Electric vehicle chargers are almost never used in large rural states but are popular elsewhere, a new report shows.

The decision stands in contrast with Mayor Eric Adam’s refusal to criticize the president.

Moving to “e-methane” and “syngas,” boosters argue, can be achieved without compromising energy security or the stability of pipelines and power plants.

The French education ministry said it created an online platform to facilitate relocation for those focusing on a wide range of issues.

We’re in the midst of a long-overdue resurgence in antitrust litigation. In the past 12 months alone, there have been three landmark rulings against Google/Alphabet (in search, advertising, and payments). Then there’s the long-running FTC v. Meta case, which went to trial last week. Plenty of people are cheering these cases on, seeing them as a victories over the tech broligarchy (who doesn’t love to see a broligarch get their comeuppance?).

But we’re cautiously cheering for another, more fundamental reason: the Big Tech antitrust cases could and should lead to enforceable changes that will foster more vibrant online expression and more meaningful user privacy protections.

Antitrust doctrine isn’t just about prices – it’s about power. The cases are nothing less than a fight over who will control the future of the internet, and what that future will look like. Will social media platforms continue to consolidate and enshittify? Or will the courts create breathing room for new ways of connecting to emerge and thrive?

Take FTC v Meta: The FTC argues that Meta’s control over Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram – the latter two being companies Facebook acquired in order to neutralize them as competitors— gives it unfair monopoly power in personal social media, i.e. communications with friends and family. Meta disputes that, of course, but even if you take Meta at their word, there’s no denying that this case is directly concerned with online expression. If the FTC succeeds, Meta could be broken up and forced to compete. More important than competition for its own sake is what competition can deliver: openings in the canopy that allow green shoots to sprout – new systems for talking with one another and forming communities under different and more transparent moderation policies, a break from the content moderation monoculture that serves no one well (except for corporate shareholders).

These antitrust cases aren’t the sole purview of government enforcers. Private companies have also brought significant cases with real implications for user rights.

Take Epic Games v Google, in which Google insists that the court order to open up its app store to competition will lead to massive security risks. This is a common refrain from tech giants like Google, who benefit from the system of “feudal security” in which users must depend on the whims of a monopolist to guarantee their safety. Google claims that its app store security measures keep its users safe – reprising the long-discredited theory of “security through obscurity.” As the eminent cryptographer (and EFF board member) Bruce Schneier says, “Anyone, from the most clueless amateur to the best cryptographer, can create an algorithm that he himself can’t break.”

It’s true that Google often does a good job securing its users against external threats, but Google does a much worse job securing users against Google itself – for example, there’s no way to comprehensively block tracking for Google’s apps on Android. Competition might make Google clean up its act here, but only if they start worrying that there’s a chance you’ll switch to an upstart with a better privacy posture. Enabling competition—as these cases are trying to do—means we don’t have to rely on Google to get privacy religion. We can just switch to an independently vetted rival. Of course, you can only vote with your feet if you have somewhere else to go.

Related Cases: Epic Games v. Google

Enacting strong federal consumer data privacy laws is among EFF’s highest priorities. For decades, EFF has advocated for federal privacy law that is concrete, ambitious, and fully protective of all Americans’ data privacy.

That’s why, when the House Committee on Energy and Commerce recently established a Privacy Working Group and asked for comments on what we’d like to see from a Data Security and Privacy Framework, EFF was pleased to offer our thoughts.

Our comments highlight several key points. For one, we urge Congress not to weaken current federal privacy law or create new policy that supplants stronger state laws. A law that overrides strong state protections would hurt consumers and prevent states from protecting their constituents. 

We also urge Congress to include the most important tool to ensure that privacy laws have real bite: the individual right to sue over privacy violations. As we say in our comments:

It is not enough for the government to pass laws that protect consumers from corporations that harvest and monetize their personal data. It is also necessary to ensure companies do not ignore them. The best way to do so is to empower consumers to bring their own lawsuits against the companies that violate their privacy rights. Strong “private rights of action” are among EFF’s highest priorities in any data privacy legislation.

Additionally, we reiterate that any strong privacy law must include these components:

• No online behavioral ads.
• Data minimization.
• Opt-in consent.
• User rights to access, port, correct, and delete information.
• No preemption of stronger state laws.
• Strong enforcement with a private right of action.
• No pay-for-privacy schemes.
• No deceptive design.

As we have said in our Privacy First white paper, a strong privacy law would also help us address online harms, protect children, support journalism, protect access to health care, foster digital justice, limit private data collection to train generative AI, limit foreign government surveillance, and strengthen competition.

EFF thanks the committee for the opportunity to weigh in. We invite further conversation to develop strong, comprehensive law that affirms the privacy and civil rights of all American consumers. You can read our full comments here: 

• EFF Comments to the House Committee on Energy & Commerce - Privacy Working Group

The agency's cooperative institutes study everything from salmon stocks to tropical cyclones.

The high court this week will hear arguments on whether opponents have standing to challenge the state’s right to set tough pollution rules.

The Department of Transportation secretary said replacing the MTA as the project's lead will save $120 million.

The bank’s messaging on climate represents a delicate balancing act between the institution and the U.S., its largest shareholder.

The Solar Energy Industries Association is intensifying its defense of climate law incentives as Republicans hone in on repeals.

The hesitancy comes as the White House has sought to crack down on state climate laws. Local trucking groups have raised concerns too.

The commission president’s visit comes as the U.K. and EU explore closer ties.

China and most other nations missed a February deadline to file the nationally determined contributions, which will set climate-related goals through 2035.

The Green Impact Exchange expects to begin trading early next year.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 21 April 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02310-4

Urban heat islands are known to increase heat-related mortality, but a global analysis of more than 3,000 cities reveals that urban heat islands also substantially reduce cold-related mortality — a more than fourfold offset, globally. Although commonly used cooling strategies benefit some tropical cities, they harm others at higher latitudes, and instead a seasonally adaptive approach to heat mitigation is needed.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 21 April 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02303-3

The urban heat island (UHI) effect can increase and decrease mortality depending on the season, yet global comparison is still lacking. This study finds that the UHI effect has net positive impact by reducing more cold-related mortality and highlights the necessity of place-based adaptive cooling strategies.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 21 April 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02304-2

Many governments have adopted policies to reduce fossil fuel subsidies, but these policies almost always fail within three years. Policymakers should find new strategies to trim subsidies and promote renewable energy without triggering political backlash.

A live colossal squid was filmed for the first time in the ocean. It’s only a juvenile: a foot long.

As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered.

Ola Bini was first detained in Quito’s airport six years ago, called a “Russian hacker,” and accused of “alleged participation in the crime of assault on the integrity of computer systems.” It wouldn't take long for Ecuadorean authorities to find out that he was Swedish and an internationally respected free software developer and computer expert. 

Lacking evidence, authorities rapidly changed the criminal offense underpinning the accusation against Bini and struggled to build a case based on a mere image that shows no wrongdoing. Yet, Bini remained arbitrarily detained for 70 days in 2019 and outrageously remains under criminal prosecution.

This week, the Observation Mission monitoring Ola Bini’s case is again calling out the prosecution’s inaccuracies and abuses that weaponize misunderstandings about computer security, undermining both Bini’s rights and digital security more broadly. The Observation Mission is comprised of digital and human rights organizations, including EFF. Specifically, we highlight how Ecuadorean law enforcement authorities have tried to associate the use of Tor, a crucial privacy protection tool, with inherently suspicious activity. 

Following a RightsCon 2025 session about the flaws and risks of such an interpretation, we are releasing this week a technical statement (see below) pointing out why Ecuadorean courts must reaffirm Bini’s innocence and repudiate misconceptions about technology and technical knowledge that only disguise the prosecutor’s lack of evidence supporting the accusations against Bini. 

Let’s not forget that Bini was unanimously acquitted in early 2023. Nonetheless, the Prosecutor’s Office appealed and the majority of the appeals court considered him guilty of attempted unauthorized access of a telecommunications system. The reasoning leading to this conclusion has many problems, including mixing the concepts of private and public IP addresses and disregarding key elements of the acquittal sentence.  

The ruling also refers to the use of Tor. Among other issues, the prosecution argued that Tor is not a tool known by any person except for technical experts since its purpose is to hide your identity on the internet while leaving no trace you're using it. As we stressed at RightsCon, this argument turns the use of a privacy-protective, security-enhancing technology into an indication of suspicious criminal activity, which is a dangerous extrapolation of the “nothing-to-hide argument.” 

The prosecutor’s logic, which the majority appeal ruling endorses, is if you’re keeping your online activities private it’s because you’re most likely doing something wrong, instead of we all have privacy rights, so we are entitled to use technologies that ensure privacy and security by default. 

Backing such an understanding in a court ruling sets an extremely worrying precedent for privacy and security online. The use of Tor must not be up for grabs when a prosecutor lacks actual evidence to sustain a criminal case.

Bini’s defense has appealed the unfounded conviction. We remain vigilant, hoping that the Ecuadorean judicial system will correct the course as per basic tenets of the right to a fair trial, recognizing the weakness of the case rather than surrendering to pressure and prejudice. It's past time for justice to prevail in this case. Six years of a lingering flimsy prosecution coupled with the undue restriction of Bini’s fundamental rights is already far too long.

Read the English translation of the statement below (see here the original one in Spanish):

TECHNICAL STATEMENT
Ola Bini’s innocence must be reaffirmed 

In the context of RightsCon Taipei 2025, the Observation Mission of the Ola Bini case and the Tor Project organized a virtual session to analyze the legal proceedings against the digital security expert in Ecuador and to discuss to what extent and with what implications the use of the Tor digital tool is criminalized1. In that session, which included organizations and speakers from civil society from different countries, we reached the following conclusions and technical consensuses: 

1. The criminal case against Bini was initiated by political motivations and actors and has been marked by dozens of irregularities and illegalities that undermine its legal legitimacy and technical viability. Rather than a criminal case, this is a persecution. 
2. The way the elements of conviction of the case were established sets a dangerous precedent for the protection of digital rights and expert knowledge in the digital realm in Ecuador and the region. 
3. The construction of the case and the elements presented as evidence by the Ecuadorian Attorney General’s Office (EAG) are riddled with serious procedural distortions and/or significant technical errors2. 
4. Furthermore, to substantiate the crime supposedly under investigation, the EAG has not even required a digital forensic examination that demonstrate whether any kind of system (be it computer, telematic, or telecommunications) was accessed without authorization. 
5. The reasoning used by the Appeals Court to justify its guilty verdict lacks sufficient elements to prove that Ola Bini committed the alleged crime. This not only violates the rights of the digital expert but also creates precedents of arbitrariness that are dangerous for the rule of law3. 
6. More specifically, because of the conviction, part of the Ecuadorian judiciary is creating a concerning precedent for the exercise of the rights to online security and privacy, by holding that the mere use of the Tor tool is sufficient indication of the commission of a criminal act. 
7. Furthermore, contrary to the global trend that should prevail, this ruling could even inspire courts to criminalize the use of other digital tools used for the defense of human rights online, such as VPNs, which are particularly useful for key actors—like journalists, human rights defenders, academics, and others—in authoritarian political contexts. 
8. Around the world, millions of people, including state security agencies, use Tor to carry out their activities. In this context, although the use of Tor is not the central focus of analysis in the present case, the current conviction—part of a politically motivated process lacking technical grounding—constitutes a judicial interpretation that could negatively impact the exercise of the aforementioned rights. 

For these reasons, and six years after the beginning of Ola Bini’s criminal case, the undersigned civil society organizations call on the relevant Ecuadorian judicial authorities to reaffirm Bini’s presumption of innocence at the appropriate procedural stage, as was the first instance ruling demonstrated.

The Observation Mission will continue monitoring the development of the case until its conclusion, to ensure compliance with due process guarantees and to raise awareness of the case’s implications for the protection of digital rights.

1. RightsCon is the leading global summit on human rights in the digital age, organized by Access Now. ↩

2. See https://www.accessnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Informe-final-Caso-Ola-Bini.pdf ↩

3. The Tribunal is composed of Maritza Romero, Fabián Fabara and Narcisa Pacheco. The majority decision is from Fabara and Pacheco. ↩