Despite a weak La Niña cooling the equatorial Pacific from that month, records are being set in the Caribbean Sea, as well the Indian Ocean and other parts of the Pacific.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 05 February 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02244-x

Climate change will impact financial stability, but the quantitative evidence on the magnitude of such risks is still rare. With a forward-looking structural credit-risk model, researchers map how physical risks can be amplified through financial leverage and generate cross-border climate risks.

As the story goes, the Scottish inventor James Watt envisioned how steam engines should work on one day in 1765, when he was walking across Glasgow Green, a park in his hometown. Watt realized that putting a separate condenser in an engine would allow its main cylinder to remain hot, making the engine more efficient and compact than the huge steam engines then in existence.

And yet Watt, who had been pondering the problem for a while, needed a partnership with entrepreneur Matthew Boulton to get a practical product to market, starting in 1775 and becoming successful in later years.

“People still use this story of Watt’s ‘Eureka!’ moment, which Watt himself promoted later in his life,” says MIT Professor David Mindell, an engineer and historian of science and engineering. “But it took 20 years of hard labor, during which Watt struggled to support a family and had multiple failures, to get it out in the world. Multiple other inventions were required to achieve what we today call product-market fit.”

The full story of the steam engine, Mindell argues, is a classic case of what is today called “process innovation,” not just “product innovation.” Inventions are rarely fully-formed products, ready to change the world. Mostly, they need a constellation of improvements, and sustained persuasion, to become adopted into industrial systems.

What was true for Watt still holds, as Mindell’s body of work shows. Most technology-driven growth today comes from overlapping advances, when inventors and companies tweak and improve things over time. Now, Mindell explores those ideas in a forthcoming book, “The New Lunar Society: An Enlightenment Guide to the Next Industrial Revolution,” being published on Feb. 24 by the MIT Press. Mindell is professor of aeronautics and astronautics and the Dibner Professor of the History of Engineering and Manufacturing at MIT, where he has also co-founded the Work of the Future initiative.

“We’ve overemphasized product innovation, although we’re very good at it,” Mindell says. “But it’s become apparent that process innovation is just as important: how you improve the making, fixing, rebuilding, or upgrading of systems. These are deeply entangled. Manufacturing is part of process innovation.”

Today, with so many things being positioned as world-changing products, it may be especially important to notice that being adaptive and persistent is practically the essence of improvement.

“Young innovators don’t always realize that when their invention doesn’t work at first, they’re at the start of a process where they have to refine and engage, and find the right partners to grow,” Mindell says.

Manufacturing at home

The title of Mindell’s book refers to British Enlightenment thinkers and inventors — Watt was one of them — who used to meet in a group they called the Lunar Society, centered in Birmingham. This included pottery innovator Josiah Wedgewood; physician Erasmus Darwin; chemist Joseph Priestley; and Boulton, a metal manufacturer whose work and capital helped make Watt’s improved steam engine a reliable product. The book moves between chapters on the old Lunar Society and those on contemporary industrial systems, drawing parallels between then and now.

“The stories about the Lunar Society are models for the way people can go about their careers, engineering or otherwise, in a way they may not see in popular press about technology today,” Mindell says. “Everyone told Wedgwood he couldn’t compete with Chinese porcelain, yet he learned from the Lunar Society and built an English pottery industry that led the world.”

Applying the Lunar Society’s virtues to contemporary industry leads Mindell to a core set of ideas about technology. Research shows that design and manufacturing should be adjacent if possible, not outsourced globally, to accelerate learning and collaboration. The book also argues that technology should address human needs and that venture capital should focus more on industrial systems than it does. (Mindell has co-founded a firm, called Unless, that invests in companies by using venture financing structures better-suited to industrial transformation.)

In seeing a new industrialism taking shape, Mindell suggests that its future includes new ways of working, collaborating, and valuing knowledge throughout organizations, as well as more AI-based open-source tools for small and mid-size manufacturers. He also contends that a new industrialism should include greater emphasis on maintenance and repair work, which are valuable sources of knowledge about industrial devices and systems.

“We’ve undervalued how to keep things running, while simultaneously hollowing out the middle of the workforce,” he says. “And yet, operations and maintenance are sites of product innovation. Ask the person who fixes your car or dishwasher. They’ll tell you the strengths and weaknesses of every model.”

All told, “The sum total of this work, over time, amounts to a new industrialism if it elevates its cultural status into a movement that values the material basis of our lives and seeks to improve it, literally from the ground up,” Mindell writes in the book.

“The book doesn’t predict the future,” he says. “But rather it suggests how to talk about the future of industry with optimism and realism, as opposed to saying, this is the utopian future where machines do everything, and people just sit back in chairs with wires coming out of their heads.”

Work of the Future

“The New Lunar Society” is a concise book with expansive ideas. Mindell also devotes chapters to the convergence of the Industrial-era Enlightenment, the founding of the U.S., and the crucial role of industry in forming the republic.

“The only founding father who signed all of the critical documents in the founding of the country, Benjamin Franklin, was also the person who crystallized the modern science of electricity and deployed its first practical invention, the lightning rod,” Mindell says. “But there were multiple figures, including Thomas Jefferson and Paul Revere, who integrated the industrial Enlightenment with democracy. Industry has been core to American democracy from the beginning.”

Indeed, as Mindell emphasizes in the book, “industry,” beyond evoking smokestacks, has a human meaning: If you are hard-working, you are displaying industry. That meshes with the idea of persistently redeveloping an invention over time.

Despite the high regard Mindell holds for the Industrial Enlightenment, he recognizes that the era’s industrialization brought harsh working conditions, as well as environmental degradation. As one of the co-founders of MIT’s Work of the Future initiative, he argues that 21st-century industrialism needs to rethink some of its fundamentals.

“The ideals of [British] industrialization missed on the environment, and missed on labor,” Mindell says. “So at this point, how do we rethink industrial systems to do better?” Mindell argues that industry must power an economy that grows while decarbonizing.

After all, Mindell adds, “About 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions are from industrial sectors, and all of the potential solutions involve making lots of new stuff. Even if it’s just connectors and wire. We’re not going to decarbonize or address global supply chain crises by deindustrializing, we’re going to get there by reindustrializing.”

“The New Lunar Society” has received praise from technologists and other scholars. Joel Mokyr, an economic historian at Northwestern University who coined the term “Industrial Enlightenment,” has stated that Mindell “realizes that innovation requires a combination of knowing and making, mind and hand. … He has written a deeply original and insightful book.” Jeff Wilke SM ’93, a former CEO of Amazon’s consumer business, has said the book “argues compellingly that a thriving industrial base, adept at both product and process innovation, underpins a strong democracy.”

Mindell hopes the audience for the book will range from younger technologists to a general audience of anyone interested in the industrial future.

“I think about young people in industrial settings and want to help them see they’re part of a great tradition and are doing important things to change the world,” Mindell says. “There is a huge audience of people who are interested in technology but find overhyped language does not match their aspirations or personal experience. I’m trying to crystallize this new industrialism as a way of imagining and talking about the future.”

The European Commission was caught failing to comply with its own data protection regulations and, in a first, ordered to pay damages to a user for the violation. The €400 ($415) award may be tiny compared to fines levied against Big Tech by European authorities, but it’s still a win for users and considerably more than just a blip for the “talk about embarrassing” file at the commission.

The case, Bindl vs. EC, underscores the principle that when people’s data is lost, stolen, or shared without promised safeguards—which can lead to identity theft, cause uncertainty about who has access to the data and for what purpose, or place our names and personal preferences in the hands of data brokers —they’ve been harmed and have the right to hold those responsible accountable and seek damages.

Some corporations, courts, and lawmakers in the U.S. need to learn a thing or two about this principle. Victims of data breaches are subject to anxiety and panic that their social security numbers and other personal information, even their passport numbers, are being bought and sold on the dark web to criminals who will use the information to drain their bank accounts or demand a ransom not to.

But when victims try to go to court, the companies that failed to protect their data in the first place sometimes say tough luck—unless you actually lose money, they say you’re not really harmed and can’t sue. And courts in many cases go along with this.

The EC debacle arose when a German citizen using the commission’s website to register for a conference was offered to sign in using Facebook, which he did—a common practice that, surprise, surprise, can and does give U.S.-based Facebook access to signees’ personal information.

Here’s the problem: In the EU, the General Data Privacy Regulations (GDPR), a comprehensive and far-reaching data privacy law that came into effect in 2018, and a related law that applies to EU institutions, Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, requires entities that handle personal data to abide by certain rules for collecting and transferring it. They must, for instance, ensure that transfers of someone’s personal information, such as their IP address, to countries outside the EU are adequately protected.

The GDPR also give users significant control over their data, such as requiring data processors to obtain users’ clear consent to handle their personal data and allowing users to seek compensation if their privacy rights are infringed—although the regulations are silent on how damages should be assessed.

In what it called a “sufficiently serious breach,” a condition for awarding damages, the European General Court, which hears actions against EU institutions, found that the EC violated EU privacy protections by facilitating in 2022 the transfer of German citizen Thomas Bindl’s IP address and other personal data to Meta, owner of Facebook. The transfer was unlawful because there were no agreements at the time that adequately protected EU users’ data from U.S. government surveillance and weak data privacy laws.

“…personal data may be transferred to a third country or to an international organisation only if the controller or processor has provided appropriate safeguards, and on condition that enforceable data subject rights and effective legal remedies for data subjects are available,” the court said. “In the present case, the Commission has neither demonstrated nor claimed that there was an appropriate safeguard, in particular a standard data protection clause or contractual clause…”

(The EC in 2023 adopted the EU-US Data Privacy Framework to facilitate mechanisms for  personal data transfers between the U.S. and EU states, Great Britain, and Switzerland with protections that are supposed to be consistent with EU, UK, and Swiss law and limit US intelligence services’ access to personal data transferred to America.)

Bindl sought compensation for non-material—that is, not involving direct financial loss—damages because the transfer caused him to lose control of his data and deprived him of his rights and freedoms.

Applying standards it had set in a data mishandling case from Austria involving non-material damage claims, the court said he was entitled to such damages because the commission had violated the GDPR-like regulation 2018/1725 and the damages he suffered were caused by the infringement.

Importantly, the court specified that the right to compensation doesn’t hinge on an assessment of whether the harms are serious enough to take to court, a condition that some EU member state courts have used to dismiss non-material damage claims.

Rather, it was enough that the data transfer put Bindl “in a position of some uncertainty as regards the processing of his personal data, in particular of his IP address,” the court said. This is criterion that could benefit other plaintiffs seeking non-material damages for the mishandling of their data, said Tilman Herbrich, Bindl’s attorney.

Noting the ease with which IP addresses can be used to connect a person to an existing online profile and exploit their data, Bindl, in conversation with The International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), said “it’s totally clear that this was more than just this tiny little piece of IP address, where people even tend to argue whether its PII (personal identifiable information) or not.”  Bindl is the founder of EuGD European Society for Data Protection, a Munich-based litigation funder that supports complainants in data protection lawsuits.

The court’s decision recognizes that losing control of your data causes real non-material harm, and shines a light on why people are entitled to seek compensation for emotional damage, probably without the need to demonstrate a minimum threshold of damage.

EFF has stood up for this principle in U.S. courts against corporate giants who—after data thieves penetrate their inadequate security systems, exposing millions of people’s private information—claim in court that victims haven’t really been injured unless they can prove a specific economic harm on top of the obvious privacy harm.

In fact, negligent data breaches inflict grievous privacy harms in and of themselves, and so the victims have “standing” to sue in federal court—without the need to prove more.

Once data has been disclosed, it is often pooled with other information, some gathered consensually and legally and some gathered from other data breaches or through other illicit means. That pooled information is then used to create inferences about the affected individuals for purposes of targeted advertising, various kinds of risk evaluation, identity theft, and more.

In the EU, the Bindl case could bring more legal certainty to individuals and companies about damages for data protection violations and perhaps open the door to collective-action lawsuits. To the extent that the case was brought to determine whether the EC follows its own rules, the outcome was decisive.

The commission “should set the standard in terms of implementation of how they are doing it,” Bindl said. “If anyone is looking at somebody who is doing it perfectly right, it should be the commission, right?”

 

Across a career’s worth of pioneering product designs, Doug Field’s work has shaped the experience of anyone who’s ever used a MacBook Air, ridden a Segway, or driven a Tesla Model 3.

But his newest project is his most ambitious yet: reinventing the Ford automobile, one of the past century’s most iconic pieces of technology.

As Ford’s chief electric vehicle (EV), digital, and design officer, Field is tasked with leading the development of the company’s electric vehicles, while making new software platforms central to all Ford models.

To bring Ford Motor Co. into that digital and electric future, Field effectively has to lead a fast-moving startup inside the legacy carmaker. “It is incredibly hard, figuring out how to do ‘startups’ within large organizations,” he concedes.

If anyone can pull it off, it’s likely to be Field. Ever since his time in MIT’s Leaders for Global Operations (then known as “Leaders in Manufacturing”) program studying organizational behavior and strategy, Field has been fixated on creating the conditions that foster innovation.

“The natural state of an organization is to make it harder and harder to do those things: to innovate, to have small teams, to go against the grain,” he says. To overcome those forces, Field has become a master practitioner of the art of curating diverse, talented teams and helping them flourish inside of big, complex companies.

“It’s one thing to make a creative environment where you can come up with big ideas,” he says. “It’s another to create an execution-focused environment to crank things out. I became intrigued with, and have been for the rest of my career, this question of how can you have both work together?”

Three decades after his first stint as a development engineer at Ford Motor Co., Field now has a chance to marry the manufacturing muscle of Ford with the bold approach that helped him rethink Apple’s laptops and craft Tesla’s Model 3 sedan. His task is nothing less than rethinking how cars are made and operated, from the bottom up.

“If it’s only creative or execution, you’re not going to change the world,” he says. “If you want to have a huge impact, you need people to change the course you’re on, and you need people to build it.”

A passion for design

From a young age, Field had a fascination with automobiles. “I was definitely into cars and transportation more generally,” he says. “I thought of cars as the place where technology and art and human design came together — cars were where all my interests intersected.”

With a mother who was an artist and musician and an engineer father, Field credits his parents’ influence for his lifelong interest in both the aesthetic and technical elements of product design. “I think that’s why I’m drawn to autos — there’s very much an aesthetic aspect to the product,” he says. 

After earning a degree in mechanical engineering from Purdue University, Field took a job at Ford in 1987. The big Detroit automakers of that era excelled at mass-producing cars, but weren’t necessarily set up to encourage or reward innovative thinking. Field chafed at the “overstructured and bureaucratic” operational culture he encountered.

The experience was frustrating at times, but also valuable and clarifying. He realized that he “wanted to work with fast-moving, technology-based businesses.”

“My interest in advancing technical problem-solving didn’t have a place in the auto industry” at the time, he says. “I knew I wanted to work with passionate people and create something that didn’t exist, in an environment where talent and innovation were prized, where irreverence was an asset and not a liability. When I read about Silicon Valley, I loved the way they talked about things.”

During that time, Field took two years off to enroll in MIT’s LGO program, where he deepened his technical skills and encountered ideas about manufacturing processes and team-driven innovation that would serve him well in the years ahead.

“Some of core skill sets that I developed there were really, really important,” he says, “in the context of production lines and production processes.” He studied systems engineering and the use of Monte Carlo simulations to model complex manufacturing environments. During his internship with aerospace manufacturer Pratt & Whitney, he worked on automated design in computer-aided design (CAD) systems, long before those techniques became standard practice.

Another powerful tool he picked up was the science of probability and statistics, under the tutelage of MIT Professor Alvin Drake in his legendary course 6.041/6.431 (Probabilistic Systems Analysis). Field would go on to apply those insights not only to production processes, but also to characterizing variability in people’s aptitudes, working styles, and talents, in the service of building better, more innovative teams. And studying organizational strategy catalyzed his career-long interest in “ways to look at innovation as an outcome, rather than a random spark of genius.”

“So many things I was lucky to be exposed to at MIT,” Field says, were “all building blocks, pieces of the puzzle, that helped me navigate through difficult situations later on.”

Learning while leading

After leaving Ford in 1993, Field worked at Johnson and Johnson Medical for three years in process development. There, he met Segway inventor Dean Kamen, who was working on a project called the iBOT, a gyroscopic powered wheelchair that could climb stairs.

When Kamen spun off Segway to develop a new personal mobility device using the same technology, Field became his first hire. He spent nearly a decade as the firm’s chief technology officer.

At Segway, Field’s interests in vehicles, technology, innovation, process, and human-centered design all came together.

“When I think about working now on electric cars, it was a real gift,” he says. The problems they tackled prefigured the ones he would grapple with later at Tesla and Ford. “Segway was very much a precursor to a modern EV. Completely software controlled, with higher-voltage batteries, redundant systems, traction control, brushless DC motors — it was basically a miniature Tesla in the year 2000.”

At Segway, Field assembled an “amazing” team of engineers and designers who were as passionate as he was about pushing the envelope. “Segway was the first place I was able to hand-pick every single person I worked with, define the culture, and define the mission.”

As he grew into this leadership role, he became equally engrossed with cracking another puzzle: “How do you prize people who don’t fit in?”

“Such a fundamental part of the fabric of Silicon Valley is the love of embracing talent over a traditional organization’s ways of measuring people,” he says. “If you want to innovate, you need to learn how to manage neurodivergence and a very different set of personalities than the people you find in large corporations.”

Field still keeps the base housing of a Segway in his office, as a reminder of what those kinds of teams — along with obsessive attention to detail — can achieve.

Before joining Apple in 2008, he showed that component, with its clean lines and every minuscule part in its place in one unified package, to his prospective new colleagues. “They were like, “OK, you’re one of us,’” he recalls.

He soon became vice president of hardware development for all Mac computers, leading the teams behind the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro and eventually overseeing more than 2,000 employees. “Making things really simple and really elegant, thinking about the product as an integrated whole, that really took me into Apple.”

The challenge of giving the MacBook Air its signature sleek and light profile is an example.

“The MacBook Air was the first high-volume consumer electronic product built out of a CNC-machined enclosure,” says Field. He worked with industrial design and technology teams to devise a way to make the laptop from one solid piece of aluminum and jettison two-thirds of the parts found in the iMac. “We had material cut away so that every single screw and piece of electronics sat down into it an integrated way. That’s how we got the product so small and slim.”

“When I interviewed with Jony Ive” — Apple’s legendary chief design officer — “he said your ability to zoom out and zoom in was the number one most important ability as a leader at Apple.” That meant zooming out to think about “the entire ethos of this product, and the way it will affect the world” and zooming all the way back in to obsess over, say, the physical shape of the laptop itself and what it feels like in a user’s hands.

“That thread of attention to detail, passion for product, design plus technology rolled directly into what I was doing at Tesla,” he says. When Field joined Tesla in 2013, he was drawn to the way the brash startup upended the approach to making cars. “Tesla was integrating digital technology into cars in a way nobody else was. They said, ‘We’re not a car company in Silicon Valley, we’re a Silicon Valley company and we happen to make cars.’”

Field assembled and led the team that produced the Model 3 sedan, Tesla’s most affordable vehicle, designed to have mass-market appeal.

That experience only reinforced the importance, and power, of zooming in and out as a designer — in a way that encompasses the bigger human resources picture.

“You have to have a broad sense of what you’re trying to accomplish and help people in the organization understand what it means to them,” he says. “You have to go across and understand operations enough to glue all of those (things) together — while still being great at and focused on something very, very deeply. That’s T-shaped leadership.”

He credits his time at LGO with providing the foundation for the “T-shaped leadership” he practices.

“An education like the one I got at MIT allowed me to keep moving that ‘T’, to focus really deep, learn a ton, teach as much as I can, and after something gets more mature, pull out and bed down into other areas where the organization needs to grow or where there’s a crisis.”

The power of marrying scale to a “startup mentality”

In 2018, Field returned to Apple as a vice president for special projects. “I left Tesla after Model 3 and Y started to ramp, as there were people better than me to run high-volume manufacturing,” he says. “I went back to Apple hoping what Tesla had learned would motivate Apple to get into a different market.”

That market was his early love: cars. Field quietly led a project to develop an electric vehicle at Apple for three years.

Then Ford CEO Jim Farley came calling. He persuaded Field to return to Ford in late 2021, partly by demonstrating how much things had changed since his first stint as the carmaker.

“Two things came through loud and clear,” Field says. “One was humility. ‘Our success is not assured.’” That attitude was strikingly different from Field’s early experience in Detroit, encountering managers who were resistant to change. “The other thing was urgency. Jim and Bill Ford said the exact same thing to me: ‘We have four or five years to completely remake this company.’”

“I said, ‘OK, if the top of company really believes that, then the auto industry may be ready for what I hope to offer.’”

So far, Field is energized and encouraged by the appetite for reinvention he’s encountered this time around at Ford.

“If you can combine what Ford does really well with what a Tesla or Rivian can do well, this is something to be reckoned with,” says Field. “Skunk works have become one of the fundamental tools of my career,” he says, using an industry term that describes a project pursued by a small, autonomous group of people within a larger organization.

Ford has been developing a new, lower-cost, software-enabled EV platform — running all of the car’s sensors and components from a central digital operating system — with a “skunk works” team for the past two years. The company plans to build new sedans, SUVs, and small pickups based on this new platform.

With other legacy carmakers like Volvo racing into the electric future and fierce competition from EV leaders Tesla and Rivian, Field and his colleagues have their work cut out for them.

If he succeeds, leveraging his decades of learning and leading from LGO to Silicon Valley, then his latest chapter could transform the way we all drive — and secure a spot for Ford at the front of the electric vehicle pack in the process.

“I’ve been lucky to feel over and over that what I’m doing right now — they are going to write a book about it,” say Field. “This is a big deal, for Ford and the U.S. auto industry, and for American industry, actually.”

When people think about fiber optic cables, its usually about how they’re used for telecommunications and accessing the internet. But fiber optic cables — strands of glass or plastic that allow for the transmission of light — can be used for another purpose: imaging the ground beneath our feet.

MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS) PhD student Hilary Chang recently used the MIT fiber optic cable network to successfully image the ground underneath campus using a method known as distributed acoustic sensing (DAS). By using existing infrastructure, DAS can be an efficient and effective way to understand ground composition, a critical component for assessing the seismic hazard of areas, or how at risk they are from earthquake damage.

“We were able to extract very nice, coherent waves from the surroundings, and then use that to get some information about the subsurface,” says Chang, the lead author of a recent paper describing her work that was co-authored with EAPS Principal Research Scientist Nori Nakata. 

Dark fibers

The MIT campus fiber optic system, installed from 2000 to 2003, services internal data transport between labs and buildings as well as external transport, such as the campus internet (MITNet). There are three major cable hubs on campus from which lines branch out into buildings and underground, much like a spiderweb.

The network allocates a certain number of strands per building, some of which are “dark fibers,” or cables that are not actively transporting information. Each campus fiber hub has redundant backbone cables between them so that, in the event of a failure, network transmission can switch to the dark fibers without loss of network services.

DAS can use existing telecommunication cables and ambient wavefields to extract information about the materials they pass through, making it a valuable tool for places like cities or the ocean floor, where conventional sensors can’t be deployed. Chang, who studies earthquake waveforms and the information we can extract from them, decided to try it out on the MIT campus.

In order to get access to the fiber optic network for the experiment, Chang reached out to John Morgante, a manager of infrastructure project engineering with MIT Information Systems and Technology (IS&T). Morgante has been at MIT since 1998 and was involved with the original project installing the fiber optic network, and was thus able to provide personal insight into selecting a route.

“It was interesting to listen to what they were trying to accomplish with the testing,” says Morgante. While IS&T has worked with students before on various projects involving the school’s network, he said that “in the physical plant area, this is the first that I can remember that we’ve actually collaborated on an experiment together.”

They decided on a path starting from a hub in Building 24, because it was the longest running path that was entirely underground; above-ground wires that cut through buildings wouldn’t work because they weren’t grounded, and thus were useless for the experiment. The path ran from east to west, beginning in Building 24, traveling under a section of Massachusetts Ave., along parts of Amherst and Vassar streets, and ending at Building W92.

“[Morgante] was really helpful,” says Chang, describing it as “a very good experience working with the campus IT team.”

Locating the cables

After renting an interrogator, a device that sends laser pulses to sense ambient vibrations along the fiber optic cables, Chang and a group of volunteers were given special access to connect it to the hub in Building 24. They let it run for five days.

To validate the route and make sure that the interrogator was working, Chang conducted a tap test, in which she hit the ground with a hammer several times to record the precise GPS coordinates of the cable. Conveniently, the underground route is marked by maintenance hole covers that serve as good locations to do the test. And, because she needed the environment to be as quiet as possible to collect clean data, she had to do it around 2 a.m.

“I was hitting it next to a dorm and someone yelled ‘shut up,’ probably because the hammer blows woke them up,” Chang recalls. “I was sorry.” Thankfully, she only had to tap at a few spots and could interpolate the locations for the rest.

During the day, Chang and her fellow students — Denzel Segbefia, Congcong Yuan, and Jared Bryan — performed an additional test with geophones, another instrument that detects seismic waves, out on Brigg’s Field where the cable passed under it to compare the signals. It was an enjoyable experience for Chang; when the data were collected in 2022, the campus was coming out of pandemic measures, with remote classes sometimes still in place. “It was very nice to have everyone on the field and do something with their hands,” she says.

The noise around us

Once Chang collected the data, she was able to see plenty of environmental activity in the waveforms, including the passing of cars, bikes, and even when the train that runs along the northern edge of campus made its nightly passes.

After identifying the noise sources, Chang and Nakata extracted coherent surface waves from the ambient noises and used the wave speeds associated with different frequencies to understand the properties of the ground the cables passed through. Stiffer materials allow fast velocities, while softer material slows it.

“We found out that the MIT campus is built on soft materials overlaying a relatively hard bedrock,” Chang says, which confirms previously known, albeit lower-resolution, information about the geology of the area that had been collected using seismometers.

Information like this is critical for regions that are susceptible to destructive earthquakes and other seismic hazards, including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which has experienced earthquakes as recently as this past week. Areas of Boston and Cambridge characterized by artificial fill during rapid urbanization are especially at risk due to its subsurface structure being more likely to amplify seismic frequencies and damage buildings. This non-intrusive method for site characterization can help ensure that buildings meet code for the correct seismic hazard level.

“Destructive seismic events do happen, and we need to be prepared,” she says.

MIT senior Mishael Quraishi has been selected as a 2025-26 Churchill Scholar and will undertake an MPhil in archaeological research at Cambridge University in the U.K. this fall.

Quraishi, who is majoring in material sciences and archeology with a minor in ancient and medieval studies, envisions a future career as a materials scientist, using archeological methods to understand how ancient techniques can be applied to modern problems.

At the Masic Lab at MIT, Quraishi was responsible for studying Egyptian blue, the world’s oldest synthetic pigment, to uncover ancient methods for mass production. Through this research, she secured an internship at the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Department of Scientific Research, where she characterized pigments on the Amathus sarcophagus. Last fall, she presented her findings to kick off the International Roundtable on Polychromy at the Getty Museum. Quraishi has continued research in the Masic lab and her work on the “Blue Room” of Pompeii was featured on NBC nightly news.

Outside of research, Quraishi has been active in MIT’s makerspace and art communities. She has created engravings and acrylic pourings in the MIT MakerWorkshop, metal sculptures in the MIT Forge, and colored glass rods in the MIT Metropolis makerspace. Quraishi also plays the piano and harp and has sung with the Harvard Summer Chorus and the Handel and Haydn Society. She currently serves as the president of the Society for Undergraduates in Materials Science (SUMS) and captain of the lightweight women’s rowing team that won MIT’s first Division I national championship title in 2022.

“We are delighted that Mishael will have the opportunity to expand her important and interesting research at Cambridge University,” says Kim Benard, associate dean of distinguished fellowships. “Her combination of scientific inquiry, humanistic approach, and creative spirit make her an ideal representative of MIT.”

The Churchill Scholarship is a highly competitive fellowship that annually offers 16 American students the opportunity to pursue a funded graduate degree in science, mathematics, or engineering at Churchill College within Cambridge University. The scholarship, which was established in 1963, honors former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s vision of U.S.-U.K. scientific exchange. Since 2017, two additional Kanders Churchill Scholarships have been awarded each year for studies in science policy.

MIT students interested in learning more about the Churchill Scholarship should contact Benard in MIT Career Advising and Professional Development.

Interesting analysis:

We analyzed every instance of AI use in elections collected by the WIRED AI Elections Project (source for our analysis), which tracked known uses of AI for creating political content during elections taking place in 2024 worldwide. In each case, we identified what AI was used for and estimated the cost of creating similar content without AI.

We find that (1) half of AI use isn’t deceptive, (2) deceptive content produced using AI is nevertheless cheap to replicate without AI, and (3) focusing on the demand for misinformation rather than the supply is a much more effective way to diagnose problems and identify interventions...

Acting Administrator Cameron Hamilton amplified false charges that FEMA spent disaster aid on migrants and blocked help to North Carolina.

Two judges have ordered the administration to lift the freeze. But nonprofits and states still can't get money for contracts backed by the Inflation Reduction Act.

Former DOE appointee Noah Deich said it wasn't an accident when Republican states were chosen to host direct air capture hubs. It also wasn't political.

Our Children's Trust and the American Petroleum Institute partially agreed on a key issue in the legal battle over California's authority to set tailpipe standards.

The 6th Circuit's decision preserves a lower court ruling that favored Republican-led states.

The Democrat took office hoping offshore wind projects would be a perfect issue to unite a liberal coalition and ensure his legacy fighting climate change.

Cloud-seeding foes see the program as ineffective, harmful and deceitful.

With a shortage of housing and high interest, property owners and rental companies are feeling emboldened to charge five-digit rates, even for cramped rooms.

New Zealand’s government outlined a second climate target last week, aiming to reduce emissions by 51-55 percent from 2005 levels by 2035.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 04 February 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-024-02242-5

This Perspective highlights links between gender inequality and climate change adaptation and mitigation, and proposes a roadmap for incorporating gender issues into the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. These scenarios could help understand challenges under diverse trajectories of gender equality.

Senior Audrey Lorvo is researching AI safety, which seeks to ensure increasingly intelligent AI models are reliable and can benefit humanity. The growing field focuses on technical challenges like robustness and AI alignment with human values, as well as societal concerns like transparency and accountability. Practitioners are also concerned with the potential existential risks associated with increasingly powerful AI tools.

“Ensuring AI isn’t misused or acts contrary to our intentions is increasingly important as we approach artificial general intelligence (AGI),” says Lorvo, a computer science, economics, and data science major. AGI describes the potential of artificial intelligence to match or surpass human cognitive capabilities.

An MIT Schwarzman College of Computing Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing (SERC) scholar, Lorvo looks closely at how AI might automate AI research and development processes and practices. A member of the Big Data research group, she’s investigating the social and economic implications associated with AI’s potential to accelerate research on itself and how to effectively communicate these ideas and potential impacts to general audiences including legislators, strategic advisors, and others.

Lorvo emphasizes the need to critically assess AI’s rapid advancements and their implications, ensuring organizations have proper frameworks and strategies in place to address risks. “We need to both ensure humans reap AI’s benefits and that we don’t lose control of the technology,” she says. “We need to do all we can to develop it safely.”

Her participation in efforts like the AI Safety Technical Fellowship reflect her investment in understanding the technical aspects of AI safety. The fellowship provides opportunities to review existing research on aligning AI development with considerations of potential human impact. “The fellowship helped me understand AI safety’s technical questions and challenges so I can potentially propose better AI governance strategies,” she says. According to Lorvo, companies on AI’s frontier continue to push boundaries, which means we’ll need to implement effective policies that prioritize human safety without impeding research.

Value from human engagement

When arriving at MIT, Lorvo knew she wanted to pursue a course of study that would allow her to work at the intersection of science and the humanities. The variety of offerings at the Institute made her choices difficult, however.

“There are so many ways to help advance the quality of life for individuals and communities,” she says, “and MIT offers so many different paths for investigation.”

Beginning with economics — a discipline she enjoys because of its focus on quantifying impact — Lorvo investigated math, political science, and urban planning before choosing Course 6-14.

“Professor Joshua Angrist’s econometrics classes helped me see the value in focusing on economics, while the data science and computer science elements appealed to me because of the growing reach and potential impact of AI,” she says. “We can use these tools to tackle some of the world’s most pressing problems and hopefully overcome serious challenges.”

Lorvo has also pursued concentrations in urban studies and planning and international development.

As she’s narrowed her focus, Lorvo finds she shares an outlook on humanity with other members of the MIT community like the MIT AI Alignment group, from whom she learned quite a bit about AI safety. “Students care about their marginal impact,” she says.

Marginal impact, the additional effect of a specific investment of time, money, or effort, is a way to measure how much a contribution adds to what is already being done, rather than focusing on the total impact. This can potentially influence where people choose to devote their resources, an idea that appeals to Lorvo.

“In a world of limited resources, a data-driven approach to solving some of our biggest challenges can benefit from a tailored approach that directs people to where they’re likely to do the most good,” she says. “If you want to maximize your social impact, reflecting on your career choice’s marginal impact can be very valuable.”

Lorvo also values MIT’s focus on educating the whole student and has taken advantage of opportunities to investigate disciplines like philosophy through MIT Concourse, a program that facilitates dialogue between science and the humanities. Concourse hopes participants gain guidance, clarity, and purpose for scientific, technical, and human pursuits.

Student experiences at the Institute

Lorvo invests her time outside the classroom in creating memorable experiences and fostering relationships with her classmates. “I’m fortunate that there’s space to balance my coursework, research, and club commitments with other activities, like weightlifting and off-campus initiatives,” she says. “There are always so many clubs and events available across the Institute.”

These opportunities to expand her worldview have challenged her beliefs and exposed her to new interest areas that have altered her life and career choices for the better. Lorvo, who is fluent in French, English, Spanish, and Portuguese, also applauds MIT for the international experiences it provides for students.

“I’ve interned in Santiago de Chile and Paris with MISTI and helped test a water vapor condensing chamber that we designed in a fall 2023 D-Lab class in collaboration with the Madagascar Polytechnic School and Tatirano NGO [nongovernmental organization],” she says, “and have enjoyed the opportunities to learn about addressing economic inequality through my International Development and D-Lab classes.”

As president of MIT’s Undergraduate Economics Association, Lorvo connects with other students interested in economics while continuing to expand her understanding of the field. She enjoys the relationships she’s building while also participating in the association’s events throughout the year. “Even as a senior, I’ve found new campus communities to explore and appreciate,” she says. “I encourage other students to continue exploring groups and classes that spark their interests throughout their time at MIT.”

After graduation, Lorvo wants to continue investigating AI safety and researching governance strategies that can help ensure AI’s safe and effective deployment.

“Good governance is essential to AI’s successful development and ensuring humanity can benefit from its transformative potential,” she says. “We must continue to monitor AI’s growth and capabilities as the technology continues to evolve.”

Understanding technology’s potential impacts on humanity, doing good, continually improving, and creating spaces where big ideas can see the light of day continue to drive Lorvo. Merging the humanities with the sciences animates much of what she does. “I always hoped to contribute to improving people’s lives, and AI represents humanity’s greatest challenge and opportunity yet,” she says. “I believe the AI safety field can benefit from people with interdisciplinary experiences like the kind I’ve been fortunate to gain, and I encourage anyone passionate about shaping the future to explore it.”

We’re taking a moment to reflect on the 2024 state legislative session and what it means for the future of digital rights at the state level. Informed by insights from the State of State Technology Policy 2024 report by NYU’s Center on Technology Policy and EFF’s own advocacy work in state legislatures, this blog breaks down the key issues (Privacy, Children’s Online Safety, Artificial Intelligence, Competition, Broadband and Net Neutrality, and Right to Repair), taking a look back at last year’s developments while also offering a preview of the challenges and trends we can expect in state-level tech policy in the years ahead. 

To jump ahead to a specific issue, you can click on the hyperlinks below: 

Privacy

Children’s Online Safety and Age Verification

Artificial Intelligence

Competition

Broadband and Net Neutrality

Right to Repair

Privacy

State privacy legislation saw notable developments in 2024, with Maryland adopting a stronger privacy law that includes enhanced protections, such as prohibiting targeted advertising to teens, requiring opt-in consent to process health data, and broadening the definition of sensitive data to include location data. This places Maryland’s law ahead of similar measures in other states. In total, seven states—Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Rhode Island—joined the ranks of states with comprehensive privacy laws last year, regulating the practices of private companies that collect, store, and process personal data. This expands on the 12 states that had already passed similar legislation in previous years (for a total of 19). Additionally, several of the laws passed in previous years went into effect in 2024.

In 2025, states are expected to continue enacting privacy laws based on the flawed Washington Privacy Act model, though states like Maryland have set a new standard. We still believe these bills must be stronger. States will likely also take the lead in pursuing issue-specific privacy laws covering genetic, biometric, location, and health data, filling gaps where federal action is unlikely (or likely to be weakened by business pressure).

Private Right of Action

A key issue in privacy regulation remains the debate over a private right of action (PRA), which is one of EFF’s main recommendations in comprehensive consumer privacy recommendations and would allow individuals to sue companies for privacy violations. Strong enforcement sits at the top of EFF’s recommendations for privacy bills for good reason. A report from the EPIC and the U.S. PIRG Education Fund highlighted that many state privacy laws provide minimal consumer protections largely due to the absence of private rights of action. Without a PRA, companies are often not held accountable for violations unless state or federal regulators take action, which is both slow and inconsistent. This leaves consumers vulnerable and powerless, unable to directly seek recourse for harm done to their privacy. Unless companies face serious consequences for violating our privacy, they’re unlikely to put our privacy ahead of their profits. 

While the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) includes a limited PRA in cases of a “personal information security breach” only, it is alarming that no new comprehensive laws passed in 2023 or 2024 included a PRA. This reluctance to support a PRA reveals how businesses resist the kind of accountability that would force them to be more transparent and responsible with consumer data. Vermont’s 2024 comprehensive consumer privacy bill proposed a PRA in their bill language. Unfortunately, that bill was vetoed by Gov. Phil Scott, demonstrating how powerful corporate interests can undermine consumer rights for the sake of their own convenience. 

Consumer Privacy and Government Records

Comprehensive consumer privacy legislation outlined above primarily focuses on regulating the practices of private companies that collect, store, and process personal data. However, these laws do not target the handling of personal information by government entities at the state and local levels. Strong legislation is essential for protecting data held by these public agencies, as government records can contain sensitive and comprehensive personal information. For example, local governments may store data on residents’ health records, criminal history, or education. This sensitive data, if mishandled or exposed, can lead to significant privacy breaches. A case in point is when local police departments share facial recognition or ALPR data, raising privacy concerns about unauthorized surveillance and misuse. As tensions rise between federal, state, and local governments, there will be greater focus on data sharing between these entities, increasing the likelihood of the introduction of new laws to protect that data.

A notable example of the need for such legislation is California’s Information Practices Act (IPA) of 1977, which sets privacy guidelines for state agencies. The IPA limits the collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information by California state agencies, including sensitive data such as medical records. However, the IPA excludes local governments from these privacy protections, meaning counties and municipalities— which also collect vast amounts of personal data—are not held to the same standards. This gap leaves many individuals without privacy safeguards at the local government level, highlighting the need for stronger and more inclusive privacy legislation that addresses the data practices of both state and local entities–even beyond California. 

Right to Delete and DELETE Act

Data brokers are a major issue when it comes to the irresponsible handling of our personal information. These companies gather vast amounts of personal data and sell it with minimal oversight, often including highly sensitive details like purchasing habits, financial records, social media activity, and precise location tracking. The unregulated trade of this information opens the door to scams, identity theft, and financial exploitation, as individuals become vulnerable to misuse of their private data. This is why EFF supported the California “DELETE Act” in 2023, which allows people to easily and efficiently make one request to delete their personal information held by all data brokers. The law went into effect in 2024, and the deletion mechanism is expected by January 2026—marking a significant step in consumer privacy rights. 

Consumers in 19 states have a right to request that companies delete information collected about them, and these states represent the growing trend to expand consumer rights regarding personal data. However, because a “right to delete” that exists in comprehensive privacy laws requires people to file requests with each individual data broker that may have their information, it can be an incredibly time-consuming and tedious process. Because of this, the California Delete Act’s “one-stop shop” is particularly notable in setting a precedent for other states. In fact, Nebraska has already introduced LB602 for the 2025 legislative session, modeled after California's law, further demonstrating the momentum for such legislation. We hope to see more states adopt similar laws, making it easier for consumers to protect their data and enforce their privacy rights.

Issue-specific Privacy Legislation

In 2024, several states passed issue-specific privacy laws addressing concerns around biometric data, genetic privacy, and health information. 

Regarding biometric privacy, Maryland, New York, Utah, and Virginia imposed restrictions on the use of biometric identifying technologies by law enforcement, with Maryland specifically limiting facial recognition technology in criminal proceedings to certain high-crime investigations and Utah requiring a court order for any police use of biometrics, unless a public safety threat is present. 

Conversely, states like Oklahoma and Florida expanded law enforcement use of biometric data, with Oklahoma mandating biometric data collection from undocumented immigrants, and Florida allocating nearly $12 million to enhance its biometric identification technology for police. 

In the realm of genetic information privacy, Alabama and Nebraska joined 11 other states by passing laws that require direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies to disclose their data policies and implement robust security measures. These companies must also obtain consumer consent if they intend to use genetic data for research or sell it to third parties.

Lastly, in response to concerns about the sharing of reproductive health data due to state abortion bans, several states introduced and passed location data privacy and health data privacy legislation, with more anticipated in 2025 due to heightened scrutiny over location data trackers and the evolving federal landscape surrounding reproductive rights and gender affirming care.  Among those, nineteen states have enacted shield laws to prohibit sensitive data from being disclosed for out-of-state legal proceedings involving reproductive health activities. 

State shield laws vary, but most prevent state officials, including law enforcement and courts, from assisting out-of-state investigations or prosecutions of protected healthcare activities. For example, a state judge may be prohibited from enforcing an out-of-state subpoena for abortion clinic location data, or local police could be barred from aiding the extradition of a doctor facing criminal charges for performing an abortion. In 2023, EFF supported A.B. 352, which extended the protections of California's health care data privacy law to apps such as period trackers. Washington also passed the "My Health, My Data Act" that year, (H.B. 1155), which among other protections, prohibits the collection of health data without consent. 

Children’s Online Safety and Age Verification

Children’s online safety emerged as a key priority for state legislatures in the last few years, with significant variations in approach between states. In 2024, some states adopted age verification laws for both social media platforms and “adult content” sites, while others concentrated on imposing design restrictions on platforms and data privacy protections. For example, California and New York both enacted laws restricting "addictive feeds,” while Florida, Mississippi, and Tennessee enacted new age verification laws to regulate young people’s access to social media and access to “sexual” content online. Every statute 

None of the three states have implemented their age verification for social media laws, however. Courts blocked Mississippi and Tennessee from enforcing their laws, while Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, known for aggressive enforcement of controversial laws, has chosen not to enforce the social media age verification part of the bill. She’s also asked the court to pause the lawsuit against the Florida law until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Texas's age verification law, which only covers the “sexual content” provisions, and does not include the provisions on social media age checks.

In 2025, we hope to see a continued trend to strengthen privacy protections for young people (and adults alike). Unfortunately, we also expect state legislatures to continue refining and expanding age verification and "addictive platform” regulation for social media platforms, as well as so-called “materials harmful to minors,” with ongoing legal challenges shaping the landscape. 

Targeted Advertising and Children 

In response to the growing concerns over data privacy and advertising, Louisiana banned the practice of targeting of ads to minors. Seven other states also enacted comprehensive privacy laws requiring platforms to obtain explicit consent from minors before collecting or processing their data. Colorado, Maryland, New York, and Virginia went further, extending existing privacy protections with stricter rules on data minimization and requiring impact assessments for heightened risks to children's data. 

Artificial Intelligence

2024 marked a major milestone in AI regulation, with Colorado becoming the first state to pass what many regard as comprehensive AI legislation. The law requires both developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems to implement impact assessments and risk management frameworks to protect consumers from algorithmic discrimination. Other states, such as Texas, Connecticut, and Virginia, have already begun to follow suit in the 2025 legislative session, and lawmakers in many states are discussing similar bills.

However, not all AI-related legislation has been met with consensus. One of the most controversial has been California’s S.B. 1047, which aimed to regulate AI models that might have "catastrophic" effects. While EFF supported some aspects of the bill—like the creation of a public cloud-computing cluster (CalCompute)—we were concerned that it focused too heavily on speculative, long-term catastrophic outcomes, such as machines going rogue, instead of addressing the immediate, real-world harms posed by AI systems. We believe lawmakers should focus on creating regulations that address actual, present-day risks posed by AI, rather than speculative fears of future catastrophe. After a national debate over the bill, Gov. Newsom vetoed it. Sen. Weiner has already refiled the bill.

States also continued to pass narrower AI laws targeting non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and political deepfakes during the 2024 legislative session. Given that it was an election year, the debate over the use of AI to manipulate political campaigns also escalated. Fifteen states now require political advertisers to disclose the use of generative AI in ads, with some, like California and Mississippi, going further by banning deceptive uses of AI in political ads. Legal challenges, including one in California, will likely continue to shape the future of AI regulations in political discourse.

More states are expected to introduce and debate comprehensive AI legislation based on Colorado’s model this year, as well as narrower AI bills, especially on issues like NCII deepfakes, and AI-generated CSAM. The legal and regulatory landscape for AI in political ads will continue to evolve, with further lawsuits and potential new legislation expected in 2025.

Lastly, it’s also important to recognize that states and local governments themselves are major technology users. Their procurement and use of emerging technologies, such as AI and facial recognition, is itself a form of tech policy. As such, we can expect states to introduce legislation around the adoption of these technologies by government agencies, likely focusing on setting clear standards and ensuring transparency in how these technologies are deployed. 

Competition

On the competition front, several states, including New York and California, made efforts to strengthen antitrust laws and tackle monopolistic practices in Big Tech. While progress was slow, New York's Twenty-First Century Antitrust Act aimed to create a stricter antitrust framework, and the California Law Revision Commission’s ongoing review of the Cartwright Act could lead to modernized recommendations in 2025. Delaware also passed SB 296, which amends the state’s antitrust law to allow a private right of action. 

Despite the shifts in federal enforcement, bipartisan concerns about the influence of tech companies will likely ensure that state-level antitrust efforts continue to play a critical role in regulating corporate power.

Broadband and Net Neutrality

As federal efforts to regulate broadband and net neutrality have stalled, many states have taken matters into their own hands. California, Washington, Oregon, and Vermont have already passed state-level net neutrality laws aimed at preventing internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing certain content or services for financial gain. With the growing frustration over the federal government’s inaction on net neutrality, more states are likely to carry the baton in 2025. 

States will continue to play an increasingly critical role in protecting consumers' online freedoms and ensuring that broadband access remains affordable and equitable. This is especially true as more communities push for expanded broadband access and better infrastructure.

Right to Repair

Another key tech issue gaining traction in state legislatures is the Right to Repair. In 2024, California and Minnesota’s Right-to-Repair legislation went into effect, granting consumers the right to repair their electronics and devices independently or through third-party repair services. These laws require manufacturers of devices like smartphones, laptops, and other electronics to provide repair parts, tools, and manuals to consumers and repair shops. Oregon and Colorado also passed similar legislation in 2024.

States will likely continue to pass right-to-repair legislation in 2025, with advocates expecting between 25 to 30 bills to be introduced across the country. These bills will likely expand on existing laws to include more products, from wheelchairs to home appliances and agricultural equipment. As public awareness of the benefits of the Right to Repair grows, legislators will be under increasing pressure to support consumer rights, promote environmental sustainability, and combat planned obsolescence.

Looking Ahead to the Future of State-Level Digital Rights

As we reflect on the 2024 state legislative session and look forward to the challenges and opportunities of 2025, it’s clear that state lawmakers will continue to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of digital rights. From privacy protections to AI regulation, broadband access, and the right to repair, state-level policies are crucial to safeguarding consumer rights, promoting fairness, and fostering innovation.

As we enter the 2025 legislative session, it’s vital that we continue to push for stronger policies that empower consumers and protect their digital rights. The future of digital rights depends on the actions we take today. Whether it’s expanding privacy protections, ensuring fair competition, or passing comprehensive right-to-repair laws, now is the time to push for change.

Join us in holding your state lawmakers accountable and pushing for policies that ensure digital rights for all.