Expertise isn’t easy to pass down. Take riding a bike: A seasoned cyclist might talk a beginner through the basics of how to sit and when to push off. But other skills, like how hard to pedal to keep balanced, are more intuitive and harder to articulate. This implicit know-how is known as tacit knowledge, and very often, it can only be learned with experience and time.

But a team of MIT engineers wondered: Could an expert’s unconscious know-how be accessed, and even taught, to quickly bring a novice up to an expert’s level?

The answer appears to be “yes,” at least for a particular type of visual-learning task.

In a study published today in the Journal of Neural Engineering, the engineers identified tacit knowledge in volunteers who were tasked with classifying images of various shapes and patterns. As the volunteers were shown images to organize, the team recorded their eye movements and brain activity to measure their visual focus and cognitive attention, respectively.

The measurements showed that, over time, the volunteers shifted their focus and attention to a part of each image that made it easier to classify. However, when asked directly, the volunteers were not aware that they had made such a shift. The researchers concluded that this unconscious shift in attention and focus was a form of tacit knowledge that the volunteers possessed, even if they could not articulate it. What’s more, when the volunteers were made aware of this tacit knowledge, their accuracy in classifying images improved significantly.

The study is the first to directly show that visual attention can reveal unconscious, tacit knowledge during image classification tasks. It also finds for the first time that bringing this concealed knowledge to the surface can enhance experts’ performance.

While the results are specific to the study’s experiment, the researchers say they suggest that some forms of hidden know-how can be made explicit and applied to boost one’s learning experience. They suspect that tacit knowledge could be accessed for disciplines that require keen observation skills, including certain physical trades and crafts, sports, and image analysis, such as medical X-ray diagnoses.

“We as humans have a lot of knowledge, some that is explicit that we can translate into books, encyclopedias, manuals, equations. The tacit knowledge is what we cannot verbalize, that’s hidden in our unconscious,” says study author Alex Armengol-Urpi, a research scientist in MIT’s Department of Mechanical Engineering. “If we can make that knowledge explicit, we can then allow for it to be transferred easier, which can help in education and learning in general.”

The study’s co-authors include Andrés F. Salazar-Gomez, research scientist at the MIT Media Lab; Pawan Sinha, professor of vision and computational neuroscience in MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences; and Sanjay Sarma, the Fred Fort Flowers (1941) and Daniel Fort Flowers (1941) Professor in Mechanical Engineering.

Hidden gaze

The concept of tacit knowledge is credited to the scientist and philosopher Michael Polyani, who in the mid 20th century was the first to investigate the notion that “we know more than we can tell.” His insights revealed that humans can hold a form of knowledge that is internalized, almost second nature, and often difficult to express or translate to others.

Since Polyani’s work, many studies have highlighted how tacit knowledge may play a part in perfecting certain skills, spanning everything from diagnosing medical images to discerning the sex of cats from images of their faces.

For Armengol-Urpi, these studies raised a question: Could a person’s tacit knowledge be revealed through unconscious signals, such as patterns in their eye movements? His PhD work focused on visual attention, and he had developed methods to study how humans focus their attention, by using cameras to follow the direction of their gaze, and electroencephalography (EEG) monitors to record their brain activity. In his research, he learned of a previous study that used similar methods to investigate how radiologists diagnose nodules in X-ray images. That study showed that the doctors unconsciously focused on areas of an image that helped them to correctly detect the nodules.

“That paper didn’t focus on tacit knowledge, but it suggested that there are some hidden clues in our gaze that could be explored further,” Armengol-Urpi says.

The shape of knowledge

For their new study, the team looked at whether they could identify signs of tacit knowledge from measurements of visual focus and attention. In their experiment, they asked 30 volunteers to look sequentially at over 120 images. They could look at each image for several seconds and then were asked to classify the image as belonging to either group A, or group B, before they were shown the next image.

Each image contained two simple shapes on either side of the image — a square, a triangle, a circle, and any combination of the three, along with different colors and patterns for each shape. The researchers designed the images such that they should be classified into one of two groups, based on an intricate combination of shape, color, and pattern. Importantly, only one side of each image was relevant for the classification.

The volunteers, however, were given no guidelines on how to classify the images. Therefore, for about the first half of the experiment, they were considered “novices,” and more or less guessed at their classifications. Over time, and many more images, their accuracy improved to a level that the researchers considered “expert.” Throughout the experiment, the team used cameras to follow each participant’s eye movements, as a measure of visual focus.

They also outfitted volunteers with EEG sensors to record their brain waves, which they used as a measure of cognitive attention. They designed each image to show two shapes, each of which flickered at different, imperceptible frequencies. They found they could identify where a volunteer’s attention landed, based on which shape’s flicker their brain waves synced up with.

For each volunteer, the team created maps of where their gaze and attention were focused, both during their novice and expert phases. Overall, these maps showed that in the beginning, the volunteers focused on all parts of an image as they tried to make sense of how to classify it. Toward the end, as they got a grasp of the exercise and improved their accuracy, their attention shifted to just one side of each image. This side happened to be the side that the researchers designed to be most relevant, while the other side was just random noise.

The maps showed that the volunteers picked up some knowledge of how to accurately classify the images. But when they were given a survey and asked to articulate how they learned the task, they always maintained that they focused on each entire image. It seemed their actual shift in focus was an unconscious, tacit skill.

“They were unconsciously focusing their attention on the part of the image that was actually informative,” Armengol-Urpi says. “So the tacit knowledge they had was hidden inside them.”

Going a step further, the team then showed each participant the maps of their gaze and attention, and how the maps changed from their novice to expert phases. When they were then shown additional images, the volunteers seemed to use this once-tacit knowledge, and further improved their classification accuracy.

“We are currently extending this approach to other domains where tacit knowledge plays a central role,” says Armengol-Urpi, who is exploring tacit knowledge in skilled crafts and sports such as glassblowing and table tennis, as well as in diagnosing medical imaging. “We believe the underlying principle — capturing and reinforcing implicit expertise through physiological signals — can generalize to a wide range of perceptual and skill-based domains.”

This research was supported, in part, by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company.

Many engineering challenges come down to the same headache — too many knobs to turn and too few chances to test them. Whether tuning a power grid or designing a safer vehicle, each evaluation can be costly, and there may be hundreds of variables that could matter.

Consider car safety design. Engineers must integrate thousands of parts, and many design choices can affect how a vehicle performs in a collision. Classic optimization tools could start to struggle when searching for the best combination.

MIT researchers developed a new approach that rethinks how a classic method, known as Bayesian optimization, can be used to solve problems with hundreds of variables. In tests on realistic engineering-style benchmarks, like power-system optimization, the approach found top solutions 10 to 100 times faster than widely used methods.

Their technique leverages a foundation model trained on tabular data that automatically identifies the variables that matter most for improving performance, repeating the process to hone in on better and better solutions. Foundation models are huge artificial intelligence systems trained on vast, general datasets. This allows them to adapt to different applications.

The researchers’ tabular foundation model does not need to be constantly retrained as it works toward a solution, increasing the efficiency of the optimization process. The technique also delivers greater speedups for more complicated problems, so it could be especially useful in demanding applications like materials development or drug discovery.

“Modern AI and machine-learning models can fundamentally change the way engineers and scientists create complex systems. We came up with one algorithm that can not only solve high-dimensional problems, but is also reusable so it can be applied to many problems without the need to start everything from scratch,” says Rosen Yu, a graduate student in computational science and engineering and lead author of a paper on this technique.

Yu is joined on the paper by Cyril Picard, a former MIT postdoc and research scientist, and Faez Ahmed, associate professor of mechanical engineering and a core member of the MIT Center for Computational Science and Engineering. The research will be presented at the International Conference on Learning Representations.

Improving a proven method

When scientists seek to solve a multifaceted problem but have expensive methods to evaluate success, like crash testing a car to know how good each design is, they often use a tried-and-true method called Bayesian optimization. This iterative method finds the best configuration for a complicated system by building a surrogate model that helps estimate what to explore next while considering the uncertainty of its predictions.

But the surrogate model must be retrained after each iteration, which can quickly become computationally intractable when the space of potential solutions is very large. In addition, scientists need to build a new model from scratch any time they want to tackle a different scenario.

To address both shortcomings, the MIT researchers utilized a generative AI system known as a tabular foundation model as the surrogate model inside a Bayesian optimization algorithm.

“A tabular foundation model is like a ChatGPT for spreadsheets. The input and output of these models are tabular data, which in the engineering domain is much more common to see and use than language,” Yu says.

Just like large language models such as ChatGPT,  Claude, and Gemini, the model has been pre-trained on an enormous amount of tabular data. This makes it well-equipped to tackle a range of prediction problems. In addition, the model can be deployed as-is, without the need for any retraining.

To make their system more accurate and efficient for optimization, the researchers employed a trick that enables the model to identify features of the design space that will have the biggest impact on the solution.

“A car might have 300 design criteria, but not all of them are the main driver of the best design if you are trying to increase some safety parameters. Our algorithm can smartly select the most critical features to focus on,” Yu says.

It does this by using a tabular foundation model to estimate which variables (or combinations of variables) most influence the outcome.

It then focuses the search on those high-impact variables instead of wasting time exploring everything equally. For instance, if the size of the front crumple zone significantly increased and the car’s safety rating improved, that feature likely played a role in the enhancement.

Bigger problems, better solutions

One of their biggest challenges was finding the best tabular foundation model for this task, Yu says. Then they had to connect it with a Bayesian optimization algorithm in such a way that it could identify the most prominent design features.

“Finding the most prominent dimension is a well-known problem in math and computer science, but coming up with a way that leveraged the properties of a tabular foundation model was a real challenge,” Yu says.

With the algorithmic framework in place, the researchers tested their method by comparing it to five state-of-the-art optimization algorithms.

On 60 benchmark problems, including realistic situations like power grid design and car crash testing, their method consistently found the best solution between 10 and 100 times faster than the other algorithms.

“When an optimization problem gets more and more dimensions, our algorithm really shines,” Yu added.

But their method did not outperform the baselines on all problems, such as robotic path planning. This likely indicates that scenario was not well-defined in the model’s training data, Yu says.

In the future, the researchers want to study methods that could boost the performance of tabular foundation models. They also want to apply their technique to problems with thousands or even millions of dimensions, like the design of a naval ship.

“At a higher level, this work points to a broader shift: using foundation models not just for perception or language, but as algorithmic engines inside scientific and engineering tools, allowing classical methods like Bayesian optimization to scale to regimes that were previously impractical,” says Ahmed.

“The approach presented in this work, using a pretrained foundation model together with high‑dimensional Bayesian optimization, is a creative and promising way to reduce the heavy data requirements of simulation‑based design. Overall, this work is a practical and powerful step toward making advanced design optimization more accessible and easier to apply in real-world settings,” says Wei Chen, the Wilson-Cook Professor in Engineering Design and chair of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Northwestern University, who was not involved in this research.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 04 March 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02576-2

Despite strong evidence that Indigenous stewardship sustains biodiversity and carbon stocks, carbon markets typically reward recovery from degradation rather than protection, often excluding Indigenous-managed lands. Rethinking additionality could align climate mitigation with care, equity and long-term ecosystem stewardship.

EFF, along with the national ACLU and the ACLU affiliates in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey, filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit urging the court to require a warrant for border searches of electronic devices, an argument EFF has been making in the courts and Congress for nearly a decade.

The case, U.S. v. Roggio, involves a man who had been under ongoing criminal investigation for illegal exports when he returned to the United States from an international trip via JFK airport. Border officers used the opportunity to bypass the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement when they seized several of his electronic devices (laptop, tablet, cell phone, and flash drive) and conducted forensic searches of them. As the district court explained, “investigative agents had a case coordination meeting and border search authority was discussed in early January 2017,” before Mr. Roggio traveled internationally in February 2017.

The district court denied Mr. Roggio’s motion to suppress the emails and other data obtained from the warrantless searches of his devices. He was subsequently convicted of illegally exporting gun manufacturing parts to Iraq (he was also charged in a superseding indictment with torture and also convicted of that).

The number of warrantless device searches at the border and the significant invasion of privacy they represent is only increasing. In Fiscal Year 2025, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) conducted 55,318 device searches, both manual (“basic”) and forensic (“advanced”).

While a manual search involves a border officer tapping or mousing around a device, a forensic search involves connecting another device to the traveler’s device and using software to extract and analyze the data to create a detailed report the device owner’s activities and communications. Border officers have access to forensic tools that help gain access to data on a locked or encrypted device they have physical access to. From public reporting, we know that more recent devices (and ones that have had the latest security updates applied) are more resistant to these type of tools, especially if they are turned off or turned on but not yet unlocked.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized for a century a border search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, allowing not only warrantless but also often suspicionless “routine” searches of luggage, vehicles, and other items crossing the border.

The primary justification for the border search exception has been to find—in the items being searched—goods smuggled to avoid paying duties (i.e., taxes) and contraband such as drugs, weapons, and other prohibited items, thereby blocking their entry into the country. But a traveler’s privacy interests in their suitcase and its contents are minimal compared to those in all the personal data on the person’s phone or laptop.

In our amicus brief, we argue that the U.S. Supreme Court’s balancing test in Riley v. California (2014) should govern the analysis here. In that case, the Court weighed the government’s interests in warrantless and suspicionless access to cell phone data following an arrest against an arrestee’s privacy interests in the depth and breadth of personal information stored on a cell phone. The Court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest warrant exception does not apply, and that police need to get a warrant to search an arrestee’s phone.

Travelers’ privacy interests in their cell phones, laptops and other electronic devices are, of course, the same as those considered in Riley. Modern devices, over a decade later, contain even more data that together reveal the most personal aspects of our lives, including political affiliations, religious beliefs and practices, sexual and romantic affinities, financial status, health conditions, and family and professional associations.

In considering the government’s interests in warrantless access to digital data at the border, Riley requires analyzing how closely such searches hew to the original purpose of the warrant exception—preventing the entry of prohibited goods themselves via the items being searched. We argue that the government’s interests are weak in seeking unfettered access to travelers’ electronic devices.

First, physical contraband (like drugs) can’t be found in digital data.

Second, digital contraband (such as child sexual abuse material) can’t be prevented from entering the country through a warrantless search of a device at the border because it’s likely, given the nature of cloud technology and how internet-connected devices work, that identical copies of the files are already in the country on servers accessible via the internet.

Finally, searching devices for evidence of contraband smuggling (for example, the emails here revealing details of the illegal import scheme) and other evidence for general law enforcement (i.e., investigating non-border-related domestic crimes) are too “untethered” from the original purpose of the border search exception, which is to find prohibited items themselves and not evidence to support a criminal prosecution. Therefore, emails or other data found on a digital device searched without a warrant at the border cannot and should not be used as evidence in court.

If the Third Circuit is not inclined to require a warrant for electronic device searches at the border, we also argue that such a search—whether manual or forensic—should be justified only by reasonable suspicion that the device contains digital contraband and be limited in scope to looking for digital contraband.

This extends the Ninth Circuit’s rule from U.S. v. Cano (2019) in which the court held that only forensic device searches at the border require reasonable suspicion that the device contains digital contraband—that is, some set of already known facts pointing to this possibility—while manual searches may be conducted without suspicion. But the Cano court also held that all searches must be limited in scope to looking for digital contraband (for example, call logs are off limits because they can’t contain digital contraband in the form of photos or files).

We hope that the Third Circuit will rise to the occasion and be the first circuit to fully protect travelers’ Fourth Amendment rights at the border.

EFF, along with the national ACLU and the ACLU affiliates in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey, filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit urging the court to require a warrant for border searches of electronic devices, an argument EFF has been making in the courts and Congress for nearly a decade.

The case, U.S. v. Roggio, involves a man who had been under ongoing criminal investigation for illegal exports when he returned to the United States from an international trip via JFK airport. Border officers used the opportunity to bypass the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement when they seized several of his electronic devices (laptop, tablet, cell phone, and flash drive) and conducted forensic searches of them. As the district court explained, “investigative agents had a case coordination meeting and border search authority was discussed in early January 2017,” before Mr. Roggio traveled internationally in February 2017.

The district court denied Mr. Roggio’s motion to suppress the emails and other data obtained from the warrantless searches of his devices. He was subsequently convicted of illegally exporting gun manufacturing parts to Iraq (he was also charged in a superseding indictment with torture and also convicted of that).

The number of warrantless device searches at the border and the significant invasion of privacy they represent is only increasing. In Fiscal Year 2025, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) conducted 55,318 device searches, both manual (“basic”) and forensic (“advanced”).

While a manual search involves a border officer tapping or mousing around a device, a forensic search involves connecting another device to the traveler’s device and using software to extract and analyze the data to create a detailed report the device owner’s activities and communications. Border officers have access to forensic tools that help gain access to data on a locked or encrypted device they have physical access to. From public reporting, we know that more recent devices (and ones that have had the latest security updates applied) are more resistant to these type of tools, especially if they are turned off or turned on but not yet unlocked.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized for a century a border search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, allowing not only warrantless but also often suspicionless “routine” searches of luggage, vehicles, and other items crossing the border.

The primary justification for the border search exception has been to find—in the items being searched—goods smuggled to avoid paying duties (i.e., taxes) and contraband such as drugs, weapons, and other prohibited items, thereby blocking their entry into the country. But a traveler’s privacy interests in their suitcase and its contents are minimal compared to those in all the personal data on the person’s phone or laptop.

In our amicus brief, we argue that the U.S. Supreme Court’s balancing test in Riley v. California (2014) should govern the analysis here. In that case, the Court weighed the government’s interests in warrantless and suspicionless access to cell phone data following an arrest against an arrestee’s privacy interests in the depth and breadth of personal information stored on a cell phone. The Court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest warrant exception does not apply, and that police need to get a warrant to search an arrestee’s phone.

Travelers’ privacy interests in their cell phones, laptops and other electronic devices are, of course, the same as those considered in Riley. Modern devices, over a decade later, contain even more data that together reveal the most personal aspects of our lives, including political affiliations, religious beliefs and practices, sexual and romantic affinities, financial status, health conditions, and family and professional associations.

In considering the government’s interests in warrantless access to digital data at the border, Riley requires analyzing how closely such searches hew to the original purpose of the warrant exception—preventing the entry of prohibited goods themselves via the items being searched. We argue that the government’s interests are weak in seeking unfettered access to travelers’ electronic devices.

First, physical contraband (like drugs) can’t be found in digital data.

Second, digital contraband (such as child sexual abuse material) can’t be prevented from entering the country through a warrantless search of a device at the border because it’s likely, given the nature of cloud technology and how internet-connected devices work, that identical copies of the files are already in the country on servers accessible via the internet.

Finally, searching devices for evidence of contraband smuggling (for example, the emails here revealing details of the illegal import scheme) and other evidence for general law enforcement (i.e., investigating non-border-related domestic crimes) are too “untethered” from the original purpose of the border search exception, which is to find prohibited items themselves and not evidence to support a criminal prosecution. Therefore, emails or other data found on a digital device searched without a warrant at the border cannot and should not be used as evidence in court.

If the Third Circuit is not inclined to require a warrant for electronic device searches at the border, we also argue that such a search—whether manual or forensic—should be justified only by reasonable suspicion that the device contains digital contraband and be limited in scope to looking for digital contraband.

This extends the Ninth Circuit’s rule from U.S. v. Cano (2019) in which the court held that only forensic device searches at the border require reasonable suspicion that the device contains digital contraband—that is, some set of already known facts pointing to this possibility—while manual searches may be conducted without suspicion. But the Cano court also held that all searches must be limited in scope to looking for digital contraband (for example, call logs are off limits because they can’t contain digital contraband in the form of photos or files).

We hope that the Third Circuit will rise to the occasion and be the first circuit to fully protect travelers’ Fourth Amendment rights at the border.

The U.S. military has officially ended its $200 million contract with AI company Anthropic and has ordered all other military contractors to cease use of their products. Why? Because of a dispute over what the government could and could not use Anthropic’s technology to do. Anthropic had made it clear since it first signed the contract with the Pentagon in 2025 that it did not want its technology to be used for mass surveillance of people in the United States or for fully autonomous weapons systems. Starting in January, that became a problem for the Department of Defense, which ordered Anthropic to give them unrestricted use of the technology. Anthropic refused, and the DoD retaliated.

There is a lot we could learn from this conflict, but the biggest take away is this: the state of your privacy is being decided by contract negotiations between giant tech companies and the U.S. government—two entities with spotty track records for caring about your civil liberties. It’s good when CEOs step up and do the right thing—but it's not a sustainable or reliable solution to build our rights on. Given the government’s loose interpretations of the law, ability to find loopholes to surveil you, and willingness to do illegal spying, we needs serious and proactive legal restrictions to prevent it from gobbling up all the personally data it can acquire and using even routine bureaucratic data for punitive ends.

Imposing and enforcing such those restrictions is properly a role for Congress and the courts, not the private sector. 

The companies know this. When speaking about the specific risk that AI poses to privacy, the CEO of Anthropic Dario Amodei said in an interview, “I actually do believe it is Congress’s job. If, for example, there are possibilities with domestic mass surveillance—the government buying of bulk data has been produced on Americans, locations, personal information, political affiliations, to build profiles, and it’s not possible to analyze all of that with AI—the fact that that is legal—that seems like the judicial interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has not caught up or the laws passed by Congress have not caught up.” 

The example he cites here is a scarily realistic one—because it’s already happening. Customs and Border Protection has tapped into the online advertising world to buy data on Americans for surveillance purposes. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been using a tool that maps millions of peoples’ devices based on purchased cell phone data. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has proposed a centralized data broker marketplace to make it easier for intelligence agencies to buy commercially available data. Considering the government’s massive contracts with a bunch of companies that could do analysis, including Palantir, a company which does AI-enabled analysis of huge amounts of data, then the concerns are incredibly well founded. 

But Congress is sadly neglecting its duties. For example, a bill that would close the loophole of the government buying personal information passed the House of Representatives in 2024, but the Senate stopped it.  And because Congress did not act, Americans must rely on a tech company CEO has to try to protect our privacy—or at least refuse to help the government violate it.

Privacy in the digital age should be an easy bipartisan issue. Given that it’s wildly popular (71% of American adults are concerned about the government's use of their data and among adults that have heard of AI 70% have little to no trust in how companies use those products) you would think politicians would be leaping over each other to create the best legislation and companies would be promising us the most high-end privacy protecting features. Instead, for the time being, we are largely left adrift in a sea of constant surveillance, having to paddle our own life rafts.

EFF has, and always will, fight for real and sustainable protections for our civil liberties including  a world where our privacy does not rest upon the whims of CEOs and back room deals with the surveillance state. 

The U.S. military has officially ended its $200 million contract with AI company Anthropic and has ordered all other military contractors to cease use of their products. Why? Because of a dispute over what the government could and could not use Anthropic’s technology to do. Anthropic had made it clear since it first signed the contract with the Pentagon in 2025 that it did not want its technology to be used for mass surveillance of people in the United States or for fully autonomous weapons systems. Starting in January, that became a problem for the Department of Defense, which ordered Anthropic to give them unrestricted use of the technology. Anthropic refused, and the DoD retaliated.

There is a lot we could learn from this conflict, but the biggest take away is this: the state of your privacy is being decided by contract negotiations between giant tech companies and the U.S. government—two entities with spotty track records for caring about your civil liberties. It’s good when CEOs step up and do the right thing—but it's not a sustainable or reliable solution to build our rights on. Given the government’s loose interpretations of the law, ability to find loopholes to surveil you, and willingness to do illegal spying, we needs serious and proactive legal restrictions to prevent it from gobbling up all the personally data it can acquire and using even routine bureaucratic data for punitive ends.

Imposing and enforcing such those restrictions is properly a role for Congress and the courts, not the private sector. 

The companies know this. When speaking about the specific risk that AI poses to privacy, the CEO of Anthropic Dario Amodei said in an interview, “I actually do believe it is Congress’s job. If, for example, there are possibilities with domestic mass surveillance—the government buying of bulk data has been produced on Americans, locations, personal information, political affiliations, to build profiles, and it’s not possible to analyze all of that with AI—the fact that that is legal—that seems like the judicial interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has not caught up or the laws passed by Congress have not caught up.” 

The example he cites here is a scarily realistic one—because it’s already happening. Customs and Border Protection has tapped into the online advertising world to buy data on Americans for surveillance purposes. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been using a tool that maps millions of peoples’ devices based on purchased cell phone data. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has proposed a centralized data broker marketplace to make it easier for intelligence agencies to buy commercially available data. Considering the government’s massive contracts with a bunch of companies that could do analysis, including Palantir, a company which does AI-enabled analysis of huge amounts of data, then the concerns are incredibly well founded. 

But Congress is sadly neglecting its duties. For example, a bill that would close the loophole of the government buying personal information passed the House of Representatives in 2024, but the Senate stopped it.  And because Congress did not act, Americans must rely on a tech company CEO has to try to protect our privacy—or at least refuse to help the government violate it.

Privacy in the digital age should be an easy bipartisan issue. Given that it’s wildly popular (71% of American adults are concerned about the government's use of their data and among adults that have heard of AI 70% have little to no trust in how companies use those products) you would think politicians would be leaping over each other to create the best legislation and companies would be promising us the most high-end privacy protecting features. Instead, for the time being, we are largely left adrift in a sea of constant surveillance, having to paddle our own life rafts.

EFF has, and always will, fight for real and sustainable protections for our civil liberties including  a world where our privacy does not rest upon the whims of CEOs and back room deals with the surveillance state. 

More than 10,000 Americans who suffer from chronic liver disease are on a waitlist for a liver transplant, but there are not enough donated organs for all of those patients. Additionally, many people with liver failure aren’t eligible for a transplant if they are not healthy enough to tolerate the surgery.

To help those patients, MIT engineers have developed “mini livers” that could be injected into the body and take over the functions of the failing liver.

In a new study in mice, the researchers showed that these injected liver cells could remain viable in the body for at least two months, and they were able to generate many of the enzymes and other proteins that the liver produces.

“We think of these as satellite livers. If we could deliver these cells into the body, while leaving the sick organ in place, that would provide booster function,” says Sangeeta Bhatia, the John and Dorothy Wilson Professor of Health Sciences and Technology and of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT, and a member of MIT’s Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research and the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science (IMES).

Bhatia is the senior author of the new study, which appears today in the journal Cell Biomaterials. MIT postdoc Vardhman Kumar is the paper’s lead author.

Restoring liver function

The human liver plays a role in about 500 essential functions, including regulation of blood clotting, removing bacteria from the bloodstream, and metabolizing drugs. Most of these functions are performed by cells called hepatocytes.

Over the past decade, Bhatia’s lab has been working on ways to restore hepatocyte function without a surgical liver transplant. One possible approach is to embed hepatocytes into a biomaterial such as a hydrogel, but these gels also have to be surgically implanted.

Another option is to inject hepatocytes into the body, which eliminates the need for surgery. In this study, Bhatia’s lab sought to improve on this strategy by providing an engineered niche that could enhance the cells’ survival and facilitate noninvasive monitoring of graft health.

To achieve that, the researchers came up with the idea of injecting cells along with hydrogel microspheres that would help them stay together and form connections with nearby blood vessels. These spheres have special properties that allow them to act like a liquid when they are closely packed together, so they can be injected through a syringe and then regain their solid structure once inside the body.

In recent years, researchers have explored using hydrogel microspheres to promote wound healing, as they help cells to migrate into the spaces between the spheres and build new tissue. In the new study, the MIT team adapted them to help hepatocytes form a stable tissue graft after injection.

“What we did is use this technology to create an engineered niche for cell transplantation,” Kumar says. “If the cells are injected in the absence of these spheres, they would not integrate efficiently with the host, but these microspheres provide the hepatocytes with a niche where they can stay localized and become connected to the host circulation much faster.”

The injected mixture also includes fibroblast cells — supportive cells that help the hepatocytes survive and promote the growth of blood vessels into the tissue.

Working with Nicole Henning, an ultrasound research specialist at the Koch Institute, the researchers developed a way to inject the cell mixture using a syringe guided by ultrasound. After injection, the researchers can also use ultrasound to monitor the long-term stability of the implant.

In this study, the mini livers were injected into the fat tissue in the belly. In the future, similar grafts could be delivered to other sites in the body, such as into the spleen or near the kidneys. As long as they have enough space and access to blood vessels, the injected hepatocytes can function similarly to hepatocytes in the liver.

“For a vast majority of liver disorders, the graft does not need to sit close to the liver,” Kumar says.

An alternative to transplantation

In tests in mice, the researchers injected the mixture of liver cells and microspheres into an area of fatty tissue known as the perigonadal adipose tissue. Once the cells are localized in the body, they form a stable, compact structure. Over time, blood vessels begin to grow into the graft area, helping the injected hepatocytes to stay healthy.

“The new blood vessels formed right next to the hepatocytes, which is why they were able to survive,” Kumar says. “They were able to get the nutrients delivered right to them, they were able to function the way they're supposed to, and they produced the proteins that we expect them to.”

After injection, the cells remained viable and able to secrete specialized proteins into the host circulation for eight weeks, the length of the study. That suggests that the therapy could potentially work as a long-term treatment for liver disease, the researchers say.

“The way we see this technology is it can provide an alternative to surgery, but it can also serve as a bridge to transplantation where these grafts can provide support until a donor organ becomes available,” Kumar says. “And if we think they might need another therapy or more grafts, the barriers to do that are much less with this injectable technology than undergoing another surgery.”

With the current version of this technology, patients would likely need to take immunosuppressive drugs, but the researchers are exploring the possibility of developing “stealthy” hepatocytes that could evade the immune system, or using the hydrogel microspheres to deliver immunosuppressants locally.

The research was funded by the Koch Institute Support (core) grant from the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Leap HOPE Program, a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Digital Dragnets Violate Fourth Amendment, Brief Argues

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Virginia, and the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law filed a brief Monday urging the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that invasive geofence warrants are unconstitutional.

The brief argues that geofence warrants—which compel companies to provide information on every electronic device in a given area during a given time period—are the digital version of the exploratory rummaging that the drafters of the Fourth Amendment specifically intended to prevent. 

Unlike typical warrants, geofence warrants do not name a suspect or even target a specific individual or device. Instead, police cast a digital dragnet, demanding location data on every device in a geographic area during a certain time period, regardless of whether the device owner has any connection to the crime under investigation. These searches simultaneously impact the privacy of millions and turn innocent bystanders into suspects, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The Supreme Court agreed earlier this year to hear Chatrie v. United States, in which a 2019 geofence warrant  compelled Google to search the accounts of all its hundreds of millions of users to see if any one of them was within a radius police drew around a Northern Virginia crime scene. This area amounted to several football fields in size and encompassed numerous homes, businesses, and a church. In an amicus brief filed Monday, the brief argues that allowing this sweeping power to go unchecked is inconsistent with the basic freedoms of a democratic society. 

"This is not traditional police work, but rather the leveraging of new and powerful technology to claim a novel and formidable power over the people," the brief states. "By their very nature, geofence searches turn innocent bystanders into suspects and leverage even purportedly limited searches into larger dragnets, causing intrusions at a scale far beyond those held unconstitutional in the physical world." 

The brief also cautioned the Court not to authorize future geofence warrants based on the facts of the Chatrie case, which reflect how such searches were conducted in 2019. Since July 2025, mass geofence searches of Google users’ location data have not been possible. However, Google is not the only company collecting location data, nor the only way for police to access mass amounts of data on people with no connection to a crime. All suspicionless searches drag a net through vast swaths of information in hopes of identifying previously unknown suspects—ensnaring innocent bystanders along the way. 

"To courts, to lawmakers, and to tech companies themselves, EFF has repeatedly argued that these high-tech efforts to pull suspects out of thin air cannot be constitutional, even with a warrant," said EFF Surveillance Litigation Director Andrew Crocker. "The Supreme Court should find once and for all that geofence searches are just the kind of impermissible general warrants that the Framers of the Constitution so reviled."

For the brief: https://www.eff.org/document/chatrie-v-united-states-eff-supreme-court-amicus-brief

Tags: geofence warrantsContact:  AndrewCrockerSurveillance Litigation Directorandrew@eff.org

Digital Dragnets Violate Fourth Amendment, Brief Argues

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Virginia, and the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law filed a brief Monday urging the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that invasive geofence warrants are unconstitutional.

The brief argues that geofence warrants—which compel companies to provide information on every electronic device in a given area during a given time period—are the digital version of the exploratory rummaging that the drafters of the Fourth Amendment specifically intended to prevent. 

Unlike typical warrants, geofence warrants do not name a suspect or even target a specific individual or device. Instead, police cast a digital dragnet, demanding location data on every device in a geographic area during a certain time period, regardless of whether the device owner has any connection to the crime under investigation. These searches simultaneously impact the privacy of millions and turn innocent bystanders into suspects, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The Supreme Court agreed earlier this year to hear Chatrie v. United States, in which a 2019 geofence warrant  compelled Google to search the accounts of all its hundreds of millions of users to see if any one of them was within a radius police drew around a Northern Virginia crime scene. This area amounted to several football fields in size and encompassed numerous homes, businesses, and a church. In an amicus brief filed Monday, the brief argues that allowing this sweeping power to go unchecked is inconsistent with the basic freedoms of a democratic society. 

"This is not traditional police work, but rather the leveraging of new and powerful technology to claim a novel and formidable power over the people," the brief states. "By their very nature, geofence searches turn innocent bystanders into suspects and leverage even purportedly limited searches into larger dragnets, causing intrusions at a scale far beyond those held unconstitutional in the physical world." 

The brief also cautioned the Court not to authorize future geofence warrants based on the facts of the Chatrie case, which reflect how such searches were conducted in 2019. Since July 2025, mass geofence searches of Google users’ location data have not been possible. However, Google is not the only company collecting location data, nor the only way for police to access mass amounts of data on people with no connection to a crime. All suspicionless searches drag a net through vast swaths of information in hopes of identifying previously unknown suspects—ensnaring innocent bystanders along the way. 

"To courts, to lawmakers, and to tech companies themselves, EFF has repeatedly argued that these high-tech efforts to pull suspects out of thin air cannot be constitutional, even with a warrant," said EFF Surveillance Litigation Director Andrew Crocker. "The Supreme Court should find once and for all that geofence searches are just the kind of impermissible general warrants that the Framers of the Constitution so reviled."

For the brief: https://www.eff.org/document/chatrie-v-united-states-eff-supreme-court-amicus-brief

Tags: geofence warrantsContact:  AndrewCrockerSurveillance Litigation Directorandrew@eff.org

LAB14 GmbH, a corporate network based in Germany that unites eight high-tech companies focused on nanofabrication, microfabrication, and surface analysis, has joined the MIT.nano Consortium.

“The addition of LAB14 to the MIT.nano Consortium reinforces the importance of collaboration to advance the next set of great ideas,” says Vladimir Bulović, the founding faculty director of MIT.nano and the Fariborz Maseeh (1990) Professor of Emerging Technologies at MIT. “At MIT.nano, we are thrilled when our shared-access facility leads to cross-disciplinary discoveries. LAB14 carries this same motivation by assembling the constellation of remarkable interconnected industry partners.”

Comprising eight companies — Heidelberg Instruments, Nanoscribe, GenISys, Notion Systems, 40-30, Amcoss, SPECSGROUP, and Nanosurf — LAB14 is focused on developing products and services that are fundamental to micro- and nanofabrication technologies, supporting industrial and research-driven applications with complex manufacturing and analysis requirements.

The companies of LAB14 operate under a shared organizational structure that enables closer coordination in technology development. This setup allows for faster research progress and more efficient manufacturing workflows.

“Joining the MIT.nano Consortium marks a significant milestone for LAB14 and our companies,” says Martin Wynaendts van Resandt, CEO of LAB14. “This participation allows our network to collaborate directly with world-leading researchers, accelerating innovation in micro- and nanotechnology."

As part of this engagement, LAB14 will provide two pieces of equipment to be installed at MIT.nano within the coming year. The VPG 300 DI maskless stepper, a high-performance, direct-write system from Heidelberg Instruments, will be positioned inside MIT.nano’s cleanroom. This tool will allow MIT.nano users to pattern structures smaller than 500 nanometers directly onto wafers with accuracy and uniformity comparable to typical high resolution i-line lithography. Equipped with advanced multi-layer alignment and mix‑and‑match functions, the VPG creates a seamless link between laser direct writing and e‑beam lithography.

The EnviroMETROS X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS/HAXPES) tool by SPECSGROUP will join the suite of Characterization.nano instruments. This unique system is specialized in nondestructive depth profile measurements using multiple X-ray energies to determine the thickness of thin-film samples and their chemical compositions with highest precision. It supports various analyses across a wide pressure range, allowing MIT.nano users to examine thin‑film materials under more realistic environmental conditions and to observe how they change during operation.

The MIT.nano Consortium is a platform for academia-industry collaboration, fostering research and innovation in nanoscale science and engineering. Consortium members gain unparalleled access to MIT.nano and its dynamic user community, providing opportunities to share expertise and guide advances in nanoscale technology.

MIT.nano continues to welcome new companies as sustaining members. For details, and to see a list of current members, visit the MIT.nano Consortium page.

The MIT Technology Review has a good article on Moltbook, the supposed AI-only social network:

Many people have pointed out that a lot of the viral comments were in fact posted by people posing as bots. But even the bot-written posts are ultimately the result of people pulling the strings, more puppetry than autonomy.

“Despite some of the hype, Moltbook is not the Facebook for AI agents, nor is it a place where humans are excluded,” says Cobus Greyling at Kore.ai, a firm developing agent-based systems for business customers. “Humans are involved at every step of the process. From setup to prompting to publishing, nothing happens without explicit human direction.”...

President Donald Trump’s allies are urging him to take control of a small spit in the Persian Gulf that controls nearly all Iran’s oil exports.

Higher gas prices in Europe and the U.S. could create economic and political incentives for solar, wind, batteries and other clean technology.

Some companies are raising rates 50 percent as the risk of attacks rises in the Persian Gulf.

A new petition to the high court marks the latest effort by conservative groups to revive the nondelegation doctrine.

Recently passed legislation and budget riders will cement the commonwealth's participation in the Northeast's cap-and-trade system.

Gov. Kathy Hochul is pressing forward with an effort to change New York’s 2019 climate law, raising concerns about the costs of achieving the goals.

Fewer than 2 percent of Con Edison's heat pump customers signed up for a program that would have reduced their annual bills by roughly $500.

A new study found that a combination of intensive agriculture and global warming are critical factors in the acceleration of bird population decline.