforcement

A law without strong enforcement is just a piece of paper. EFF recommends three kinds of enforcement measures, all of which appear in existing ALPR statutes.

First, all privacy laws need a “private right of action,” meaning ordinary people can sue a police department that breaks the law. An excellent model appears in the federal Wiretap Act. It expressly authorizes a lawsuit by “any person” whose personal information is processed “in violation of” this law. Privacy harm is harm, and so a person should have their day in court, even if they cannot prove a collateral harm, such as physical injury or economic loss. Moreover, the Wiretap Act provides a full arsenal of remedies to a successful plaintiff, including injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated and actual damages, and attorney fees.

At least three states enforce their ALPR statute with some version of a private right of action. These are good first steps but need improvement. Washington comes closest: it allows suit to enforce all ALPR rules and provides all remedies. Unfortunately, the plaintiff must prove “injury,” which may shut the courthouse doors to some people whose data is unlawfully processed. Connecticut allows suit by a person “aggrieved” by violation of some ALPR rules. But a person should be able to enforce all rules, and should not have to prove they were aggrieved. Oregon allows suit against a police vendor that “intentionally or with gross negligence” uses or discloses ALPR data in an unlawful manner. But this does not allow any suit against police, or even against a vendor that systematically violates the rules through ordinary negligence.

Second, privacy laws applicable to the police commonly ensure enforcement through the “exclusionary rule.” This means that if evidence is gathered in violation a privacy law, it must be excluded from court proceedings. This is sometimes called “suppression” or “inadmissibility.” The federal Wiretap Act has a strong version of this rule, clearly excluding evidence derived from violations of all rules. The so-called “good faith” exception has weakened many exclusionary rules, so ALPR statutes should expressly reject this exception (though some courts have interpreted some statutory exclusionary rules to have no good faith exception).

At least three states enforce their ALPR statute with some version of the exclusionary rule. Again, these are good first steps but need improvement:

• Virginia comes closest: “Any evidence obtained as a result of a violation” of some of the ALPR rules “is not admissible.” A better rule would apply to all ALPR rules.
• Connecticut provides that ALPR data “may be admissible … provided such data was collected or otherwise acquired or held or stored in accordance with the provisions of this section” (or obtained pursuant to warrant). A more clear exclusionary rule would “exclude evidence unlawfully processed,” as opposed to “admit evidence lawfully processed.” The exclusionary rule should also extend to data unlawfully used or disclosed (and not just to data unlawfully collected or stored).
• Washington provides that information obtained from “a knowing violation” of some of the statute’s rules is “inadmissible.” But the exclusionary rule should apply to all substantive limits (not just some), and to all violations (not just knowing ones).

Third, police agencies and their private contractors that recurringly violate ALPR rules should be forbidden from using ALPRs at all. In New Hampshire, if an agency “repeated[ly]” violates the ALPR statute, the state department of justice may “seek an injunction banning [its] use” of ALPRs. In New Mexico, if a vendor “fails to comply with” that state’s ALPR law, it “may be subject to … suspension of authorization or termination of access.”

Some states impose workplace discipline or criminal penalties on officers who violate ALPR laws, including Connecticut, Idaho, and Missouri. This is no substitute for the three types of strong enforcement measures above. ALPRs are a systemic problem requiring institution-wide enforcement of legal constraints, and not just episodic sanctions against individual officers.

Conclusion

Mass surveillance ALPRs fundamentally threaten digital rights, making an outright statewide ban on police ALPRs the only effective way to fully protect privacy and safety.  The next best thing a legislature can do is limit ALPRs to real-time comparison of passing cars to hotlists, by banning storage of ALPR data beyond a few minutes. If a legislature allows storage, it must impose a tight deletion deadline (days and not months), and strict limits on search and disclosure. A legislature must also ensure transparency and enforcement. 

For convenience here is a concise list of EFF’s state legislative goals.

Guide Includes Easy, Quick Ways To Identify and Protect Against Online Threats

SAN FRANCISCO – The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has published “Online Privacy for Parents and Youth,” a new guide to help families protect themselves online. 

"Parents don’t need to be technology experts to help their children navigate the digital world safely” said EFF Public Interest Technology Director Babette Ngene. “At EFF, we believe in empowering families with the knowledge and confidence to make informed decisions about their digital lives. It’s about meeting families where they are and giving parents the guidance they need to have meaningful conversations with their children about digital safety, based on what works best for their families.” 

EFF launches this crucial resource as state and local governments consider enacting well-meaning but ill-advised laws that cut young people off from essential information and experiences, particularly harming vulnerable youth and marginalized groups who often find safety in supportive online communities they can't access offline. Such laws also entail age gating, which compromises the privacy of all internet users and stifles young users’ ability to learn, grow, and express themselves. 

“Deciding how to help your young people use the internet—including engaging with video games, social media, web search, and everything else—is a complicated topic that touches on many different skillsets and ideas,” said EFF Senior Security and Privacy Activist Thorin Klosowski. “But ultimately it's up to families – not governments – to decide when and how to engage with these sorts of questions.” 

Each young person has unique needs, and, just like their wardrobe, that changes as they age. Parents can engage in thoughtful planning to find the best, most efficient solutions that evolve along with their children.  

EFF’s guide is about helping parents explore their concerns and identify the threats their children face – like trusting AI chatbots or sharing personal information with strangers – and then determine steps they and their children can take to mitigate those risks while still using the games, educational materials, and communication platforms that help them grow. 

The guide also compiles links to parental control setup documentation for a variety of popular devices and platforms, and advises parents on quick, easy tasks they can perform to advance their children’s online privacy. 

For the guide: https://ssd.eff.org/module/online-privacy-for-parents-and-youth

Contact:  ThorinKlosowskiSenior Security and Privacy Activistthorin@eff.org

In a victory for data privacy, a federal court in New York definitively ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) violated the law when it disclosed millions of federal employee records to DOGE agents. In a summary judgment ruling issued on October 20, 2026, the court found that OPM violated two provisions of the Privacy Act—one restricting disclosure of personal records between agencies and another requiring agencies to protect the security and confidentiality of records.

Since the case was filed, many DOGE agents have left the government and OPM has rescinded their database access. However, OPM should still clean up the cybersecurity mess it created. The court will decide the remedy at a later date.

"By virtue of the Court’s summary judgment ruling, OPM’s decision to grant DOGE Agents broad access to its systems of recordings containing [personally identifiable information (PII)] has been held unlawful," Judge Denise Cote wrote.

"The record also provides no support for a finding that it was the pursuit of a modernization agenda that prompted OPM to grant sweeping and expedited access to a score of DOGE Agents to its systems of records containing PII," she added.

OPM maintains databases of highly sensitive personal information about tens of millions of federal employees, retirees, and job applicants. Starting in January 2025, OPM disclosed data to the U.S. DOGE Service, initially led by Elon Musk. This disclosure violates the federal Privacy Act of 1974, a watershed anti-surveillance statute that prevents the federal government from abusing our personal information.

EFF sued OPM and DOGE because this data disclosure violates the Privacy Act. We represent unions of federal employees – the American Federation of Government Employees and the Association of Administrative Law Judges – and individual employees. We seek injunctive and declaratory relief. We filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Our co-counsel are Lex Lumina LLP, State Democracy Defenders Fund, and The Chandra Law Firm LLC.

Donate to EFF

Support Privacy & Government Accountability

Related Cases: American Federation of Government Employees v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management

This post was co-written by Andi Cao, an EFF legal intern.

Automated license plate readers (ALPRs) are mass surveillance. They photograph every passing car and log where and when it was captured, building a searchable record of where nearly everyone drives. Cities should not buy them, and cities that already have them should shut them down.

Where these systems still operate, courts and state legislatures must reduce their harms by (among other things) requiring police to get a warrant before searching stored ALPR data. A warrant requirement would not make mass surveillance acceptable, but it would require police to justify a search to a judge before accessing records of people’s movements. Without this independent judicial check on police power, officers have been searching this data for improper reasons (many exposed by EFF) that violate our fundamental rights.

A warrant requires a judge to find probable cause and specificity—many warrantless police searches of ALPR data lack both. Officers have searched this data to profile Romani people, monitor protesters, investigate an abortion, find immigrants for deportation, track a man who complained about a deputy, stalk romantic partners, and even for no stated reason beyond “LMAO.” A warrant requirement would force law enforcement to justify these searches before accessing sensitive location records, not leave the people they target to discover and challenge the abuse after the harm is done.

What a Warrant Requires

Warrants are a check on police power. Before officers can search a person or their property, the Fourth Amendment requires them to convince a neutral judge, under oath, that probable cause exists, meaning a fair probability the search will turn up evidence of a crime. The warrant must also describe with particularity what will be searched, so police cannot go on a fishing expedition. Critically, the officer who wants to search is not the person who decides whether the search is justified.

That is why warrants are required for so many kinds of police surveillance. For example, police generally need a warrant to wiretap phone calls, to search the contents of a cell phone, and to obtain historical cell phone location records.

Stored ALPR data reveals sensitive information about the private details of our lives: where we go, when, and with whom. That’s why we believe police searches of stored ALPR data should also require a warrant. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Oklahoma agreed.

What Goes Wrong Without a Warrant: San Jose, California

San Jose demonstrates the harmful consequences of letting law enforcement search stored ALPR data without a warrant. EFF and the ACLU of Northern California represent SIREN and CAIR-California in a lawsuit challenging this practice.

The first problem is the sheer number of times that SJPD officers search stored ALPR data: 261,711 times between June 5, 2024, and June 17, 2025, about 692 searches a day. That scale is the result of having no warrant requirement, which would greatly reduce this kind of casual police surveillance.

Inevitably, officers abuse this unchecked power. In September, San Jose’s police chief disclosed an example from five months earlier: the department had fired an officer who used its ALPR system to track a woman who had accused his cousin of domestic violence, and then shared her location information with his cousin. The abusive search of stored ALPR data came to light only after the woman told police that her alleged assailant had implied he was tracking her.  A warrant requirement would have prevented this.

Of course, similar problems appear nationwide. For each example below, consider how things could have turned out differently if the officer had to put the reason for the search in a sworn warrant application and handed it to a judge.

Racial profiling of Romani people

More than 80 law enforcement agencies searched the Flock network using terms that unfairly stereotype Romani people, often without mentioning any crime. For example, the Grand Prairie (Texas) Police Department searched for “g*psy” six times using a Flock feature that identifies vehicles traveling together, in effect targeting a whole community without naming a crime.

No judge should sign that warrant. Ethnicity is not evidence of a crime, and a search aimed at an entire ethnic group is the opposite of particular: it targets people for who they are, not evidence that they committed a crime.

Surveillance of protesters

EFF found that more than 50 agencies ran hundreds of protest-related searches of ALPR data in 2025. For example, the Tempe (Arizona) Police Department ran three searches tied to the No Kings protest across 425 networks, with no identified crime.

This lacks probable cause and targets activity that is protected by the First Amendment.

Investigating an abortion

In 2025, a Texas sheriff’s office searched more than 83,000 Flock cameras, including cameras in Washington and Illinois, where abortion is legal, listing the reason as “had an abortion, search for female.” Records later obtained by EFF show deputies had opened a “death investigation” after the woman’s partner, who was later charged in connection with assaulting her, reported her self-managed abortion.

In a state where abortion is legal, a judge would not grant a warrant for a search like this.

Finding immigrants for deportation

San Francisco police let out-of-state agencies search the city’s ALPR data (which itself violates California law), and at least 19 of those searches were marked as related to ICE (though San Francisco is a sanctuary city). This problem is widespread. One investigation found more than 4,000 cases in which police departments around the country searched stored ALPR data on behalf of federal law enforcement, including for immigration investigations. Some agencies even connect their ALPR systems to an “Immigration Violator” hotlist populated by ICE, which includes plates tied to administrative warrants issued by ICE agents without any judge involved.

Here too, a judge in a state where police may not help enforce immigration law would not issue a warrant for these searches.

Retaliation against a critic

In May 2025, Navy veteran Napoleon Jones lawfully recorded a police traffic stop of another person in Sussex, Wisconsin. Jones alleges that a Waukesha County deputy retaliated by stopping and arresting him. He was released five hours later without citations or charges, and the deputy’s supervisor concluded the stop was illegal. Jones filed a complaint against the deputy the next day.

In the weeks that followed, officers reportedly ran more than 100 Flock searches against Jones, including some run by the deputy he had complained about. Deputies testified that a lieutenant ordered the searches in connection with Jones’s complaint.

No judge should authorize tracking a man for criticizing the police.

Stalking romantic partners

The Institute for Justice (IJ) has documented dozens of cases in which officers allegedly used ALPRs to track current, potential, and former romantic partners. For example, a Lufkin, Texas, officer was indicted on 100 felony counts after allegedly searching for his ex-girlfriend and people she knew more than 10,000 times. Likewise, a Milwaukee officer allegedly tracked a woman he was dating and her ex nearly 180 times over two months. IJ found that most of these cases surfaced only after victims reported the officer.

We hope that no officer would write “tracking the location of my ex-girlfriend” on a warrant application, and even if they did so, a judge would not authorize such a search.

Searches for “LMAO”

Sometimes officers do not even provide a real reason to search stored ALPR data. EFF found officers logging search reasons such as “LOL,” “LMAO,” “idk,” and random keyboard mashing. These entries are supposed to document why a search complies with an agency’s own use policies. A Goshen (Indiana) Police Department officer searched 6,474 networks, representing data from 82,413 cameras, with “idk” as the reason.

An officer who asked a judge for a warrant to track someone for “LMAO” would be laughed out of the courtroom.

The Solution

The best way to eliminate these abusive searches is to end ALPR mass surveillance. Where these systems remain, however, courts and state legislatures must require police to get a warrant before searching stored ALPR data. Warrants are the time-tested way to put an independent judicial check on police use of a dangerous surveillance technology. Officers must establish probable cause and specifically describe the proposed search before accessing the data, while existing exceptions for genuine emergencies still apply.

These protections must also cover real-time tracking. An ALPR “hotlist” is a list of license plates that trigger an alert when a camera spots a matching plate. Officers can stalk potential romantic partners by putting them on a hotlist, as a Florida deputy allegedly did with a woman he met on the set of a TV show. Thus, state legislators should require officers to get a warrant before putting a person on an ALPR hotlist (as well as a warrant to search stored ALPR data).

Related Cases: SIREN and CAIR-CA v. San Jose