For students, postdocs, and early-career researchers, communicating complex ideas in a clear and compelling manner has become an essential skill. Whether applying for academic positions, pitching research to funders, or collaborating across disciplines, the ability to present work clearly and effectively can be as critical as the work itself.

Recognizing this need, The MIT Office of Graduate Education (OGE) has partnered with the Writing and Communication Center (WCC) to launch the WCC Communication Studio: a self-service recording and editing space designed to help users sharpen their oral presentation and communication skills. Open to all members of the MIT community as of this fall, the studio offers a first-of-its-kind resource at MIT for developing and refining research presentations, mock interview conversations, elevator pitches, and more.

Housed in WCC’s Ames Street office, the studio is equipped with high-quality microphones and user-friendly video recording and editing tools, all designed to be used with the PitchVantage software.

How does it work? Users can access tutorials, example videos, and a reservation system through the WCC’s website. After completing a short orientation on how to use the technology and space responsibly, users are ready to pitch to simulated audiences, who react in real time to various elements of delivery. Users can also watch their recorded presentations and receive personalized feedback on nine elements of presentation delivery: pitch, pace, volume variability, verbal distractors, pace, eye contact, volume, engagement, and pauses.

Designed with students in mind

“Through years of individual and group consultations with MIT students and scholars, we realized that developing strong presentation skills requires more than feedback — it requires sustained, embodied practice,” explains Elena Kallestinova, director of the WCC. “The Oral Communication Studio was created to fill that gap.”

Those who have used the studio during its initial lifespan say that its interactive format helps to provide real-time, actionable feedback on their verbal delivery. Additionally, the program offers notes on overall stage presence, including subtle actions such as hand gestures and eye contact. For students, this can be the key to ensuring that their delivery is both confident and clearly accessible once it comes time to present. 

“I’ve been using the studio to practice for conferences and job interviews,” says Fabio Castro, a PhD student studying civil engineering. His favorite feature? The instant feedback from the virtual figures watching the presentation, which allows him to not only prepare to speak in front of an audience, but to read their nonverbal cues and adjust his delivery accordingly.

The studio also addresses a practical challenge facing many PhD students and postdocs in their role as emerging researchers: the high stakes of presenting. For many, their first major talk may be in front of a hiring committee, research institute, or funding body — audiences that may heavily influence their next career step. The studio gives them a low-pressure environment in which to rehearse so that they enter these spaces confidently.

Aditi Ramakrishnan, an MBA student in the MIT Sloan School of Management, acknowledges the importance of this tool for emerging professionals. As a business student, she explains, “a lot of your job involves pitching.” She credits the WCC with helping to take her pitching game “from good to excellent,” identifying small details such as unnecessary “filler” words and understanding the difference between a strong stage presence and a distracting one. 

A new frontier in communication support at MIT

While MIT has long been recognized for its excellence in technical education, the studio represents a broader focus on arming students and researchers alike with the tools that they need to amplify their work to larger audiences. 

“The WCC Communication Studio  gives students a place to rehearse, get immediate feedback, and iterate until their ideas land clearly and confidently,” explains Denzil Streete, OGE’s senior associate dean and director. “It’s not just about better slides or smoother delivery; it’s about unlocking and scaling access to more modern tools so more graduate students can translate breakthrough research into real-world impact.”

"The studio is a resource for the entire MIT community,” says Kallestinova, emphasizing that this new resource serves as a support for not only graduate students, but also undergrads, researchers, and even faculty. “Whether used as a supplement to classroom instruction or as a follow-up to coaching sessions, the studio offers a dedicated space for rehearsal, reflection, and growth, helping all users build confidence, clarity, and command in their communication."

The studio joins an array of existing resources within the WCC, including a Public Speaking Certificate Program, a peer-review group for creative writers, and a number of revolving workshops throughout the year. 

A culture of communication

From grant funding and academic collaboration to public outreach and policy impact, effective speaking skills are more important than ever.

“No matter how brilliant the idea, it has to be clearly communicated by the researcher or scholar in order to have impact,” says Amanda Cornwall, associate director of graduate student professional development at Career Advising and Professional Development (CAPD). 

“Explaining complex concepts to a broader audience takes practice and skill. When a researcher can build confidence in their speaking abilities, they have the power to transport their audience and show the way to new possibilities,” she adds. “This is why communication is one of the professional development competencies that we emphasize at MIT; it matters in every context, from small conversations to teaching to speeches that might change the world.”

The studio’s launch comes among a broader institutional focus on communication. CAPD, the Teaching and Learning Lab, the OGE, and academic departments have recognized the value of, and provided increasing levels of support for, professional development training alongside technical expertise.

Workshops already offered by the WCC, CAPD, and other campus partners work to highlight best practices for conference talks, long-form interviews, and more. The WCC Communication Studio provides a practical extension of these efforts. Looking ahead, the studio aims to not only serve as a training space, but also help foster a culture of communication excellence among researchers and educators.

Remember when you thought age verification laws couldn't get any worse? Well, lawmakers in Wisconsin, Michigan, and beyond are about to blow you away.

It's unfortunately no longer enough to force websites to check your government-issued ID before you can access certain content, because politicians have now discovered that people are using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to protect their privacy and bypass these invasive laws. Their solution? Entirely ban the use of VPNs. 

Yes, really.

As of this writing, Wisconsin lawmakers are escalating their war on privacy by targeting VPNs in the name of “protecting children” in A.B. 105/S.B. 130. It’s an age verification bill that requires all websites distributing material that could conceivably be deemed “sexual content” to both implement an age verification system and also to block the access of users connected via VPN. The bill seeks to broadly expand the definition of materials that are “harmful to minors” beyond the type of speech that states can prohibit minors from accessing—potentially encompassing things like depictions and discussions of human anatomy, sexuality, and reproduction. 

This follows a notable pattern: As we’ve explained previously, lawmakers, prosecutors, and activists in conservative states have worked for years to aggressively expand the definition of “harmful to minors” to censor a broad swath of content: diverse educational materials, sex education resources, art, and even award-winning literature. 

Wisconsin’s bill has already passed the State Assembly and is now moving through the Senate. If it becomes law, Wisconsin could become the first state where using a VPN to access certain content is banned. Michigan lawmakers have proposed similar legislation that did not move through its legislature, but among other things, would force internet providers to actively monitor and block VPN connections. And in the UK, officials are calling VPNs "a loophole that needs closing."

This is actually happening. And it's going to be a disaster for everyone.

Here's Why This Is A Terrible Idea 

VPNs mask your real location by routing your internet traffic through a server somewhere else. When you visit a website through a VPN, that website only sees the VPN server's IP address, not your actual location. It's like sending a letter through a P.O. box so the recipient doesn't know where you really live. 

So when Wisconsin demands that websites "block VPN users from Wisconsin," they're asking for something that's technically impossible. Websites have no way to tell if a VPN connection is coming from Milwaukee, Michigan, or Mumbai. The technology just doesn't work that way.

Websites subject to this proposed law are left with this choice: either cease operation in Wisconsin, or block all VPN users, everywhere, just to avoid legal liability in the state. One state's terrible law is attempting to break VPN access for the entire internet, and the unintended consequences of this provision could far outweigh any theoretical benefit.

Almost Everyone Uses VPNs

Let's talk about who lawmakers are hurting with these bills, because it sure isn't just people trying to watch porn without handing over their driver's license.

1. Businesses run on VPNs. Every company with remote employees uses VPNs. Every business traveler connecting through sketchy hotel Wi-Fi needs one. Companies use VPNs to protect client and employee data, secure internal communications, and prevent cyberattacks. 
2. Students need VPNs for school. Universities require students to use VPNs to access research databases, course materials, and library resources. These aren't optional, and many professors literally assign work that can only be accessed through the school VPN. The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s WiscVPN, for example, “allows UW–‍Madison faculty, staff and students to access University resources even when they are using a commercial Internet Service Provider (ISP).” 
3. Vulnerable people rely on VPNs for safety. Domestic abuse survivors use VPNs to hide their location from their abusers. Journalists use them to protect their sources. Activists use them to organize without government surveillance. LGBTQ+ people in hostile environments—both in the US and around the world—use them to access health resources, support groups, and community. For people living under censorship regimes, VPNs are often their only connection to vital resources and information their governments have banned. 
4. Regular people just want privacy. Maybe you don't want every website you visit tracking your location and selling that data to advertisers. Maybe you don't want your internet service provider (ISP) building a complete profile of your browsing history. Maybe you just think it's creepy that corporations know everywhere you go online. VPNs can protect everyday users from everyday tracking and surveillance.

It’s A Privacy Nightmare

Here's what happens if VPNs get blocked: everyone has to verify their age by submitting government IDs, biometric data, or credit card information directly to websites—without any encryption or privacy protection.

We already know how this story ends. Companies get hacked. Data gets breached. And suddenly your real name is attached to the websites you visited, stored in some poorly-secured database waiting for the inevitable leak. This has already happened, and is not a matter of if but when. And when it does, the repercussions will be huge.

Forcing people to give up their privacy to access legal content is the exact opposite of good policy. It's surveillance dressed up as safety.

"Harmful to Minors" Is Not a Catch-All 

Here's another fun feature of these laws: they're trying to broaden the definition of “harmful to minors” to sweep in a host of speech that is protected for both young people and adults.

Historically, states can prohibit people under 18 years old from accessing sexual materials that an adult can access under the First Amendment. But the definition of what constitutes “harmful to minors” is narrow — it generally requires that the materials have almost no social value to minors and that they, taken as a whole, appeal to a minors’ “prurient sexual interests.” 

Wisconsin's bill defines “harmful to minors” much more broadly. It applies to materials that merely describe sex or feature descriptions/depictions of human anatomy. This definition would likely encompass a wide range of literature, music, television, and films that are protected under the First Amendment for both adults and young people, not to mention basic scientific and medical content.

Additionally, the bill’s definition would apply to any websites where more than one third of the site’s material is "harmful to minors." Given the breadth of the definition and its one-third trigger, we anticipate that Wisconsin could argue that the law applies to most social media websites. And it’s not hard to imagine, as these topics become politicised, Wisconsin claiming it applies to websites containing LGBTQ+ health resources, basic sexual education resources, and reproductive healthcare information. 

This breadth of the bill’s definition isn't a bug, it's a feature. It gives the state a vast amount of discretion to decide which speech is “harmful” to young people, and the power to decide what's "appropriate" and what isn't. History shows us those decisions most often harm marginalized communities. 

It Won’t Even Work

Let's say Wisconsin somehow manages to pass this law. Here's what will actually happen:

People who want to bypass it will use non-commercial VPNs, open proxies, or cheap virtual private servers that the law doesn't cover. They'll find workarounds within hours. The internet always routes around censorship. 

Even in a fantasy world where every website successfully blocked all commercial VPNs, people would just make their own. You can route traffic through cloud services like AWS or DigitalOcean, tunnel through someone else's home internet connection, use open proxies, or spin up a cheap server for less than a dollar. 

Meanwhile, everyone else (businesses, students, journalists, abuse survivors, regular people who just want privacy) will have their VPN access impacted. The law will accomplish nothing except making the internet less safe and less private for users.

Nonetheless, as we’ve mentioned previously, while VPNs may be able to disguise the source of your internet activity, they are not foolproof—nor should they be necessary to access legally protected speech. Like the larger age verification legislation they are a part of, VPN-blocking provisions simply don't work. They harm millions of people and they set a terrifying precedent for government control of the internet. More fundamentally, legislators need to recognize that age verification laws themselves are the problem. They don't work, they violate privacy, they're trivially easy to circumvent, and they create far more harm than they prevent.

A False Dilemma

People have (predictably) turned to VPNs to protect their privacy as they watched age verification mandates proliferate around the world. Instead of taking this as a sign that maybe mass surveillance isn't popular, lawmakers have decided the real problem is that these privacy tools exist at all and are trying to ban the tools that let people maintain their privacy. 

Let's be clear: lawmakers need to abandon this entire approach.

The answer to "how do we keep kids safe online" isn't "destroy everyone's privacy." It's not "force people to hand over their IDs to access legal content." And it's certainly not "ban access to the tools that protect journalists, activists, and abuse survivors.”

If lawmakers genuinely care about young people's well-being, they should invest in education, support parents with better tools, and address the actual root causes of harm online. What they shouldn't do is wage war on privacy itself. Attacks on VPNs are attacks on digital privacy and digital freedom. And this battle is being fought by people who clearly have no idea how any of this technology actually works. 

If you live in Wisconsin—reach out to your Senator and urge them to kill A.B. 105/S.B. 130. Our privacy matters. VPNs matter. And politicians who can't tell the difference between a security tool and a "loophole" shouldn't be writing laws about the internet.

A new class is giving MIT students the opportunity to examine the historical and practical considerations of urban farming while developing a real-world understanding of its value by working alongside a local farm’s community.

Course 4.182 (Resilient Urbanism: Green Commons in the City) is taught in two sections by instructors in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society and the School of Architecture and Planning, in collaboration with The Common Good Co-op in Dorchester.

The first section was completed in spring 2025 and the second section is scheduled for spring 2026. The course is taught by STS professor Kate Brown, visiting lecturer Justin Brazier MArch ’24, and Kafi Dixon, lead farmer and executive director of The Common Good.

“This project is a way for students to investigate the real political, financial, and socio-ecological phenomena that can help or hinder an urban farm’s success,” says Brown, the Thomas M. Siebel Distinguished Professor in History of Science. 

Brown teaches environmental history, the history of food production, and the history of plants and people. She describes a history of urban farming that centered sustainable practices, financial investment and stability, and lasting connections among participants. 

Brown says urban farms have sustained cities for decades.

“Cities are great places to grow produce,” Brown asserts. “City dwellers produce lots of compostable materials.”

Brazier’s research ranges from affordable housing to urban agricultural gardens, exploring topics like sustainable architecture, housing, and food security.

“My work designing vacant lots as community gardens offered a link between Kafi’s work with Common Good and my interests in urban design,” Brazier says. “Urban farms offer opportunities to eliminate food deserts in underserved areas while also empowering historically marginalized communities.”

Before they agreed to collaborate on the course, Dixon reached out to Brown asking for help with several challenges related to her urban farm including zoning, location, and infrastructure.

“As the lead farmer and executive director of Common Good Co-op, I happened upon Kate Brown’s research and work and saw that it aligned with our cooperative model’s intentions,” Dixon says. “I reached out to Kate, and she replied, which humbled and excited me.” 

“Design itself is a form of communication,” Dixon adds, describing the collaborative nature of farming sustenance and development. “For many under-resourced communities, innovating requires a research-based approach.”

The project is among the inaugural cohort of initiatives to receive support from the SHASS Education Innovation Fund, which is administered by the MIT Human Insight Collaborative (MITHIC).

Community development, investment, and collaboration

The class’s first section paired students with community members and the City of Boston to change the farm’s zoning status and create a green space for long-term farming and community use. Students spent time at Common Good during the course, including one weekend during which they helped with weeding the garden beds for spring planting.

One objective of the class is to help Common Good avoid potential pitfalls associated with gentrification. “A study in Philadelphia showed that gentrification occurs within 1,000 feet of a community garden,” Brown says. 

“Farms and gardens are a key part of community and public health,” Dixon continues. 

Students in the second section will design and build infrastructure — including a mobile chicken coop and a pavilion to protect farmers from the elements — for Common Good. The course also aims to secure a green space designation for the farm and ensure it remains an accessible community space. “We want to prevent developers from acquiring the land and displacing the community,” Brown says, avoiding past scenarios in which governments seized inhabitants’ property while offering little or no compensation.

Students in the 2025 course also produced a guide on how to navigate the complex rules surrounding zoning and related development. Students in the next STS section will research the history of food sovereignty and Black feminist movements in Dorchester and Roxbury. Using that research, they will construct an exhibit focused on community activism for incorporation into the coop’s facade.

Imani Bailey, a second-year master’s student in the Department of Architecture’s MArch program, was among the students in the course’s first section.

“By taking this course, I felt empowered to directly engage with the community in a way no other class I have taken so far has afforded me the ability to,” she says.

Bailey argues for urban farms’ value as both a financial investment and space for communal interaction, offering opportunities for engagement and the implementation of sustainable practices. 

“Urban farms are important in the same way a neighbor is,” she adds. “You may not necessarily need them to own your home, but a good one makes your property more valuable, sometimes financially, but most importantly in ways that cannot be assigned a monetary value.”

The intersection of agriculture, community, and technology

Technology, the course’s participants believe, can offer solutions to some of the challenges related to ensuring urban farms’ viability. 

“Cities like Amsterdam are redesigning themselves to improve walkability, increase the appearance of small gardens in the city, and increase green space,” Brown says. By creating spaces that center community and a collective approach to farming, it’s possible to reduce both greenhouse emissions and impacts related to climate change.

Additionally, engineers, scientists, and others can partner with communities to develop solutions to transportation and public health challenges. By redesigning sewer systems, empowering microbiologists to design microbial inoculants that can break down urban food waste at the neighborhood level, and centering agriculture-related transportation in the places being served, it’s possible to sustain community support and related infrastructure.

“Community is cultivated, nurtured, and grown from prolonged interaction, sharing ideas, and the creation of place through a shared sense of ownership,” Bailey argues. “Urban farms present the conditions for communities to develop.” 

Bailey values the course because it leaves the theoretical behind, instead focusing on practical solutions. “We seldom see our design ideas become tangible," she says. “This class offered an opportunity to design and build for a real client in the real world.”

Brazier says the course and its projects prove everyone has something to contribute and can have a voice in what happens with their neighborhoods. “Despite these communities’ distrust of some politicians, we partnered to work on solutions related to zoning,” he says, “and supported community members’ advocacy efforts.”

The Business of Secrets: Adventures in Selling Encryption Around the World by Fred Kinch (May 24, 2004)

From the vantage point of today, it’s surreal reading about the commercial cryptography business in the 1970s. Nobody knew anything. The manufacturers didn’t know whether the cryptography they sold was any good. The customers didn’t know whether the crypto they bought was any good. Everyone pretended to know, thought they knew, or knew better than to even try to know.

The Business of Secrets is the self-published memoirs of Fred Kinch. He was founder and vice president of—mostly sales—at a US cryptographic hardware company called Datotek, from company’s founding in 1969 until 1982. It’s mostly a disjointed collection of stories about the difficulties of selling to governments worldwide, along with descriptions of the highs and (mostly) lows of foreign airlines, foreign hotels, and foreign travel in general. But it’s also about encryption...

The most aggressive goal of the Paris Agreement is out of reach, according to a new analysis by the Global Carbon Project.

Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) signed the deal Wednesday to leave the regional cap-and-trade system, ending a four-month budget impasse with Republicans.

The International Energy Agency pointed to President Donald Trump’s fossil fuel policies as one reason for an extended run for oil, gas and coal.

The administration has drawn criticism for shuffling personnel and equipment at Goddard Space Flight Center, which does much of the agency's earth science work.

Severe thunderstorms cause more damage than any other weather event. Insurance industry-funded research aims to understand why.

Chevron and other oil majors are fighting against legal claims that they should pay up for their role in damaging the Bayou State's coastline.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is returning to a time-tested technique to exercise soft power at U.N. climate talks.

Ahead of COP30 in Belém, Brazil, this week, most countries that filed emissions plans with net-zero goals are relying on carbon removals to reach their target, according to an analysis.

Using high-resolution data on rainfall, sea tides and death records, researchers estimated the mortality costs of rain in Mumbai — representing the total economic value attributed to each life lost — at $12 billion for the entire decade they examined.

“We believe it would send a signal to the market and encourage more potential suppliers, especially in the Global South countries," said a company executive.

To help soften the impact of the bloc’s green transition, governments and lawmakers want to postpone rollout of Emissions Trading System 2.

In recent months, Russia has frequently flown drones into NATO territory, where NATO countries typically try to shoot them down. By contrast, when three Russian fighter jets made an incursion into Estonian airspace in September, they were intercepted and no attempt was made to shoot them down — although the incident did make headlines and led to a Russian diplomat being expelled from Estonia.

Those incidents follow a global pattern of recent years. Drone operations, to this point, seem to provoke different responses compared to other kinds of military action, especially the use of piloted warplanes. Drone warfare is expanding but not necessarily provoking major military responses, either by the countries being attacked or by the aggressor countries that have drones shot down.

“There was a conventional wisdom that drones were a slippery slope that would enable leaders to use force in all kinds of situations, with a massively destabilizing effect,” says MIT political scientist Erik Lin-Greenberg. “People thought if drones were used all over the place, this would lead to more escalation. But in many cases where drones are being used, we don’t see that escalation.”

On the other hand, drones have made military action more pervasive. It is at least possible that in the future, drone-oriented combat will be both more common and more self-contained.

“There is a revolutionary effect of these systems, in that countries are essentially increasing the range of situations in which leaders are willing to deploy military force,” Lin-Greenberg says. To this point, though, he adds, “these confrontations are not necessarily escalating.”

Now Lin-Greenberg examines these dynamics in a new book, “The Remote Revolution: Drones and Modern Statecraft,” published by Cornell University Press. Lin-Greenberg is an associate professor in MIT’s Department of Political Science.

Lin-Greenberg brings a distinctive professional background to the subject of drone warfare. Before returning to graduate school, he served as a U.S. Air Force officer; today he commands a U.S. Air Force reserve squadron. His thinking is informed by his experiences as both a scholar and practitioner.

“The Remote Revolution” also has a distinctive methodology that draws on multiple ways of studying the topic. In writing the book, Lin-Greenberg conducted experiments based on war games played by national security professionals; conducted surveys of expert and public thinking about drones; developed in-depth case studies from history; and dug into archives broadly to fully understand the history of drone use, which in fact goes back several decades.

The book’s focus is drone use during the 2000s, as the technology has become more readily available; today about 100 countries have access to military drones. Many have used them during tensions and skirmishes with other countries.

“Where I argue this is actually revolutionary is during periods of crises, which fall below the threshold of war, in that these new technologies take human operators out of harm’s way and enable states to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do,” Lin-Greenberg says.

Indeed, a key point is that drones lower the costs of military action for countries — and not just financial costs, but human and political costs, too. Incidents and problems that might plague leaders if they involved military personnel, forcing major responses, seem to lessen when drones are involved.

“Because these systems don’t have a human on board, they’re inherently cheaper and different in the minds of decision-makers,” Lin-Greenberg says. “That means they’re willing to use these systems during disputes, and if other states are shooting them down, the side sending them is less likely to retaliate, because they’re losing a machine but not a man or woman on board.”

In this sense, the uses of drones “create new rungs on the escalation ladder,” as Lin-Greenberg writes in the book. Drone incidents don’t necessarily lead to wider military action, and may not even lead to the same kinds of international relations issues as incidents involving piloted aircraft.

Consider a counterfactual that Lin-Greenberg raises in the book. One of the most notorious episodes of Cold War tension between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. occurred in 1960, when U.S. pilot Gary Powers was shot down and captured in the Soviet Union, leading to a diplomatic standoff and a canceled summit between U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.

“Had that been a drone, it’s very likely the summit would have continued,” Lin-Greenberg says. “No one would have said anything. The Soviet Union would have been embarrassed to admit their airspace was violated and the U.S. would have just [publicly] ignored what was going on, because there would not have been anyone sitting in a prison. There are a lot of exercises where you can ask how history could have been different.”

None of this is to say that drones present straightforward solutions to international relations problems. They may present the appearance of low-cost military engagement, but as Lin-Greenberg underlines in the book, the effects are more complicated.

“To be clear, the remote revolution does not suggest that drones prevent war,” Lin-Greenberg writes. Indeed, one of the problems they raise, he emphasizes, is the “moral hazard” that arises from leaders viewing drones as less costly, which can lead to even more military confrontations.

Moreover, the trends in drone warfare so far yield predictions for the future that are “probabilistic rather than deterministic,” as Lin-Greenberg writes. Perhaps some political or military leaders will start to use drones to attack new targets that will inevitably generate major responses and quickly escalate into broad wars. Current trends do not guarantee future outcomes.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions in this area,” Lin-Greenberg says. “So much is changing. What does it look like when more drones are more autonomous? I still hope this book lays a foundation for future dicussions, even as drones are used in different ways.”

Other scholars have praised “The Remote Revolution.” Joshua Kertzer, a professor of international studies and government at Harvard University, has hailed Lin-Greenberg’s “rich expertise, methodological rigor, and creative insight,” while Michael Horowitz, a political scientist and professor of international relations at the University of Pennsylvania, has called it “an incredible book about the impact of drones on the international security environment.”

For his part, Lin-Greenberg says, “My hope is the book will be read by academics and practitioners and people who choose to focus on parts of it they’re interested in. I tried to write the book in way that’s approachable.”

Publication of the book was supported by funding from MIT’s Security Studies Program. 

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 13 November 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02495-8

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation describes the most important pattern of low-frequency climate variability in the North Pacific. An analysis of sea surface temperatures reveals that, since 2014, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation’s influence has been superseded by that of basin-wide warming, producing novel expressions of ocean variability and unexpected ecological impacts.

Cozy up next to the fireplace and we'll catch you up on the latest digital rights news with EFF's EFFector newsletter.

In our latest issue, we’re exposing surveillance logs that reveal racist policing; explaining the harms of Google’s plan for Android app gatekeeping; and continuing our new series, Gate Crashing, exploring how the internet empowers people to take nontraditional paths into the traditional worlds of journalism, creativity, and criticism.

Prefer to listen in? Check out our audio companion, where EFF Staff Attorney Mario Trujillo explains why Ring's upcoming facial recognition tool could violate the privacy rights of millions of people. Catch the conversation on YouTube or the Internet Archive.

LISTEN TO EFFECTOR

EFFECTOR 37.16 - 🔔 RING'S FACE SCAN PLAN

Since 1990 EFF has published EFFector to help keep readers on the bleeding edge of their digital rights. We know that the intersection of technology, civil liberties, human rights, and the law can be complicated, so EFFector is a great way to stay on top of things. The newsletter is chock full of links to updates, announcements, blog posts, and other stories to help keep readers—and listeners—up to date on the movement to protect online privacy and free expression. 

Thank you to the supporters around the world who make our work possible! If you're not a member yet, join EFF today to help us fight for a brighter digital future.

A Washington state trial court has shot down local municipalities’ effort to keep automated license plate reader (ALPR) data secret.

The Skagit County Superior Court in Washington rejected the attempt to block the public’s right to access data gathered by Flock Safety cameras, protecting access to information under the Washington Public Records Act (PRA). Importantly, the ruling from the court makes it clear that this access is protected even when a Washington city uses Flock Safety, a third-party vendor, to conduct surveillance and store personal data on behalf of a government agency.

"The Flock images generated by the Flock cameras...are public records," the court wrote in its ruling. "Flock camera images are created and used to further a governmental purpose. The Flock images created by the cameras located in Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley were paid for by Stanwood and Sedro Wooley [sic] and were generated for the benefit of Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley."

The cities’ move to exempt the records from disclosure was a dangerous attempt to deny transparency and reflects another problem with the massive amount of data that police departments collect through Flock cameras and store on Flock servers: the wiggle room cities seek when public data is hosted on a private company’s server.

Flock Safety's main product is ALPRs, camera systems installed throughout communities to track all drivers all the time. Privacy activists and journalists across the country recently have used public records requests to obtain data from the system, revealing a variety of controversial uses. This has included agencies accessing data for immigration enforcement and to investigate an abortion, the latter of which may have violated Washington law. A recent report from the University of Washington found that some cities in the state are also sharing the ALPR data from their Flock Safety systems with federal immigration agents. 

In this case, a member of the public in April filed a records request with a Flock customer, the City of Stanwood, for all footage recorded during a one-hour period in March. Shortly afterward, Stanwood and another Flock user, the City of Sedro-Woolley requested the local court rule that this data is not a public record, asserting that “data generated by Flock [automated license plate reader cameras (ALPRs)] and stored in the Flock cloud system are not public records unless and until a public agency extracts and downloads that data." 

If a government agency is conducting mass surveillance, EFF supports individuals’ access to data collected specifically on them, at the very least. And to address legitimate privacy concerns, governments can and should redact personal information in these records while still disclosing information about how the systems work and the data that they capture. 

This isn’t what these Washington cities offered, though. They tried a few different arguments against releasing any information at all. 

The contract between the City of Sedron-Woolley and Flock Safety clearly states that "As between Flock and Customer, all right, title and interest in the Customer Data, belong to and are retained solely by Customer,” and “Customer Data” is defined as "the data, media, and content provided by Customer through the Services. For the avoidance of doubt, the Customer Data will include the Footage." Other Flock-using police departments across the country have also relied on similar contract language to insist that footage captured by Flock cameras belongs to the jurisdiction in question. 

The contract language notwithstanding, officials in Washington attempted to restrict public access by claiming that video footage stored on Flock’s servers and requests for that information would constitute the generation of a new record. This part of the argument claimed that any information that was gathered but not otherwise accessed by law enforcement, including thousands of images taken every day by the agency’s 14 Flock ALPR cameras, had nothing to do with government business, would generate a new record, and should not be subject to records requests. The cities shut off their Flock cameras while the litigation was ongoing.

If the court had ruled in favor of the cities’ claim, police could move to store all their data — from their surveillance equipment and otherwise — on private company servers and claim that it's no longer accessible to the public. 

The cities threw another reason for withholding information at the wall to see if it would stick, claiming that even if the court found that data collected on Flock cameras are in fact public record, the cities should still be able to block the release of the requested one hour of footage either because all of the images captured by Flock cameras are sensitive investigation material or because they should be treated the same way as automated traffic safety cameras. 

EFF is particularly opposed to this line of reasoning. In 2017, the California Supreme Court sided with EFF and ACLU in a case arguing that “the license plate data of millions of law-abiding drivers, collected indiscriminately by police across the state, are not ‘investigative records’ that law enforcement can keep secret.” 

Notably, when Stanwood Police Chief Jason Toner made his pitch to the City Council to procure the Flock cameras in April 2024, he was adamant that the ALPRs would not be the same as traffic cameras. “Flock Safety Cameras are not ‘red light’ traffic cameras nor are they facial recognition cameras,” Chief Toner wrote at the time, adding that the system would be a “force multiplier” for the department. 

If the court had gone along with this part of the argument, cities could have been able to claim that the mass surveillance conducted using ALPRs is part of undefined mass investigations, pulling back from the public huge amounts of information being gathered without warrants or reason.

The cities seemed to be setting up contradictory arguments. Maybe the footage captured by the cities’ Flock cameras belongs to the city — or maybe it doesn’t until the city accesses it. Maybe the data collected by the cities’ taxpayer-funded cameras are unrelated to government business and should be inaccessible to the public — or maybe it’s all related to government business and, specifically, to sensitive investigations, presumably of every single vehicle that goes by the cameras. 

The requester, Jose Rodriguez, still won’t be getting his records, despite the court’s positive ruling. 

“The cities both allowed the records to be automatically deleted after I submitted my records requests and while they decided to have their legal council review my request. So they no longer have the records and can not provide them to me even though they were declared to be public records,” Rodriguez told 404 Media — another possible violation of that state’s public records laws. 

Flock Safety and its ALPR system have come under increased scrutiny in the last few months, as the public has become aware of illegal and widespread sharing of information. 

The system was used by the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office to track someone across the country who’d self-administered an abortion in Texas. Flock repeatedly claimed that this was inaccurate reporting, but materials recently obtained by EFF have affirmed that Johnson County was investigating that individual as part of a fetal death investigation, conducted at the request of her former abusive partner. They were not looking for her as part of a missing person search, as Flock said. 

In Illinois, the Secretary of State conducted an audit of Flock use within the state and found that the Flock Safety system was facilitating Customs and Border Protection access, in violation of state law. And in California, the Attorney General recently sued the City of El Cajon for using Flock to illegally share information across state lines.

Police departments are increasingly relying on third-party vendors for surveillance equipment and storage for the terabytes of information they’re gathering. Refusing the public access to this information undermines public records laws and the assurances the public has received when police departments set these powerful spying tools loose in their streets. While it’s great that these records remain public in Washington, communities around the country must be swift to reject similar attempts at blocking public access.

Sometimes the answers to seemingly intractable environmental problems are found in nature itself.
 
Take the growing challenge of plastic waste. Jacqueline Prawira, an MIT senior in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering (DMSE), has developed biodegradable, plastic-like materials from fish offal, as featured in a recent segment on the CBS show “The Visioneers with Zay Harding.”
 
“We basically made plastics to be too good at their job. That also means the environment doesn’t know what to do with this, because they simply won’t degrade,” Prawira told Harding. “And now we’re literally drowning in plastic. By 2050, plastics are expected to outweigh fish in the ocean.”
 
“The Visioneers” regularly highlights environmental innovators. The episode featuring Prawira premiered during a special screening at Climate Week NYC on Sept. 24.

Her inspiration came from the Asian fish market her family visits. Once the fish they buy are butchered, the scales are typically discarded.
 
“But I also started noticing they’re actually fairly strong. They’re thin, somewhat flexible, and pretty lightweight, too, for their strength,” Prawira says. “And that got me thinking: Well, what other material has these properties? Plastics.”
 
She transformed this waste product into a transparent, thin-film material that can be used for disposable products such as grocery bags, packaging, and utensils.
 
Both her fish-scale material and a composite she developed don’t just mimic plastic — they address one of its biggest flaws. “If you put them in composting environments, [they] will degrade on their own naturally without needing much, if any, external help,” Prawira says.
 
This isn’t Prawira’s first environmental innovation. Working in DMSE Professor Yet-Ming Chiang’s lab, she helped develop a low-carbon process for making cement — the world’s most widely used construction material, and a major emitter of carbon dioxide. The process, called silicate subtraction, enables compounds to form at lower temperatures, cutting fossil fuel use.
 
Prawira and her co-inventors in the Chiang lab are also using the method to extract valuable lithium with zero waste. The process is patented and is being commercialized through the startup Rock Zero.
 
For her achievements, Prawira recently received the Barry Goldwater Scholarship, awarded to undergraduates pursuing careers in science, mathematics, or engineering.
 
In her “Visioneers” interview, she shared her hope for more sustainable ways of living. 

“I’m hoping that we can have daily lives that can be more in sync with the environment,” Prawira said. “So you don’t always have to choose between the convenience of daily life and having to help protect the environment.”