Chris Zegras, professor of mobility and urban planning and the current head of the MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP), has been appointed chief executive officer and director of the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART), effective Sept. 1. Zegras succeeds Bruce Tidor, professor of biological engineering and computer science, who has served as interim CEO and director since January 2025.

Established in collaboration with the National Research Foundation of Singapore in 2007, SMART is MIT’s only research center outside the United States​. Housed within the Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise, SMART serves as a key platform for collaboration between MIT and Singapore’s research ecosystem, bringing together leading experts and institutions from the United States, Singapore, and the region for world-class research and innovation.

“Professor Zegras brings a distinguished track record of interdisciplinary leadership and a deep understanding of SMART’s mission and impact,” says Anantha Chandrakasan, MIT’s provost, who announced Zegras’ appointment in a letter to the MIT community today. “His appointment reinforces MIT’s commitment to the alliance, which has advanced innovation and driven global impact, and which remains as important as ever in a time of accelerating technological and global change.” 

Zegras joined the MIT faculty in 2005 and has served as the head of DUSP since 2020. His own research spans interrelated areas critical to tackling metropolitan mobility challenges: leveraging computational technologies for understanding and modeling human behaviors and enhancing strategic planning capabilities.

Zegras brings extensive experience in interdisciplinary research and leadership and a long-standing connection to SMART, where he led collaborative research on next-generation mobility sensing and simulation systems. From 2010 to 2020, he was a principal investigator on the Future Urban Mobility interdisciplinary research group; from 2016 to 2020, he was the group’s lead principal investigator. During this time, the group spearheaded Singapore’s first-ever public autonomous vehicle trials, developed and deployed large-scale urban simulation and visualization systems, and conducted research that evolved into spinoff companies, among other activities. 

“Bringing together leading experts from the U.S., Singapore, and around the world, SMART has established itself as a unique hub for interdisciplinary collaboration and innovation that addresses pressing societal issues,” says Zegras. “Having experienced firsthand what this distinctive model can achieve, I look forward to building on this strong foundation to deepen collaboration, strengthen our innovation ecosystem, and accelerate the translation of research into meaningful real-world impact.”

SMART is built around interdisciplinary research groups, all headed by senior MIT faculty members. At present, there are six groups, focused on antimicrobial resistance; the use of living cells as personalized medicines to treat and prevent diseases; social and institutional challenges arising from the proliferation of AI and emerging technologies; new agricultural technologies; wafer-scale 3D sensing technologies; and wearable ultrasound imaging. SMART is also home to the SMART Innovation Center, which aims to get research ideas from lab to market.

The agency is reorganizing and hiring for hundreds of positions left unfilled by last year's staffing cuts.

The proposal from NV Energy comes as the West grapples with the twin challenges of rising wildfire risk and growing electricity costs.

The justices ordered a lower bench to take a second look at a challenge against DOE rules for water heaters and furnaces.

The shift expands the number of assistant administrator-level positions and refocuses their responsibilities among other changes.

Gov. Mikie Sherrill predecessor's administration spent years crafting a rule package to increase regulations to cope with more extreme flooding.

Still, scientists warn that this will be the most polluting World Cup to date, largely because of the air travel required.

The U.S. withdrawal means Europe is a lifeline for ocean research, although a poorer one.

The British king’s commercial property and land manager, which controls the seabed in England and Wales, will re-tender a planned wind farm site, previously known as Morgan.

The Nigeria-based company secured $76 million in a first round of fundraising for its Successor Fund.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 09 June 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02683-0

As climate change impacts are increasingly apparent, there are changes in society and the political landscape that need to be considered.

MIT researchers have demonstrated a low-cost design of specialized electronic nozzles, called triaxial electrospray emitters, that could be used to manufacture time-release drug-delivery particles or self-healing materials efficiently and at scale.

Triaxial electrospray emitters use electricity to precisely dispense three liquids from microscopic nozzles to generate a steady stream with three distinct fluid layers. The liquid forms multilayered droplets, which can solidify into layered microparticles.

For instance, an array of triaxial electrospray emitters can be used to make three-layer drug-delivery nanoparticles. The outer layer might slowly erode in the stomach, revealing a second material that controls the release of a core material, which delivers medicine to a specific area of the intestines.

Developing a tiny array of electrospray emitters typically requires expensive and time-consuming microfabrication processes inside semiconductor cleanrooms, which limits their use. To overcome these drawbacks, the MIT researchers 3D-printed arrays of triaxial electrospray emitters that have 16 nozzles in an area of about one square centimeter. Each device contains an intricate network of three-dimensional microchannels that uniformly supply liquid to the nozzles. 

Their one-step fabrication process takes only a few hours to produce complex emitter arrays. 

When tested, the 3D-printed arrays generated uniform, three-layered droplets at scale. Such uniformity is key for high-throughput manufacturing of layered microparticles for applications like biosensors that detect chemical substances or artificial cells to aid in tissue regeneration.

“We couldn’t make a device like this in a semiconductor cleanroom. This is only possible because they are 3D-printed,” says Luis Fernando Velásquez-García, a principal research scientist in MIT’s Microsystems Technology Laboratories (MTL) and senior author of a paper describing this advance. “The particles these devices generate, whether they are used for a self-healing composite or to deliver medicine, can have a big impact in many applications. We want to democratize this technology so the benefits can touch many more people.”

Velásquez-García is joined on the paper by lead author Bryan Ivan Quintanar-Abarca of the Technological Institute of Monterrey in Mexico. The research appears in Virtual and Physical Prototyping.

A precise process

Electrospray emitters apply a high voltage to a liquid as it exits the device’s nozzle, producing a steady stream of extremely tiny droplets. 

Triaxial devices contain arrays of three concentric nozzles that emit three immiscible, or non-mixable, liquids simultaneously into layered droplets, which can be used to generate compound microparticles with distinct layers.

For instance, one could use a triaxial electrospray emitter to create a biosensing particle that contains three different chemical markers, one in each layer. Electrospray emitters can make smaller microdroplets much faster than other techniques.

Miniaturization is key for electrospray devices, since the smaller the emitter, the lower the voltage required to generate droplets. The output of a single electrospray emitter is modest, so arrays of emitters are required to boost droplet production without sacrificing uniformity. 

Multi-emitter electrospray devices are typically manufactured in semiconductor cleanrooms, but traditional processes limit the shapes and sizes of device components. The researchers could not find any previous reports of a miniaturized triaxial electrospray array in the open literature, highlighting the novelty of this work.

“When you build a triaxial array, you need to find a way to create geometries that have many integrated parts and extremely fine structures in the smallest footprint possible. And you need to ensure the devices will work uniformly,” Velásquez-García explains.

To do this, he and his collaborators used a 3D-printing technique called vat photopolymerization, which utilizes light to solidify extremely thin layers of liquid resin, fabricating a complex device one layer at a time. 

This extremely precise process enabled the researchers to print layers that were only 25 micrometers tall, just a fraction of the width of a human hair. In this way, they could generate the complex internal geometry needed for a triaxial electrospray emitter.

Refining the design

The array, which is slightly larger than a U.S. penny, contains a network of internal coiled channels that carry liquid to 16 nozzles. These helical microchannels help maintain a uniform spray of microdroplets across all nozzles, while keeping the device as compact as possible. 

“In a sense, the emitters in the array never learn they have company, or otherwise there would be cross-talking and causing interference between them. We achieved uniformity because of the work that went into our designs,” Velásquez-García says.

They also needed to fabricate extremely tiny channels without support structures, which could clog the device, and ensure all uncured resin was removed before the array was used.

The microchannels funnel liquid to the concentric nozzles, which must be perfectly aligned to properly emit microdroplets in a consistent manner.

“We were able to aggressively optimize the design because we could iterate in a much timelier manner. This ability to exquisitely refine designs is a key advantage of 3D printing,” Velásquez-García says.

The researchers tested multiple architectures to determine the ideal combination of liquid flow rates to maximize the stability and consistency of emitted microdroplets. They were surprised to find that the viscosity of the middle liquid plays the most important role in achieving stability in a microdroplet, since it preserves the thickness of each layer. 

In addition, the researchers found that by adjusting flow rates and voltages, they could precisely tailor the thickness of each microdroplet layer. This would allow scientists to design drug-delivery particles with ideal layers so medicine releases at exactly the right time.

“By making such intricate devices more practical, we can empower others to pursue entrepreneurial and scientific advances,” Velásquez-García says. 

In the future, the researchers want to continue refining their fabrication process and designs to achieve even smaller dimensions and integrate conductive or dielectric materials to the devices to make more advanced electrospray emitter arrays.

This research was funded, in part, by the Tecnológico de Monterrey – MIT Nanotechnology Program. 

Just days after a damning WIRED report exposed that Meta had quietly embedded facial recognition technology (FRT) code into millions of phones, the tech giant has quietly acquiesced in demands to reverse course.

Last week, researchers identified code in Meta AI, a companion app for its line of smart glasses, that could convert images of faces into unique biometric signatures to identify strangers in public. EFF’s Threat Lab verified these findings through static analysis, and reminded consumers to think twice before buying or using Meta’s surveillance glasses. 

Just as quietly as Meta embedded this code, the app’s June 5th app update appears to have quietly removed all those features and systems. Gone is the face-recognition technology, the code meant to trigger “Person recognized” alerts, and the machine learning models and databases  designed to detect, digitize, and store the biometric signatures of people users engage with.

When WIRED broke the news last week, Meta’s executives immediately went on the defensive. Yet, their actions speak louder than their tweets: less than 48 hours after the public caught wind of their plans, Meta quietly launched an update to scrub nearly all traces of the FRT system from their app.

But this quiet deletion of code does not equal a permanent change of heart. Meta previously used face recognition, and stopped only after it faced the legal and financial consequences. Now the company has refused to answer WIRED’s inquiries on whether it plans to bring the NameTag system back in the future, or what they did with any data they may have already collected during internal testing. 

There are billions of reasons not to turn Meta’s customers into a distributed surveillance machine. This whiplash behavior proves exactly why we cannot rely on the "good will" of Big Tech to protect our digital rights. We need robust, enforceable consumer privacy laws, complete with a private right of action that allows everyday people to sue companies that violate their biometric privacy.

While we won this round, Meta's FRT ambitions probably aren't going away. EFF will keep watching.

Several U.S. states are pushing to ban young people from social media entirely. This marks the latest wave of censorship bills masquerading as “children’s online safety” measures, with states like Massachusetts, Idaho, Minnesota, North Carolina, South Carolina, Illinois, and EFF’s home state of California leading the charge.

Just a few years ago, lawmakers supporting age-gating laws insisted their efforts were narrowly targeted at limiting young people’s access to adult content. At the time, we warned that they would not stop there: once the government established the authority and built the infrastructure to collect and “verify” massive troves of user data, it would inevitably sweep broader and broader categories of lawful speech into this mass surveillance and censorship system. 

Unfortunately, our predictions came true. As legislators across the country advance proposals that would block all young people from accessing the “modern public square,” the Overton window has shifted dramatically towards mass censorship—and the speed of this shift should concern all of us. 

This primer breaks down this dangerous wave of social media bans: how they work (and why they don’t), who they harm, and how we can fight back. 

How to Spot a Social Media Ban

The details of these bills vary from state to state. Some (like California’s AB 1709) are a flat-out social media ban for all young people under a certain age, while other states (like South Carolina and Minnesota) allow access to young users who hand over even more data to show verifiable parental consent. Many bills regulate certain social media features, too, including by setting default privacy settings, time limits, or notification preferences for all accounts that fail the age-gate.

As for the age-gating mechanism itself, most proposals fall into two broad categories: age verification bills and behavioral age estimation bills. 

Age Verification Bills require online services to collect highly sensitive data, including government ID and biometric information, from all users before either restricting or allowing them access. 

For example, take California’s social media ban (AB 1709). Starting in January 2027, operating systems will be required to collect enough information from users to sort them into age groups, or “brackets.” Under AB 1709, social media apps would then use that age bracket information to completely block anyone under 16, while supposedly letting everyone else through. By contrast, Florida’s law (HB 3) takes a more aggressive route by forcing platforms to verify users' identities directly, usually by contracting with private third-party companies to perform verification services.

Behavioral Age Estimation Bills, on the other hand, are a more recent innovation of states like Minnesota (HF 1438) and South Carolina (H 4591). These bills require platforms to estimate the ages of users based largely on data that they already collect, including self-attested age, behavioral information, and account history and activity. In practice, these bills enable tech companies to use algorithms and/or AI to analyze our online behavior and estimate age based on that. 

Proponents of behavioral age estimation bills claim that their proposals avoid the massive security risks that come with mandatory age verification bills. However, much of the data that social media platforms collect from us “in the ordinary course of operation” is collected in order to serve us targeted behavioral ads. If we force platforms to use this imperfect data to make more important judgments about who can access their services, we risk entrenching those insidious data collection practices. Surely we don’t want to give social media companies more reasons to justify and sustain their reliance on this exploitative business model.

If you want to dig into the nuance here, our terminology guide sheds more light on the technical differences between age verification and age estimation bills. 

Overall, it’s a lose-lose scenario: either platforms collect new forms of our most sensitive and immutable data, or they unleash their AI and algorithms on our existing behavioral data to make creepy guesses about who we are and what we deserve to see. No matter which age-gating method your state chooses to execute its social media ban, there will be lots of error at the margins—and lots of users who will be blocked or chilled from access to lawful online speech.

Why Social Media Bans Are So Dangerous

Social media bans are unconstitutional, discriminatory, and deeply misguided. They reinforce existing structures of oppression, and they are broadly unsupported by young people, whose voices are conspicuously absent from this conversation. They undermine parental decision-making and replace tailored family-level solutions with a one-size-fits-all bandaid. And, in the places we have seen social media bans go into effect, early reports show that they don't even work. 

For example, in Australia, where a social media ban has been in effect since late 2025, a majority of young people can still access social media, those who can’t have lost their access to the news, and crisis helplines are reporting skyrocketing numbers of calls from youth left stranded without online community or resources.

We could go on and on about all of the inherent harms here, but we’ll try to keep this short as we walk through some of the major issues.

1. Security Risks and Privacy Harms

In order to ban some users, social media platforms first must confirm the ages of all users, regardless of age. Bans thus incentivize companies to force users of all ages to hand over government IDs, face scans, and other sensitive information. When parental consent is required, companies must collect even more verification data and often create explicit links between child and parent accounts—further destroying users’ anonymity. 

Both of these databases create massive data "honeypots" that invite identity theft and permanent surveillance. We’ve already seen repeated data breaches involving age- and identity-verification services. Yet these laws would force both adults and the youth they claim to protect to feed their most sensitive data into this growing surveillance ecosystem. 

If we don’t trust tech companies with our private information now, we shouldn't pass laws that force us to give them even more of it. 

2. Disproportionate Harm to Vulnerable Communities

Age-verification technology is deeply flawed and prone to discrimination. These systems frequently misidentify or lock out people of color, people with disabilities, and trans or gender-nonconforming individuals whose IDs may not match their appearance. 

Where these bills require parental consent, they impose disproportionate access barriers on low-income, non-traditional, and immigrant families. These sorts of families are more likely to share a single family device or have strong reasons to not want the government to track family associations and ID documents. 

Beyond the technical failures, these bans cut off a vital lifeline. For LGBTQ+ youth, foster kids, and those stuck in unsupportive home environments, social media is often the only place to find community, explore their identity, or access life-saving resources. Forcibly removing young people isolates those who need connection the most, while creating massive new barriers for adults. 

You can read a breakdown of the diverse groups vulnerable to these laws here. 

3. Based on Shoddy Science

The current legislative push to ban young people from social media relies heavily on the idea that the "great rewiring" of the adolescent brain is a proven fact. This simply isn’t true.

Social science indicates that moderate internet use is a net positive for teens’ development, and negative outcomes are usually due to either lack of access or excessive use. For LGBTQ+ and marginalized youth in particular, social media offers an essential space to access support they might lack offline. By forcing youth into digital isolation, these bans cut off vital access to political news, community, and health resources. They also completely ignore the calls of young people themselves who favor digital literacy and education over restrictive government control.

Instead of cutting off these lifelines, we should support measures that arm all youth (and the adults in their lives) with the knowledge they need to navigate online spaces safely.

3. Reckless Free Speech Violations for Users of All Ages

No matter your age, the First Amendment protects your right to speak and access information. 

Blanket social media bans immensely and unconstitutionally chill all users’ exercise of this right. They cut off young people’s access to lawful speech, or ruin their privacy in the home by mandating parental consent and sometimes even parental access to their account activities and settings. They force all users (adults and young people alike) to hand private information over to tech companies before speaking or accessing information on social media platforms, imposing annoying obstacles on lawful online expression and wrongfully blocking some adults outright. 

Critically, these bans destroy our right to online anonymity—a cornerstone of our right to free expression that protects whistleblowers, journalists, activists, immigrants, and everyone who has ever used a private browser or account to ask the internet an embarrassing question.

How to Fight Back

Social media bans weaponize parents’ concerns about children’s safety to justify unprecedented levels of surveillance and censorship. In the process, these laws deny young people their rights, threaten online anonymity for everyone, expose our sensitive personal data to breach and abuse, and replace parental decision-making with state authority. This is a battle over the future of the open, private, and free internet, and we must act now to protect it.

Here’s how you can help us fight back: Talk to your community (including young people!) about what’s at stake. If you’re a parent, lean on open conversations and platforms’ existing tools to tailor your child’s experiences instead of handing that power over to the government. And no matter where you live, contact your government representatives and tell them clearly that social media bans are not the answer to kids’ online safety.

When MIT mechanical engineering Professor Kripa Varanasi landed in New Delhi in the middle of the night in June 2024 to attend a conference, he found himself in 104-degree Fahrenheit heat. 

“This was June, and it was crazy. It was so hot for the whole meeting that I never left the hotel,” with daytime temperatures nearing 122 F.

It didn’t used to be that way. “When I grew up in India, it was not like this,” Varanasi says. “That kind of inspired me.” 

He found a way to begin tackling the issue through a grant from the MIT Climate Project that provided seed funding to develop a proof-of-concept prototype of a wearable personal cooling system. The grant was one of four that were part of a Critical Cooling initiative for which the Climate Project requested proposals last year. The projects, which received grants totaling $450,000, are now complete. All have showed promise, and are now exploring ways to further develop their concepts.

Another MIT researcher, Yet-Ming Chiang, the Kyocera Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, looked into the potential of subsurface wells with heat-absorbing materials to supply spaces with air far below peak ambient temperatures while using much less energy than evaporation-compression heat pumps. The aim would be to use such systems in both small apartment buildings and single-family homes in India and other parts of the Global South.

Meanwhile, Asegun Henry, the George N. Hatsopoulos Professor in Thermodynamics, studied the use of an alternative approach to air conditioning to be more energy efficient and eliminate hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants that are potent greenhouse gases. His approach uses a cheap, widely abundant solid “caloric” material — rubber — to obtain a cooling effect, and then uses plain water as an efficient heat transfer fluid. The initial target market is single-family houses and apartment buildings, although larger systems could also serve data centers.

And Gang Chen, the Carl Richard Soderberg Professor of Power Engineering, addressed the tendency of existing air conditioning units being expensive and power hungry. They also use refrigerants that are far more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide — and the coolants are likely to leak out when the devices are ultimately disposed of, adding to their global warming contribution. To help address that, Chen’s approach is to use a completely different kind of chemical refrigerant that has no greenhouse impact.

Christoph Reinhart, the Terri and Alan Spoon Professor of Architecture and Climate who leads MIT’s Sustainable Design Lab (SDL), championed the seed fund effort and served as faculty lead. “The term ‘critical cooling’ stems from a collaboration between SDL and Harvard’s Human Rights Entrepreneurs Clinic,” he says. “It is motivated by the fact that climate change increasingly causes heat fatalities, primarily among vulnerable populations, who lack access to active cooling. The impact that MIT can have by ‘cooling people, not spaces’ is enormous.” This vision led to the creation of the grant program, where each of the teams received funding for six months to see what they could do and explore really innovative approaches to the problem.

In collaboration with the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL), led on J-PAL’s side by Senior Policy Manager Andre Zollinger, the teams started with a workshop that brought together representatives from the World Bank, leaders from the Global South and industry, and engineers with ideas to suggest.

All of the teams made progress and most produced initial prototypes, says Liana Frey, a managing director at the MIT Climate Project, and an effort will be made to further develop and fund these ideas. “We’re continuing to look at different ways of proceeding with the work.”

One of these ways is through air conditioning. Worldwide, air conditioning is only available to about 8 percent of people — and that amount already contributes between 3 and 4 percent of global warming emissions — explains Chen. Meanwhile, the need for air conditioning and other ways of addressing extreme heat is steadily growing as the planet steadily warms up, and many of the people who will be most affected live in regions with limited access to reliable or affordable power and with high levels of poverty. The market for air conditioners is expected to triple or quadruple in coming years, he says, and their contribution to global warming will grow accordingly.

Chen says that he already had some ideas, but he hadn’t had a chance to test them out in experiments, which the grant enabled him to do. After building three prototypes and testing them out, he says, “I’m not at the stage where I can say that I know this will work.” But based on the experiments, he’d like to proceed to build a further prototype. If it works as well as expected, it would make a dramatic difference in air conditioning technology worldwide, including for the intensive cooling needs of new data centers.

Meanwhile, Varanasi’s way of looking at the problem was to consider individuals, not spaces. His devices work through the same principle as how an elephant uses its huge ears to dissipate heat and cool its blood.

The wearable device only consumes about 33 watts, he says, whereas a typical room air conditioner consumes around 1,000 watts. At U.S. material prices, the prototype device would cost about $20, he says, but if sourced with local material in India, he estimates it could be produced at a cost of less than $1 each.

Such garments could be bought in large quantities by the government and distributed to communities, where local entrepreneurs could set up charging stations to recharge the devices after a night’s wear, and other locals could set up businesses to manufacture the systems. The socks themselves would be washable, separately from the cooling material itself. This could enable people to at least get a good night’s sleep even in the extreme heat, he says.

The proof of concept he built used a simulated foot containing a heater, and measured the cooling effect. “We were able to keep it in the zone that we need for the body to stay cool,” he says. “So our initial prototype that we were able to build with this funding showed that this can become a viable solution.”

The same material could be used in other ways, such as to make sleeping bags with built-in cooling, he says. The raw material is widely available, but would be treated in a way that they developed. “It was a fundamental science bottleneck that we were able to overcome, which makes it possible.”

Varanasi says he is exploring various possibilities for how to develop his novel cooling material into a commercial product. “Ultimately, to make anything work, it has to be a business, otherwise good ideas can die,” he says. “It has to be a good business and a sustainable business.”

Luckily, there’s still support for advancing this work. “There are a lot of people interested in this heat-stress question,” says Frey. “It’s just becoming more and more urgent.”

A number of MIT affiliates were recently honored for their research by the Breakthrough Prize Foundation.

Stuart H. Orkin ’67 shared a Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences with Swee Lay Thein for their research transforming sickle cell disease and beta-thalassemia from incurable to treatable conditions through gene editing therapy. Their work identified the master switch controlling fetal hemoglobin, leading directly to the development of Casgevy – the first CRISPR-based medicine approved for any disease. Orkin, a graduate of the MIT Department of Biology, is currently a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.

Shu-Heng Shao, assistant professor of physics at MIT and a researcher in the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics — a Leinweber Institute, was recognized with a 2026 New Horizons in Physics Prize. Shao shared the honor with Clay Córdova from the University of Chicago, Thomas Dumitrescu from the University of California at Los Angeles, and Yifan Wang PhD ’16 from New York University. The four were recognized for “discover[ing] and develop[ing] the theory of ‘generalized symmetries’ in quantum field theory.” 

J. Colin Hill ’08 shared a New Horizons in Physics Prize with Dillon Brout, Mathew Madhavacheril, Maria Vincenzi, Daniel Scolnic, and W. L. Kimmy Wu for their results measuring the expansion and composition of the universe, with Hill’s focus on advancing analyses of data from the cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the Big Bang.

Hong Wang PhD ’19 received a New Horizons in Mathematics Prize for resolving or making advances on a family of notoriously difficult problems in harmonic analysis, a branch of mathematics that studies functions by decomposing them into fundamental components. 

In addition, Bryan Traynor, a former student in the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology, shared a Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences with Rosa Rademakers for discovering the most common genetic cause of both amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia.

Founded by a group of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, the Breakthrough Prizes recognize the world’s top scientists in life sciences, fundamental physics, and mathematics. The laureates were honored at a gala ceremony in Los Angeles on April 18.

On a warm June evening in San Francisco, attorneys and other legally-minded friends of EFF gathered for our 18th Annual Cyberlaw Trivia Night, an annual test of tech-related legal knowledge, and the ability to remember some deeply obscure facts under pressure. 

Returning Quizmaster Kurt Opsahl once again guided competitors through six rounds of trivia covering everything from intellectual property and free speech to privacy, security, and artificial intelligence. Teams wrestled with questions about geofence warrants, AI copyright disputes, the SOPA/PIPA internet blackout, Section 230, and even a Senate hearing featuring a contestant who was herself present at cyberlaw trivia. 

The judges’ table made it obvious that 2026 was a notable year. Weighing in on the toughest close calls were three folks with a deep history at our org: outgoing EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn and new Executive Director Nicole Ozer both sat at as judges, joined by new cyberlaw judge Mike Masnick, founder of Techdirt and a recipient of an EFF Award in 2020. 

img_7522.jpeg

The food was hot, the drinks were cold, and the competition was fierce. Teams including Shady Docket, Byte Club, Flock U, This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Precedent, Nicky's Angels, and Betamaxxers battled through six rounds of challenging questions. 

When a question about Afroman's successful legal battle against Ohio sheriff's deputies came up, members of Byte Club offered to do more than name his most popular album: they offered to perform a rendition of “Lemon Pound Cake” (also the album name—tricky!) for the judges. This won no sway with the 3-judge Cyberlaw Judiciary, and the offer was politely declined. 

The teams racked their collective law-noggins about some of the details of recent legal battles over digital rights, and a round entitled “You Can Call Me AI.” After the IP round, which rewarded folks in the audience who could answer details about the server test, the trivia moved onto newsier questions, with questions about ICE apps, anti-ICE apps, recent defamation cases involving our sitting president, and the slogan of a mineral company that you might've heard on terrestrial radio anytime between the early aughts and this week. 

You don't have to wear a morning coat to win Supreme Court arguments, but knowing who did for 4 years might have helped you win the IP round. 

By the end of regulation play, the cyberlaw trivia competition was closer than we could have imagined. For the first time in Cyberlaw Trivia history, three teams finished tied for first place, sending the contest to two tiebreaker questions. 

The final question noted that Google had received more than 287,000 government information requests in the first half of 2025, and asked teams to estimate how many were received by OpenAI during the same period. Every team guessed over, but it was the victors, Shady Docket, who guessed the lowest: 260. (The real answer is 146.)

As Shady Docket team member Erin Simon explained after the win: "As much as we love EFF, what we love even more is crushing other trivia teams."

In second place were Nicky’s Angels. Rounding out the virtual podium in 3rd were the Betamaxxers, who jumped ahead early with a home-run run in the Free Speech round, getting every question correct. 

Each summer, EFF's Cyberlaw Trivia Night brings together the legal community that helps defend privacy, free expression, innovation, and digital rights. We want to especially thank this year Morrison Foerster, Fenwick, Wilson Sonsini, and Public Resource for supporting EFF's legal intern program.

Are you an attorney interested in defending civil liberties in the digital world? Consider joining EFF's Cooperating Attorneys list. This network helps EFF connect people to legal assistance when EFF is unable to provide direct assistance. 

Fighting for first place at EFF’s Cyberlaw Trivia Night helps us fight for your rights online! Sponsor one of our annual events and join the movement for digital privacy, free speech, and innovation. Please visit eff.org/thanks or contact tierney@eff.org for more information.

If you’re a user—owner?—of this cryptocurrency, this is important:

On May 29, the security researcher Taylor Hornby found a critical vulnerability in Zcash Orchard privacy pool using Claude Opus 4.8. The Zcash team hired Hornby specifically to look for this kind of issue. He found one fast enough to be embarrassing.

The Orchard pool is the newest and most advanced shielded transaction system in the cryptocurrency Zcash. Introduced in 2022, it allows users to send and receive ZEC while keeping transaction details private. It uses zero-knowledge proofs to validate transactions without revealing amounts or participants. The bug: a specific check that was supposed to validate transaction inputs wasn’t actually enforcing the rules it appeared to enforce. An attacker could have exploited the flaw to feed false inputs into that check and generate ZEC from nothing, with the zero-knowledge proof system blessing the fraudulent transaction as valid...

In April, Anthropic initated Project Glasswing. The idea was to let companies use their new model to find and fix vulnerabilities in their own software. It was a fantastic PR move, and so many press outlets have uncritically parroted Anthropic’s claims that it’s now common wisdom that Mythos is better at finding software vulnerabilities than other models. Which is just not true.

In any case, Anthropic has published a Project Glasswing status report. It’s finding a lot of vulnerabilities in software—yay! Some of them are even dangerous. But almost none of them has been patched. It’s ...

Seven countries cite the energy crisis brought on by the war in Iran as reason to stay the course in meeting the EU's broader decarbonization targets.