Electronic Freedom Foundation

The short answer is no, probably not! But, with EFF’s new site, Digital Rights Bytes, we go in-depth on this question—and many others.

Whether you’re just starting to question some of the effects of technology in your life or you’re the designated tech wizard of your family looking for resources to share, Digital Rights Bytes is here to help answer some common questions that may be bugging you about the devices you use.  

We often hear the question, “Is my phone listening to me?” Generally, the answer is no, but the reason you may think that your phone is listening to you is actually quite complicated. Data brokers and advertisers havesome sneaky tactics at their disposal to serve you ads that feel creepy in the moment and may make you think that your device is secretly taking notes on everything you say. 

Watch the short video—featuring a cute little penguin discovering how advertisers collect and track their personal data—and share it with your family and friends who have asked similar questions! Curious to learn more? We also have information about how to mitigate this tracking and what EFF is doing to stop these data brokers from collecting your information. 

Digital Rights Bytes also has answers to other common questions about device repair, ownership of your digital media, and more. Got any additional questions you’d like us to answer in the future? Let us know on your favorite social platform using the hashtag #DigitalRightsBytes so we can find it!

New Site Dishes Up Byte-Sized, Yummy, Nutritious Videos and Other Information About Your Online Life

SAN FRANCISCO—The Electronic Frontier Foundation today launched “Digital Rights Bytes,” a new website with short videos offering quick, easily digestible answers to the technology questions that trouble us all. 

“It’s increasingly clear there is no way to separate our digital lives from everything else that we do — the internet is now everybody's hometown. But nobody handed us a map or explained how to navigate safely,” EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn said. “We hope Digital Rights Bytes will provide easy-to-understand information people can trust, and an entry point for thinking more broadly about digital privacy, freedom of expression, and other civil liberties in our digital world.” 

Initial topics on Digital Rights Bytes include “Is my phone listening to me?”, “Why is device repair so costly?”, “Can the government read my text messages?” and others. More topics will be added over time. 

For each topic, the site provides a brief animated video and a concise, layperson’s explanation of how the technology works. It also provides advice and resources for what users can do to protect themselves and take action on important issues. 

EFF is the leading nonprofit defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology Development. Its mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice and innovation for all people of the world. 

For the Digital Rights Bytes website: https://www.digitalrightsbytes.org/

Contact:  JasonKelleyActivism Directorjason@eff.org

Activism comes in many forms. You might hold a rally, write to Congress, or fly a blimp over the NSA. Or you might use a darkly hilarious parody to make your point, like our client Modest Proposals recently did.

Modest Proposals is an activist collective that uses parody and culture jamming to advance environmental justice and other social causes. As part of a campaign shining a spotlight on the environmental damage and human toll caused by the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry, Modest Proposals invented a company called Repaer. The fake company’s website offers energy companies the opportunity to purchase “life offsets” that balance the human deaths their activities cause by extending the lives of individuals deemed economically valuable. The website also advertises a “Plasma Pals” program that encourages parents to donate their child’s plasma to wealthy recipients. Scroll down on the homepage a bit, and you’ll see the logos for three (real) LNG companies—Repaer’s “Featured Partners.” 

Believe it or not, the companies didn’t like this. (Shocking!) Two of them—TotalEnergies and Equinor—sent our client stern emails threatening legal action if their names and logos weren’t removed from the website. TotalEnergies also sent a demand to the website’s hosting service, Netlify, that got repaer.earth taken offline. That was our cue to get involved.

We sent letters to both companies, explaining what should be obvious: the website was a noncommercial work of activism, unlikely to confuse any reasonable viewer. Trademark law is about protecting consumers; it’s not a tool for businesses to shut down criticism. We also sent a counternotice to Netlify denying TotalEnergies’ allegations and demanding that repaer.earth be restored. 

 We wish this were the first time we’ve had to send letters like that, but EFF regularly helps activists and critics push back on bogus trademark and copyright claims. This incident is also part of a broader and long-standing pattern of the energy industry weaponizing the law to quash dissent by environmental activists. These are just examples EFF has written about. We’ve been fighting these tactics for a long time, both by representing individual activist groups and through supporting legislative efforts like a federal anti-SLAPP bill. 

Frustratingly, Netlify made us go through the full DMCA counternotice process—including a 10-business-day waiting period to have the site restored—even though this was never a DMCA claim. (The DMCA is copyright law, not trademark, and TotalEnergies didn’t even meet the notice requirements that Netlify claims to follow.) Rather than wait around for Netlify to act, Modest Proposals eventually moved the website to a different hosting service. 

Equinor and TotalEnergies, on the other hand, have remained silent. This is a pretty common result when we help push back against bad trademark and copyright claims: the rights owners slink away once they realize their bullying tactics won’t work, without actually admitting they were wrong. We’re glad these companies seem to have backed off regardless, but victims of bogus claims deserve more certainty than this.

The future of the open internet is in danger this October 31st, not from ghosts and goblins, but from the broadband companies that control internet access in most of the United States.  
 
These companies would love to use their oligopoly power to charge users and websites additional fees for “premium” internet access, which they can create by artificially throttling some connections and prioritizing others. Thanks to public pressure and a coalition of public interest groups, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has forbidden such paid prioritization and throttling, as well as outright blocking of websites. These net neutrality protections ensure that ISPs treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without improper discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services. 

But the lure of making more money without investing in better service or infrastructure is hard for broadband services like Comcast and AT&T to resist. So the big telecom companies have challenged the FCC’s rules in court—and their case has now made its way to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

A similar challenge was soundly rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016. Unfortunately the FCC, led by a new Chair, repealed those hard-won rules in 2017—despite intense resistance from nonprofits, artists, tech companies large and small, libraries, and millions of regular internet users. A few years later, FCC membership changed again, and the new FCC restored net neutrality protections. As everyone expected, Team Telecom ran back to court, leading to this appeal. 

A few things have changed since 2017, however, and none of them good for Team Internet. For one thing, the case is being heard in the Sixth Circuit, which is not bound by the D.C. Circuit’s earlier reasoning, and which has already signaled its sympathy for Team Telecom in a preliminary ruling. 

And, of course, the makeup of the Supreme Court has changed dramatically. Justice Kavanaugh, in particular, dissented from the D.C. Circuit majority when it reviewed the 2015 order—a dissent that clearly influenced the Sixth Circuit’s initial ruling in the case. That influence may well be felt when this case inevitably makes its way to the Supreme Court.   

The central legal questions are: 1) what did Congress mean when it directed the FCC to regulate “telecommunications services” differently from “information services,” and 2) into which category does broadband fall. This matters because the rules that we need to preserve the open internet — such as forbidding discrimination against certain applications — require the FCC to treat access providers like “common carriers,” treatment that can only be applied to telecommunications services. If the FCC has to define broadband as an “information service,” it can impose regulations that “promote competition” (good) but it cannot do much to forbid paid prioritization, throttling or blocking (bad). 

The answers to those questions will likely depend on whether the Sixth Circuit thinks regulation of the internet is a “major question,” meaning whether it is an issue has “vast economic or political significance.” If so, the Supreme Court has said that agencies can only address it if Congress has clearly authorized them to do so.  

The “major questions doctrine” is on the rise thanks to a Supreme Court majority that is deeply skeptical of the so-called administrative state. In the past few years, the majority has used it to reject multiple agency actions, such as the CDC’s temporary moratorium on evictions in areas hard-hit by Covid.  

Equally importantly, the Supreme Court recently changed the rules on whether and how court should defer to plausible agency interpretations of the statutes under which they operate. In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court ended an era of judicial deference to agency determinations. Rather than allowing agencies to act according to the agencies’ own plausible determinations about the scope and meaning of the authorities granted to them by Congress, courts are now instructed to reach those determinations independently.  
 
Ironically, under the old rule of deference, in 2003 the Ninth Circuit independently concluded that broadband was a telecommunications service – the most straightforward and correct reading of the statute and the one that provides a sound legal basis for net neutrality protections. In fact, the court said it had been erroneous for the FCC to say otherwise. But the FCC and telecoms successfully argued that the courts should defer to the FCC’s contrary reading, and won at the Supreme Court based on the doctrine of judicial deference that Loper Bright has now overruled. 

Putting these legal threads together, Team Telecom is arguing that the FCC cannot classify current broadband offerings as a telecommunications service, even though that’s the best reading of the statute, because that classification is be a “major question” that only Congress can decide. Team Internet argues that Congress clearly delegated that decision-making power to the FCC, which is one reason the Supreme Court did not treat the issue as a “major question” the last time it looked at the issue. Team Telecom also argues that, after the Loper Bright decision, the court need not defer to the FCC’s interpretation of its own authority. Team Internet explains that, this time, the FCC’s interpretation aligns with the best understanding of the statute and the facts. 
 
EFF stands with Team Internet and so should the court. It will likely issue a decision in the first half of 2025, so the specter of uncertainty will be with us for some time. Even when the panel issues an opinion, the losing side will be able to request that the full Sixth Circuit rehear the case, and then the Supreme Court would be the next and final resting place of the matter. 

 

California’s 2024 legislative session has officially adjourned, and it’s time to reflect on the wins and losses that have shaped Californians’ digital rights landscape this year.

EFF monitored nearly 100 bills in the state this session alone, addressing a broad range of issues related to privacy, free speech, and innovation. These include proposed standards for Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems used by state agencies, the intersection of AI and copyright, police surveillance practices, and various privacy concerns. While we have seen some significant victories, there are also alarming developments that raise concerns about the future of privacy protection in the state.

Celebrating Our Victories

This legislative session brought some wins for privacy advocates—most notably the defeat of four dangerous bills: A.B. 3080, A.B. 1814, S.B. 1076, and S.B. 1047. These bills posed serious threats to consumer privacy and would have undermined the progress we’ve made in previous years.

First, we commend the California Legislature for not advancing A.B. 3080, “The Parent’s Accountability and Child Protection Act” authored by Assemblymember Juan Alanis (Modesto). The bill would have created powerful incentives for “pornographic internet websites” to use age-verification mechanisms. The bill was not clear on what counts as “sexually explicit content.” Without clear guidelines, this bill will further harm the ability of all youth—particularly LGBTQ+ youth—to access legitimate content online. Different versions of bills requiring age verification have appeared in more than a dozen states. We understand Asm. Alanis' concerns, but A.B. 3080 would have required broad, privacy-invasive data collection from internet users of all ages. We are grateful that it did not make it to the finish line.

Second, EFF worked with dozens of organizations to defeat A.B. 1814, a facial recognition bill authored by Assemblymember Phil Ting (San Francisco). The bill attempted to expand the use of facial recognition software by police to “match” images from surveillance databases to possible suspects. Those images could then be used to issue arrest warrants or search warrants. The bill merely said that these matches can't be the sole reason for a warrant to be issued—a standard that has already failed to stop false arrests in other states.  Police departments and facial recognition companies alike both currently maintain that police cannot justify an arrest using only algorithmic matches–so what would this bill really change? The bill only gave the appearance of doing something to address face recognition technology's harms, while allowing the practice to continue. California should not give law enforcement the green light to mine databases, particularly those where people contributed information without knowledge that it would be accessed by law enforcement. You can read more about this bill here, and we are glad to see the California legislature reject this dangerous bill.

EFF also worked to oppose and defeat S.B. 1076, by Senator Scott Wilk (Lancaster). This bill would have weakened the California Delete Act (S.B. 362). Enacted last year, the Delete Act provides consumers with an easy “one-click” button to request the removal of their personal information held by data brokers registered in California. By January 1, 2026. S.B. 1076 would have opened loopholes for data brokers to duck compliance. This would have hurt consumer rights and undone oversight on an opaque ecosystem of entities that collect then sell personal information they’ve amassed on individuals. S.B. 1076 would have likely created significant confusion with the development, implementation, and long-term usability of the delete mechanism established in the California Delete Act, particularly as the California Privacy Protection Agency works on regulations for it. 

Lastly, EFF opposed S.B. 1047, the “Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act” authored by Senator Scott Wiener (San Francisco). This bill aimed to regulate AI models that might have "catastrophic" effects, such as attacks on critical infrastructure. Ultimately, we believe focusing on speculative, long-term, catastrophic outcomes from AI (like machines going rogue and taking over the world) pulls attention away from AI-enabled harms that are directly before us. EFF supported parts of the bill, like the creation of a public cloud-computing cluster (CalCompute). However, we also had concerns from the beginning that the bill set an abstract and confusing set of regulations for those developing AI systems and was built on a shaky self-certification mechanism. Those concerns remained about the final version of the bill, as it passed the legislature.

Governor Newsom vetoed S.B. 1047; we encourage lawmakers concerned about the threats unchecked AI may pose to instead consider regulation that focuses on real-world harms.  

Of course, this session wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows, and we had some big setbacks. Here are a few:

The Lost Promise of A.B. 3048

Throughout this session, EFF and our partners supported A.B. 3048, common-sense legislation that would have required browsers to let consumers exercise their protections under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). California is currently one of approximately a dozen states requiring businesses to honor consumer privacy requests made through opt–out preference signals in their browsers and devices. Yet large companies have often made it difficult for consumers to exercise those rights on their own. The bill would have properly balanced providing consumers with ways to exercise their privacy rights without creating burdensome requirements for developers or hindering innovation.

Unfortunately, Governor Newsom chose to veto A.B. 3048. His veto letter cited the lack of support from mobile operators, arguing that because “No major mobile OS incorporates an option for an opt-out signal,” it is “best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators.” EFF believes technologists should be involved in the regulatory process and hopes to assist in that process. But Governor Newsom is wrong: we cannot wait for industry players to voluntarily support regulations that protect consumers. Proactive measures are essential to safeguard privacy rights.

This bill would have moved California in the right direction, making California the first state to require browsers to offer consumers the ability to exercise their rights. 

Wrong Solutions to Real Problems

A big theme we saw this legislative session were proposals that claimed to address real problems but would have been ineffective or failed to respect privacy. These included bills intended to address young people’s safety online and deepfakes in elections.

While we defeated many misguided bills that were introduced to address young people’s access to the internet, S.B. 976, authored by Senator Nancy Skinner (Oakland), received Governor Newsom’s signature and takes effect on January 1, 2027. This proposal aims to regulate the "addictive" features of social media companies, but instead compromises the privacy of consumers in the state. The bill is also likely preempted by federal law and raises considerable First Amendment and privacy concerns. S.B. 976 is unlikely to protect children online, and will instead harm all online speakers by burdening free speech and diminishing online privacy by incentivizing companies to collect more personal information.

It is no secret that deepfakes can be incredibly convincing, and that can have scary consequences, especially during an election year. Two bills that attempted to address this issue are A.B. 2655 and A.B. 2839. Authored by Assemblymember Marc Berman (Palo Alto), A.B. 2655 requires online platforms to develop and implement procedures to block and take down, as well as separately label, digitally manipulated content about candidates and other elections-related subjects that creates a false portrayal about those subjects. We believe A.B. 2655 likely violates the First Amendment and will lead to over-censorship of online speech. The bill is also preempted by Section 230, a federal law that provides partial immunity to online intermediaries for causes of action based on the user-generated content published on their platforms. 

Similarly, A.B. 2839, authored by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (Santa Cruz), not only bans the distribution of materially deceptive or altered election-related content, but also burdens mere distributors (internet websites, newspapers, etc.) who are unconnected to the creation of the content—regardless of whether they know of the prohibited manipulation. By extending beyond the direct publishers and toward republishers, A.B. 2839 burdens and holds liable republishers of content in a manner that has been found unconstitutional.

There are ways to address the harms of deepfakes without stifling innovation and free speech. We recognize the complex issues raised by potentially harmful, artificially generated election content. But A.B. 2655 and A.B. 2839, as written and passed, likely violate the First Amendment and run afoul of federal law. In fact, less than a month after they were signed, a federal judge put A.B. 2839’s enforcement on pause (via a preliminary injunction) on First Amendment grounds.

Privacy Risks in State Databases

We also saw a troubling trend in the legislature this year that we will be making a priority as we look to 2025. Several bills emerged this session that, in different ways, threatened to weaken privacy protections within state databases. Specifically,  A.B. 518 and A.B. 2723, which received Governor Newsom’s signature, are a step backward for data privacy.

A.B. 518 authorizes numerous agencies in California to share, without restriction or consent, personal information with the state Department of Social Services (DSS), exempting this sharing from all state privacy laws. This includes county-level agencies, and people whose information is shared would have no way of knowing or opting out. A. B. 518 is incredibly broad, allowing the sharing of health information, immigration status, education records, employment records, tax records, utility information, children’s information, and even sealed juvenile records—with no requirement that DSS keep this personal information confidential, and no restrictions on what DSS can do with the information.

On the other hand, A.B. 2723 assigns a governing board to the new “Cradle to Career (CTC)” longitudinal education database intended to synthesize student information collected from across the state to enable comprehensive research and analysis. Parents and children provide this information to their schools, but this project means that their information will be used in ways they never expected or consented to. Even worse, as written, this project would be exempt from the following privacy safeguards of the Information Practices Act of 1977 (IPA), which, with respect to state agencies, would otherwise guarantee California parents and students:

1.     the right for subjects whose information is kept in the data system to receive notice their data is in the system;
2.     the right to consent or, more meaningfully, to withhold consent;
3.     and the right to request correction of erroneous information.

By signing A.B. 2723, Gov. Newsom stripped California parents and students of the rights to even know that this is happening, or agree to this data processing in the first place. 

Moreover, while both of these bills allowed state agencies to trample on Californians’ IPA rights, those IPA rights do not even apply to the county-level agencies affected by A.B. 518 or the local public schools and school districts affected by A.B. 2723—pointing to the need for more guardrails around unfettered data sharing on the local level.

A Call for Comprehensive Local Protections

A.B. 2723 and A.B. 518 reveal a crucial missing piece in Californians' privacy rights: that the privacy rights guaranteed to individuals through California's IPA do not protect them from the ways local agencies collect, share, and process data. The absence of robust privacy protections at the local government level is an ongoing issue that must be addressed.

Now is the time to push for stronger privacy protections, hold our lawmakers accountable, and ensure that California remains a leader in the fight for digital privacy. As always, we want to acknowledge how much your support has helped our advocacy in California this year. Your voices are invaluable, and they truly make a difference.

Let’s not settle for half-measures or weak solutions. Our privacy is worth the fight.

The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) has just finalized a rule that makes it easy and safe for you to figure out which bank will give you the best deal and switch to that bank, with just a couple of clicks. 

We love this kind of thing: the coolest thing about a digital world is how easy it is to switch from product or service to another - in theory. Digital tools are so flexible, anyone who wants your business can write a program to import your data into a new service and forward any messages or interactions that show up at the old service.

That's the theory. But in practice, companies have figured out how to use law - IP law, cybersecurity law, contract law, trade secrecy law - to literally criminalize this kind of marvelous digital flexibility, so that it can end up being even harder to switch away from a digital service than it is to hop around among traditional, analog ones.

Companies love lock-in. The harder it is to quit a product or service, the worse a company can treat you without risking your business. Economists call the difficulties you face in leaving one service for another the "switching costs" and businesses go to great lengths to raise the switching costs they can impose on you if you have the temerity to be a disloyal customer. 

So long as it's easier to coerce your loyalty than it is to earn it, companies win and their customers lose. That's where the new CFPB rule comes in.

Under this rule, you can authorize a third party - another bank, a comparison shopping site, a broker, or just your bookkeeping software - to request your account data from your bank. The bank has to give the third party all the data you've authorized. This data can include your transaction history and all the data needed to set up your payees and recurring transactions somewhere else.

That means that - for example - you can authorize a comparison shopping site to access some of your bank details, like how much you pay in overdraft fees and service charges, how much you earn in interest, and what your loans and credit cards are costing you. The service can use this data to figure out which bank will cost you the least and pay you the most. 

Then, once you've opened an account with your new best bank, you can direct it to request all your data from your old bank, and with a few clicks, get fully set up in your new financial home. All your payees transfer over, all your regular payments, all the transaction history you'll rely on at tax-time. "Painless" is an admittedly weird adjective to apply to household finances, but this comes pretty darned close.

Americans lose a lot of money to banking fees and low interest rates. How much? Well, CFPB economists, using a very conservative methodology, estimate that this rule will make the American public at least $677 million better off, every year.

Now, that $677 million has to come from somewhere, and it does: it comes from the banks that  are currently charging sky-high fees and paying rock-bottom interest. The largest of these banks are suing the CFPB in bid to block the rule from taking effect.

These banks claim that they are doing this to protect us, their depositors, from a torrent of fraud that would be unleashed if we were allowed to give third parties access to our own financial data. Clearly, this is the only reason a giant bank would want to make it harder for us to change to a competitor (it can't possibly have anything to do with the $677 million we stand to save by switching).

We've heard arguments like these before. While EFF takes a back seat to no one when it comes to defending user security (we practically invented this), we reject the idea that user security is improved when corporations lock us in (and leading security experts agree with us).

This is not to say that a bad data-sharing interoperability rule wouldn't be, you know, bad. A rule that lacked the proper safeguards could indeed enable a wave of fraud and identity theft the likes of which we've never seen.

Thankfully, this is a good interoperability rule! We liked it when it was first proposed, and it got even better through the rulemaking process.

First, the CFPB had the wisdom to know that a federal finance agency probably wasn't the best - or only - group of people to design a data-interchange standard. Rather than telling the banks exactly how they should transmit data when requested by their customers, the CFPB instead said, "These are the data you need to share and these are the characteristics of a good standards body. So long as you use a standard from a good standards body that shares this data, you're in compliance with the rule." This is an approach we've advocated for years, and it's the first time we've seen it in the wild.

The CFPB also instructs the banks to fail safe: any time a bank gets a request to share your data that it thinks might be fraudulent, they have the right to block the process until they can get more information and confirm that everything is on the up-and-up.

The rule also regulates the third parties that can get your data, establishing stringent criteria for which kinds of entities can do this. It also limits how they can use your data (strictly for the purposes you authorize) and what they need to do with the data when that has been completed (delete it forever), and what else they are allowed to do with it (nothing). There's also a mini "click-to-cancel" rule that guarantees that you can instantly revoke any third party's access to your data, for any reason.

The CFPB has had the authority to make a rule like this since its founding in 2010, with the passage of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). Back when the CFPA was working its way through Congress, the banks howled that they were being forced to give up "their" data to their competitors.

But it's not their data. It's your data. The decision about who you share it with belongs to you, and you alone.

A federal court recently ordered Google to make it easier for Android users to switch to rival app stores, banned Google from using its vast cash reserves to block competitors, and hit Google with a bundle of thou-shalt-nots and assorted prohibitions.

Each of these measures is well crafted, narrowly tailored, and purpose-built to accomplish something vital: improving competition in mobile app stores.

You love to see it.

Some background: the mobile OS market is a duopoly run by two dominant firms, Google (Android) and Apple (iOS). Both companies distribute software through their app stores (Google's is called "Google Play," Apple's is the "App Store"), and both companies use a combination of market power and legal intimidation to ensure that their users get all their apps from the company's store.

This creates a chokepoint: if you make an app and I want to run it, you have to convince Google (or Apple) to put it in their store first. That means that Google and Apple can demand all kinds of concessions from you, in order to reach me. The most important concession is money, and lots of it. Both Google and Apple demand 30 percent of every dime generated with an app - not just the purchase price of the app, but every transaction that takes place within the app after that. The companies have all kinds of onerous rules blocking app makers from asking their users to buy stuff on their website, instead of in the app, or from offering discounts to users who do so.

For avoidance of doubt: 30 percent is a lot. The "normal" rate for payment processing is more like 2-5 percent, a commission that's gone up 40 percent since covid hit, a price-hike that is itself attributable to monopoly power in the sector.That's bad, but Google and Apple demand ten times that (unless you qualify for their small business discount, in which case, they only charge five times more than the Visa/Mastercard cartel).

Epic Games - the company behind the wildly successful multiplayer game Fortnite - has been chasing Google and Apple through the courts over this for years, and last December, they prevailed in their case against Google.

This week's court ruling is the next step in that victory. Having concluded that Google illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly over apps for Android, the court had to decide what to do about it.

It's a great judgment: read it for yourself, or peruse the highlights in this excellent summary from The Verge. 

For the next three years, Google must meet the following criteria:

• Allow third-party app stores for Android, and let those app stores distribute all the same apps as are available in Google Play (app developers can opt out of this);
• Distribute third-party app stores as apps, so users can switch app stores by downloading a new one from Google Play, in just the same way as they'd install any app;
• Allow apps to use any payment processor, not just Google's 30 percent money-printing machine;
• Permit app vendors to tell users about other ways to pay for the things they buy in-app;
• Permit app vendors to set their own prices.

Google is also prohibited from using its cash to fence out rivals, for example, by:

• Offering incentives to app vendors to launch first on Google Play, or to be exclusive to Google Play;
• Offering incentives to app vendors to avoid rival app stores;
• Offering incentives to hardware makers to pre-install Google Play;
• Offering incentives to hardware makers not to install rival app stores.

These provisions tie in with Google's other recent  loss; in Google v. DoJ, where the company was found to have operated a monopoly over search. That case turned on the fact that Google paid unimaginably vast sums - more than $25 billion per year - to phone makers, browser makers, carriers, and, of course, Apple, to make Google Search the default. That meant that every search box you were likely to encounter would connect to Google, meaning that anyone who came up with a better search engine would have no hope of finding users.

What's so great about these remedies is that they strike at the root of the Google app monopoly. Google locks billions of users into its platform, and that means that software authors are at its mercy. By making it easy for users to switch from one app store to another, and by preventing Google from interfering with that free choice, the court is saying to Google, "You can only remain dominant if you're the best - not because you're holding 3.3 billion Android users hostage."

Interoperability - plugging new features, services and products into existing systems - is digital technology's secret superpower, and it's great to see the courts recognizing how a well-crafted interoperability order can cut through thorny tech problems. 

Google has vowed to appeal. They say they're being singled out, because Apple won a similar case earlier this year. It's true, a different  court got it wrong with Apple.

But Apple's not off the hook, either: the EU's Digital Markets Act took effect this year, and its provisions broadly mirror the injunction that just landed on Google. Apple responded to the EU by refusing to substantively comply with the law, teeing up another big, hairy battle.

In the meantime, we hope that other courts, lawmakers and regulators continue to explore the possible uses of interoperability to make technology work for its users. This order will have far-reaching implications, and not just for games like Fortnite: the 30 percent app tax is a millstone around the neck of all kinds of institutions, from independent game devs who are dolphins caught in Google's tuna net to the free press itself..

Artificial intelligence dominated the technology talk on panels, among sponsors, and across the trade floor at this year’s annual conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).

IACP, held Oct. 19 - 22 in Boston, brings together thousands of police employees with the businesses who want to sell them guns, gadgets, and gear. Across the four-day schedule were presentations on issues like election security and conversations with top brass like Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. But the central attraction was clearly the trade show floor. 

Hundreds of vendors of police technology spent their days trying to attract new police customers and sell existing ones on their newest projects. Event sponsors included big names in consumer services, like Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Verizon, and police technology giants, like Axon. There was a private ZZ Top concert at TD Garden for the 15,000+ attendees. Giveaways — stuffed animals, espresso, beer, challenge coins, and baked goods — appeared alongside Cybertrucks, massage stations, and tables of police supplies: vehicles, cameras, VR training systems, and screens displaying software for recordkeeping and data crunching.

And vendors were selling more ways than ever for police to surveillance the public and collect as much personal data as possible. EFF will continue to follow up on what we’ve seen in our research and at IACP.

A partial view of the vendor booths at IACP 2024

Doughnuts provided by police tech vendor Peregrine

“All in On AI” Demands Accountability

Police are pushing forward full speed ahead on AI. 

EFF’s Atlas of Surveillance tracks use of AI-powered equipment like face recognition, automated license plate readers, drones, predictive policing, and gunshot detection. We’ve seen a trend toward the integration of these various data streams, along with private cameras, AI video analysis, and information bought from data brokers. We’ve been following the adoption of real-time crime centers. Recently, we started tracking the rise of what we call Third Party Investigative Platforms, which are AI-powered systems that claim to sort or provide huge swaths of data, personal and public, for investigative use. 

The IACP conference featured companies selling all of these kinds of surveillance. Also, each day contained multiple panels on how AI could be integrated into local police work, including featured speakers like Axon founder Rick Smith, Chula Vista Police Chief Roxana Kennedy, and Fort Collins Police Chief Jeff Swoboda, whose agency was among the first to use Axon’s DraftOne, software using genAI to create police reports. Drone as First Responder (DFR) programs were prominently featured by Skydio, Flock Safety, and Brinc. Clearview AI marketed its face recognition software. Axon offered a whole set of different tools, centering its whole presentation around AxonAI and the computer-driven future. 

The booth for police drone provider, Brinc

The policing “solution” du jour is AI, but in reality it demands oversight, skepticism, and, in some cases, total elimination. AI in policing carries a dire list of risks, including extreme privacy violations, bias, false accusations, and the sabotage of our civil liberties. Adoption of such tools at minimum requires community control of whether to acquire them, and if adopted, transparency and clear guardrails. 

The Corporate/Law Enforcement Data Surveillance Venn Diagram Is Basically A Circle

AI cannot exist without data: data to train the algorithms, to analyze even more data, to trawl for trends and generate assumptions. Police have been accruing their own data for years through cases, investigations, and surveillance. Corporations have also been gathering information from us: our behavior online, our purchases, how long we look at an image, what we click on. 

As one vendor employee said to us, “Yeah, it’s scary.” 

Corporate harvesting and monetizing of our data market is wildly unregulated. Data brokers have been busily vacuuming up whatever information they can. A whole industry provides law enforcement access to as much information about as many people as possible, and packages police data to “provide insights” and visualizations. At IACP, companies like LexisNexis, Peregrine, DataMinr, and others showed off how their platforms can give police access to evermore data from tens of thousands of sources. 

Some Cops Care What the Public Thinks

Cops will move ahead with AI, but they would much rather do it without friction from their constituents. Some law enforcement officials remain shaken up by the global 2020 protests following the police murder of George Floyd. Officers at IACP regularly referred to the “public” or the “activists” who might oppose their use of drones and other equipment. One featured presentation, “Managing the Media's 24-Hour News Cycle and Finding a Reporter You Can Trust,” focused on how police can try to set the narrative that the media tells and the public generally believes. In another talk, Chula Vista showed off professionally-produced videos designed to win public favor. 

This underlines something important: Community engagement, questions, and advocacy are well worth the effort. While many police officers think privacy is dead, it isn’t. We should have faith that when we push back and exert enough pressure, we can stop law enforcement’s full-scale invasion of our private lives.

Cop Tech is Coming To Every Department

The companies that sell police spy tech, and many departments that use it, would like other departments to use it, too, expanding the sources of data feeding into these networks. In panels like “Revolutionizing Small and Mid-Sized Agency Practices with Artificial Intelligence,” and “Futureproof: Strategies for Implementing New Technology for Public Safety,” police officials and vendors encouraged agencies of all sizes to use AI in their communities. Representatives from state and federal agencies talked about regional information-sharing initiatives and ways smaller departments could be connecting and sharing information even as they work out funding for more advanced technology.

A Cybertruck at the booth for Skyfire AI

“Interoperability” and “collaboration” and “data sharing” are all the buzz. AI tools and surveillance equipment are available to police departments of all sizes, and that’s how companies, state agencies, and the federal government want it. It doesn’t matter if you think your Little Local Police Department doesn’t need or can’t afford this technology. Almost every company wants them as a customer, so they can start vacuuming their data into the company system and then share that data with everyone else. 

We Need Federal Data Privacy Legislation

There isn’t a comprehensive federal data privacy law, and it shows. Police officials and their vendors know that there are no guardrails from Congress preventing use of these new tools, and they’re typically able to navigate around piecemeal state legislation. 

We need real laws against this mass harvesting and marketing of our sensitive personal information — a real line in the sand that limits these data companies from helping police surveil us lest we cede even more of our rapidly dwindling privacy. We need new laws to protect ourselves from complete strangers trying to buy and search data on our lives, so we can explore and create and grow without fear of indefinite retention of every character we type, every icon we click. 

Having a computer, using the internet, or buying a cell phone shouldn’t mean signing away your life and its activities to any random person or company that wants to make a dollar off of it.

This year, a far-reaching, complex new piece of legislation comes into effect in EU: the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which represents some of the most ambitious tech policy in European history. We don’t love everything in the DMA, but some of its provisions are great, because they center the rights of users of technology, and they do that by taking away some of the control platforms exercise over users, and handing that control back to the public who rely on those platforms.

Our favorite parts of the DMA are the interoperability provisions. IP laws in the EU (and the US) have all but killed the longstanding and honorable tradition of adversarial interoperability: that’s when you can alter a service, program or device you use, without permission from the company that made it. Whether that’s getting your car fixed by a third-party mechanic, using third-party ink in your printer, or choosing which apps run on your phone, you should have the final word. If a company wants you to use its official services, it should make the best services, at the best price – not use the law to force you to respect its business-model.

It seems the EU agrees with us, at least on this issue. The DMA includes several provisions that force the giant tech companies that control so much of our online lives (AKA “gatekeeper platforms”) to provide official channels for interoperators. This is a great idea, though, frankly, lawmakers should also restore the right of tinkerers and hackers to reverse-engineer your stuff and let you make it work the way you want.

One of these interop provisions is aimed at app stores for mobile devices. Right now, the only (legal) way to install software on your iPhone is through Apple’s App Store. That’s fine, so long as you trust Apple and you think they’re doing a great job, but pobody’s nerfect, and even if you love Apple, they won’t always get it right – like when they tell you you’re not allowed to have an app that records civilian deaths from US drone strikes, or a game that simulates life in a sweatshop, or a dictionary (because it has swear words!). The final word on which apps you use on your device should be yours.

Which is why the EU ordered Apple to open up iOS devices to rival app stores, something Apple categorically refuses to do. Apple’s “plan” for complying with the DMA is, shall we say, sorely lacking (this is part of a grand tradition of American tech giants wiping their butts with EU laws that protect Europeans from predatory activity, like the years Facebook spent ignoring European privacy laws, manufacturing stupid legal theories to defend the indefensible).

Apple’s plan for opening the App Store is effectively impossible for any competitor to use, but this goes double for anyone hoping to offer free and open source software to iOS users. Without free software – operating systems like GNU/Linux, website tools like WordPress, programming languages like Rust and Python, and so on – the internet would grind to a halt.

Our dear friends at Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) have filed an important brief with the European Commission, formally objecting to Apple’s ridiculous plan on the grounds that it effectively bars iOS users from choosing free software for their devices.

FSFE’s brief makes a series of legal arguments, rebutting Apple’s self-serving theories about what the DMA really means. FSFE shoots down Apple’s tired argument that copyrights and patents override any interoperability requirements. U.S. courts have been inconsistent on this issue, but we’re hopeful that the Court of Justice of the E.U. will reject the “intellectual property trump card.” Even more importantly, FSFE makes moral and technical arguments about the importance of safeguarding the technological self-determination of users by letting them choose free software, and about why this is as safe – or safer – than giving Apple a veto over its customers’ software choices.

Apple claims that because you might choose bad software, you shouldn’t be able to choose software, period. They say that if competing app stores are allowed to exist, users won’t be safe or private. We disagree – and so do some of the most respected security experts in the world.

It’s true that Apple can use its power wisely to ensure that you only choose good software. But it’s also used that power to attack its users, like in China, where Apple blocked all working privacy tools from iPhones and then neutered a tool used to organize pro-democracy protests.

It’s not just in China, either. Apple has blanketed the world with billboards celebrating its commitment to its users’ privacy, and they made good on that promise, blocking third-party surveillance (to the $10 billion dollar chagrin of Facebook). But right in the middle of all that, Apple also started secretly spying on iOS users to fuel its own surveillance advertising network, and then lied about it.

Pobody’s nerfect. If you trust Apple with your privacy and security, that’s great. But for people who don’t trust Apple to have the final word – for people who value software freedom, or privacy (from Apple), or democracy (in China), users should have the final say.

We’re so pleased to see the EU making tech policy we can get behind – and we’re grateful to our friends at FSFE for holding Apple’s feet to the fire when they flout that law.