Deeplinks

Age verification has officially arrived in the UK thanks to the Online Safety Act (OSA), a UK law requiring online platforms to check that all UK-based users are at least eighteen years old before allowing them to access broad categories of “harmful” content that go far beyond graphic sexual content. EFF has extensively criticized the OSA for eroding privacy, chilling speech, and undermining the safety of the children it aims to protect. Now that it’s gone into effect, these countless problems have begun to reveal themselves, and the absurd, disastrous outcome illustrates why we must work to avoid this age-verified future at all costs.

Perhaps you’ve seen the memes as large platforms like Spotify and YouTube attempt to comply with the OSA, while smaller sites—like forums focused on parenting, green living, and gaming on Linux—either shut down or cease some operations rather than face massive fines for not following the law’s vague, expensive, and complicated rules and risk assessments. 

But even Reddit, a site that prizes anonymity and has regularly demonstrated its commitment to digital rights, was doomed to fail in its attempt to comply with the OSA. Though Reddit is not alone in bowing to the UK mandates, it provides a perfect case study and a particularly instructive glimpse of what the age-verified future would look like if we don’t take steps to stop it.

On July 25, users in the UK were shocked and rightfully revolted to discover that their favorite Reddit communities were now locked behind age verification walls. Under the new policies, UK Redditors were asked to submit a photo of their government ID and/or a live selfie to Persona, the for-profit vendor that Reddit contracts with to provide age verification services. 

For many, this was the first time they realized what the OSA would actually mean in practice—and the outrage was immediate. As soon as the policy took effect, reports emerged from users that subreddits dedicated to LGBTQ+ identity and support, global journalism and conflict reporting, and even public health-related forums like r/periods, r/stopsmoking, and r/sexualassault were walled off to unverified users. A few more absurd examples of the communities that were blocked off, according to users, include: r/poker, r/vexillology (the study of flags), r/worldwar2, r/earwax, r/popping (the home of grossly satisfying pimple-popping content), and r/rickroll (yup). This is, again, exactly what digital rights advocates warned about. 

Every user in the country is now faced with a choice: submit their most sensitive data for privacy-invasive analysis, or stay off of Reddit entirely. Which would you choose? 

The OSA defines "harmful" in multiple ways that go far beyond pornography, so the obstacles the UK users are experiencing are exactly what the law intended. Like other online age restrictions, the OSA obstructs way more than kids’ access to clearly adult sites. When fines are at stake, platforms will always default to overcensoring. So every user in the country is now faced with a choice: submit their most sensitive data for privacy-invasive analysis, or stay off of Reddit entirely. Which would you choose? 

Again, the fact that the OSA has forced Reddit, the “heart of the internet,” to overcensor user-generated content is noteworthy. Reddit has historically succeeded where many others have failed in safeguarding digital rights—particularly the free speech and privacy of its users. It may not be perfect, but Reddit has worked harder than many large platforms to defend Section 230, a key law in the US protecting free speech online. It was one of the first platforms to endorse the Santa Clara Principles, and it was the only platform to receive every star in EFF’s 2019 “Who Has Your Back” (Censorship Edition) report due to its unique approach to moderation, its commitment to notice and appeals of moderation decisions, and its transparency regarding government takedown requests. Reddit’s users are particularly active in the digital rights world: in 2012, they helped EFF and other advocates defeat SOPA/PIPA, a dangerous censorship law. Redditors were key in forcing members of Congress to take a stand against the bill, and were the first to declare a “blackout day,” a historic moment of online advocacy in which over a hundred thousand websites went dark to protest the bill. And Reddit is the only major social media platform where EFF doesn’t regularly share our work—because its users generally do so on their own. 

If a platform with a history of fighting for digital rights is forced to overcensor, how will the rest of the internet look if age verification spreads? Reddit’s attempts to comply with the OSA show the urgency of fighting these mandates on every front. 

We cannot accept these widespread censorship regimes as our new norm. 

In the days after the OSA became effective, backlash to the new age verification measures spread across the internet like wildfire as UK users made their hatred of these new policies clear. VPN usage in the UK soared, over 500,000 people signed a petition to repeal the OSA, and some shrewd users even discovered that video game face filters and meme images could fool Persona’s verification software. But these loopholes aren’t likely to last long, as we can expect the age-checking technology to continuously adapt to new evasion tactics. As good as they may be, VPNs cannot save us from the harms of age verification. 

In effect, the OSA and other age verification mandates like it will increase the risk of harm, not reduce it. 

Even when the workarounds inevitably cease to function and the age-checking procedures calcify, age verification measures still will not achieve their singular goal of protecting kids from so-called “harmful” online content. Teenagers will, uh, find a way to access the content they want. Instead of going to a vetted site like Pornhub for explicit material, curious young people (and anyone else who does not or cannot submit to age checks) will be pushed to the sketchier corners of the internet—where there is less moderation, more safety risk, and no regulation to prevent things like CSAM or non-consensual sexual content. In effect, the OSA and other age verification mandates like it will increase the risk of harm, not reduce it. 

If that weren’t enough, the slew of practical issues that have accompanied Reddit’s rollout also reveals the inadequacy of age verification technology to meet our current moment. For example, users reported various bugs in the age-checking process, like being locked out or asked repeatedly for ID despite complying. UK-based subreddit moderators also reported facing difficulties either viewing NSFW post submissions or vetting users’ post history, even when the particular submission or subreddit in question was entirely SFW. 

Taking all of this together, it is excessively clear that age-gating the internet is not the solution to kids’ online safety. Whether due to issues with the discriminatory and error-prone technology, or simply because they lack either a government ID or personal device of their own, millions of UK internet users will be completely locked out of important social, political, and creative communities. If we allow age verification, we welcome new levels of censorship and surveillance with it—while further lining the pockets of big tech and the slew of for-profit age verification vendors that have popped up to fill this market void.

The UK age verification rollout, chaotic as it is, is a proving ground for platforms that are looking ahead to implementing these measures on a global scale. In the US, there’s never been a better time to get educated and get loud about the dangers of this legislation. EFF has sounded this alarm before, but Reddit’s attempts to comply with the OSA show its urgency: age verification mandates are censorship regimes, and in the US, porn is just the tip of the iceberg. 

US legislators have been disarmingly explicit about their intentions to use restrictions on sexually explicit content as a Trojan horse that will eventually help them censor all sorts of other perfectly legal (and largely uncontroversial) content. We’ve already seen them move the goalposts from porn to transgender and other LGBTQ+ content. What’s next? Sexual education materials, reproductive rights information, DEI or “critical race theory” resources—the list goes on. Under KOSA, which last session passed the Senate with an enormous majority but did not make it to the House, we would likely see similar results here that we see in the UK under the OSA.

Nearly half of U.S. states have some sort of online age restrictions in place already, and the Supreme Court recently paved the way for even more age blocks on online sexual content. But Americans—including those under 18—still have a First Amendment right to view content that is not sexually explicit, and EFF will continue to push back against any legislation that expands the age mandates beyond porn, in statehouses, in courts, and in the streets. 

Call or email your representatives to oppose KOSA and any other federal age-checking mandate. Tell your state lawmakers, wherever you are, to oppose age verification laws. Make your voice heard online, and talk to your friends and family. Tell them about what’s happening to the internet in the UK, and make sure they understand what we all stand to lose—online privacy, security, anonymity, and expression—if the age-gated internet becomes a global reality. EFF is building a coalition to stop this enormous violation of digital rights. Join us today.

When a technology can have a conversation with you, it’s natural to anthropomorphize that technology—to see it as a person. It’s tempting to see a chatbot as a thinking, speaking robot, but this gives the technology too much credit. This can also lead people—including judges in cases about AI chatbots—to overlook the human expressive choices connected to the words that chatbots produce. If chatbot outputs had no First Amendment protections, the government could potentially ban chatbots that criticize the administration or reflect viewpoints the administration disagrees with.

In fact, the output of chatbots can reflect not only the expressive choices of their creators and users, but also implicates users’ right to receive information. That’s why EFF and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) have filed an amicus brief in Garcia v. Character Technologies explaining how large language models work and the various kinds of protected speech at stake.

Among the questions in this case is the extent to which free speech protections extend to the creation, dissemination, and receipt of chatbot outputs. Our brief explains how the expressive choices of a chatbot developer can shape its output, such as during reinforcement learning, when humans are instructed to give positive feedback to responses that align with the scientific consensus around climate change and negative feedback for denying it (or vice versa). This chain of human expressive decisions extends from early stages of selecting training data to crafting a system prompt. A user’s instructions are also reflected in chatbot output. Far from being the speech of a robot, chatbot output often reflects human expression that is entitled to First Amendment protection.

In addition, the right to receive speech in itself is protected—even when the speaker would have no independent right to say it. Users have a right to access the information chatbots provide.

None of this is to suggest that chatbots cannot be regulated or that the harms they cause cannot be addressed. The First Amendment simply requires that those regulations be appropriately tailored to the harm to avoid unduly burdening the right to express oneself through the medium of a chatbot, or to receive the information it provides.

We hope that our brief will be helpful to the court as the case progresses, as the judge decided not to send the question up on appeal at this time.

Read our brief below.

Sometimes technology feels like a gilded cage, and you’re not the one holding the key. Most people can’t live off the grid, so how do we stop data brokers who track and exploit you for money? Tech companies that distort what you see and hear? Governments that restrict, censor, and intimidate? No one can do it alone, but EFF was built to protect your rights. With your support, we can take back control.

Join EFF

With 35 years of deep expertise and the support of our members, EFF is delivering bold action to solve the biggest problems facing tech users: suing the government for overstepping their bounds; empowering the people and lawmakers to help them hold the line; and creating free, public interest software tools, guides, and explainers to make the web better.

EFF members enable thousands of hours of our legal work, activism, investigation, and software development for the public good. Join us today.

Think about it: in the face of rising authoritarianism and invasive surveillance, where would we be without an encrypted web? Your security online depends on researchers, hackers, and creators who are willing to take privacy and free speech rights seriously. That's why EFF will eagerly protect the beating heart of that movement at this week's summer security conferences in Las Vegas. This renowned summit of computer hacking events—BSidesLV, Black Hat USA, and DEF CON—illustrate the key role a community can play in helping you break free of the trappings of technology and retake the reins.

For summer security week, EFF’s DEF CON 33 t-shirt design Beyond the Walled Garden by Hannah Diaz is your gift at the Gold Level membership. Look closer to discover this year’s puzzle challenge! Many thanks to our volunteer puzzlemasters jabberw0nky and Elegin for all their work.

Our team is on a relentless mission to protect your civil liberties and human rights wherever they meet tech, but it’s only possible with your help.

Donate Today

Break free of tech’s walled gardens.

The UK is having a moment. In late July, new rules took effect that require all online services available in the UK to assess whether they host content considered harmful to children, and if so, these services must introduce age checks to prevent children from accessing such content. Online services are also required to change their algorithms and moderation systems to ensure that content defined as harmful, like violent imagery, is not shown to young people.

During the four years that the legislation behind these changes—the Online Safety Act (OSA)—was debated in Parliament, and in the two years since while the UK’s independent, online regulator Ofcom devised the implementing regulations, experts from across civil society repeatedly flagged concerns about the impact of this law on both adults’ and children’s rights. Yet politicians in the UK pushed ahead and enacted one of the most contentious age verification mandates that we’ve seen.

The case of safety online is not solved through technology alone.

No one—no matter their age—should have to hand over their passport or driver’s license just to access legal information and speak freely. As we’ve been saying for many years now, the approach that UK politicians have taken with the Online Safety Act is reckless, short-sighted, and will introduce more harm to the children that it is trying to protect. Here are five reasons why:

Mandatory age verification tools are surveillance systems that threaten everyone’s rights to speech and privacy. To keep children out of a website or away from certain content, online services need to confirm the ages of all their visitors, not just children—for example by asking for government-issued documentation or by using biometric data, such as face scans, that are shared with third-party services like Yoti or Persona to estimate that the age of the user is over 18. This means that adults and children must all share their most sensitive and personal information with online services to access a website. 

Once this information is shared to verify a user's age, there’s no way for people to know how it's going to be retained or used by that company, including whether it will be sold or shared with even more third parties like data brokers or law enforcement. The more information a website collects, the more chances there are for that information to get into the hands of a marketing company, a bad actor, or a state actor or someone who has filed a legal request for it. If a website, or one of the intermediaries it uses, misuses or mishandles the data, the visitor might never find out. There is also a risk that this data, once collected, can be linked to other unrelated web activity, creating an aggregated profile of the user that grows more valuable as each new data point is added. 

As we argued extensively during the passage of the Online Safety Act, any attempt to protect children online should not include measures that require platforms to collect data or remove privacy protections around users’ identities. But with the Online Safety Act, users are being forced to trust that platforms (and whatever third-party verification services they choose to partner with) are guardrailing users’ most sensitive information—not selling it through the opaque supply chains that allow corporations and data brokers to make millions. The solution is not to come up with a more sophisticated technology, but to simply not collect the data in the first place.

Young people should be able to access information, speak to each other and to the world, play games, and express themselves online without the government making decisions about what speech is permissible. But under the Online Safety Act, the UK government—with Ofcom—are deciding what speech young people have access to, and are forcing platforms to remove any content considered harmful. As part of this, platforms are required to build “safer algorithms” to ensure that children do not encounter harmful content, and introduce effective content moderation systems to remove harmful content when platforms become aware of it. 

Because the OSA threatens large fines or even jail time for any non-compliance, platforms are forced to over-censor content to ensure that they do not face any such liability. Reports are already showing the censorship of content that falls outside the parameters of the OSA, such as footage of police attacking pro-Palestinian protestors being blocked on X, the subreddit r/cider—yes, the beverage—asking users for photo ID, and smaller websites closing down entirely. UK-based organisation Open Rights Group are tracking this censorship with their tool, Blocked.

We know that the scope for so-called “harmful content” is subjective and arbitrary, but it also often sweeps up content like pro-LGBTQ+ speech. Policies like the OSA, that claim to “protect children” or keep sites “family-friendly,” often label LGBTQ+ content as “adult” or “harmful,” while similar content that doesn't involve the LGBTQ+ community is left untouched. Sometimes, this impact—the censorship of LGBTQ+ content—is implicit, and only becomes clear when the policies are actually implemented. Other times, this intended impact is explicitly spelled out in the text of the policies. But in all scenarios, legal content is being removed at the discretion of government agencies and online platforms, all under the guise of protecting children. 

Children deserve a more intentional and holistic approach to protecting their safety and privacy online.

Users in the UK have been clear in showing that they do not want this. Just days after age checks came into effect, VPN apps became the most downloaded on Apple's App Store in the UK. The BBC reported that one app, Proton VPN, reported an 1,800% spike in UK daily sign-ups after the age check rules took effect. A similar spike in searches for VPNs was evident in January when Florida joined the ever growing list of U.S. states in implementing an age verification mandate on sites that host adult content, including pornography websites like Pornhub. 

Whilst VPNs may be able to disguise the source of your internet activity, they are not foolproof or a solution to age verification laws. Ofcom has already started discouraging their use, and with time, it will become increasingly difficult for VPNs to effectively circumvent age verification requirements as enforcement of the OSA adapts and deepens. VPN providers will struggle to keep up with these constantly changing laws to ensure that users can bypass the restrictions, especially as more sophisticated detection systems are introduced to identify and block VPN traffic. 

Some politicians in the Labour Party argued that a ban on VPNs will be essential to prevent users circumventing age verification checks. But banning VPNs, just like introducing age verification measures, will not achieve this goal. It will, however, function as an authoritarian control on accessing information in the UK. If you are navigating protecting your privacy or want to learn more about VPNs, EFF provides a comprehensive guide on using VPNs and protecting digital privacy—a valuable resource for anyone looking to use these tools.

 Alongside increased VPN usage, a petition calling for the repeal of the Online Safety Act recently hit more than 400,000 signatures. In its official response to the petition, the UK government said that it “has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections.” This is not good enough: the government must immediately treat the reasonable concerns of people in the UK with respect, not disdain, and revisit the OSA.

To check users' ages, three types of systems are typically deployed: age verification, which requires a person to prove their age and identity; age assurance, whereby users are required to prove that they are of a certain age or age range, such as over 18; or age estimation, which typically describes the process or technology of estimating ages to a certain range. The OSA requires platforms to check ages through age assurance to prove that those accessing platforms are over 18, but leaves the specific tool for measuring this at the platforms’ discretion. This may therefore involve uploading a government-issued ID, or submitting a face scan to an app that will then use a third-party platform to “estimate” your age.

From what we know about systems that use face scanning in other contexts, such as face recognition technology used by law enforcement, even the best technology is susceptible to mistakes and misidentification. Just last year, a legal challenge was launched against the Met Police after a community worker was wrongly identified and detained following a misidentification by the Met’s live facial recognition system. 

For age assurance purposes, we know that the technology at best has an error range of over a year, which means that users may risk being incorrectly blocked or locked out of content by erroneous estimations of their age—whether unintentionally or due to discriminatory algorithmic patterns that incorrectly determine people’s identities. These algorithms are not always reliable, and even if the technology somehow had 100% accuracy, it would still be an unacceptable tool of invasive surveillance that people should not have to be subject to just to access content that the government could consider harmful.

Many advocates of the ‘digital transition’ introduce document-based verification requirements or device-based age verification systems on the assumption that every individual has access to a form of identification or their own smartphone. But this is not true. In the UK, millions of people don’t hold a form of identification or own a personal mobile device, instead sharing with family members or using public devices like those at a library or internet cafe. Yet because age checks under the OSA involve checking a user’s age through government-issued ID documents or face scans on a mobile device, millions of people will be left excluded from online speech and will lose access to much of the internet. 

These are primarily lower-income or older people who are often already marginalized, and for whom the internet may be a critical part of life. We need to push back against age verification mandates like the Online Safety Act, not just because they make children less safe online, but because they risk undermining crucial access to digital services, eroding privacy and data protection, and limiting freedom of expression. 

The case of safety online is not solved through technology alone, and children deserve a more intentional and holistic approach to protecting their safety and privacy online—not this lazy strategy that causes more harm that it solves. Rather than weakening rights for already vulnerable communities online, politicians must acknowledge these shortcomings and explore less invasive approaches to protect all people from online harms. We encourage politicians in the UK to look into what is best, and not what is easy.

It’s time for EFF’s annual journey to Las Vegas for the summer security conferences: BSidesLV, Black Hat USA, and DEF CON. Our lawyers, activists, and technologists are always excited to support this community of security researchers and tinkerers—the folks who push computer security forward (and somehow survive the Vegas heat in their signature black hoodies).  

As in past years, EFF attorneys will be on-site to assist speakers and attendees. If you have legal concerns about an upcoming talk or sensitive infosec research—during the Las Vegas conferences or anytime—don’t hesitate to reach out at [email protected]. Share a brief summary of the issue, and we’ll do our best to connect you with the right resources. You can also learn more about our work supporting technologists on our Coders’ Rights Project page. 

Be sure to swing by the expo areas at all three conferences to say hello to your friendly neighborhood EFF staffers! You’ll probably spot us in the halls, but we’d love for you to stop by our booths to catch up on our latest work, get on our action alerts list, or become an EFF member! For the whole week, we’ll have our limited-edition DEF CON 33 t-shirt on hand—I can’t wait to see them take over each conference! 

Ask EFF at BSides Las Vegas
At this interactive session, our panelists will share updates on critical digital rights issues and EFF's ongoing efforts to safeguard privacy, combat surveillance, and advocate for freedom of expression.
WHEN: Tuesday, August 5, 15:00
WHERE: Skytalks at the Tuscany Suites Hotel & Casino

Recording PCAPs from Stingrays With a $20 Hotspot
What if you could use Wireshark on the connection between your cellphone and the tower it's connected to? In this talk we present Rayhunter, a cell site simulator detector built on top of a cheap cellular hotspot. 
WHEN: Friday, August 8, 13:30
WHERE: DEF CON, LVCC - L1 - EHW3 - Track 1

Rayhunter Build Clinic
Come out and build EFF's Rayhunter! ($10 materials fee as an EFF donation)
WHEN: Friday, August 8 at 14:30
WHERE: DEF CON, Hackers.Town Community Space

Protect Your Privacy Online and on the Streets with EFF Tools
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has been protecting your rights to privacy, free expression, and security online for 35 years! One important way we push for these freedoms is through our free, open source tools. We’ll provide an overview of how these tools work, including Privacy Badger, Rayhunter, Certbot, and Surveillance-Self Defense, and how they can help keep you safe online and on the streets.
WHEN: Friday, August 8 at 17:00
WHERE: DEF CON, Community Stage

Rayhunter Internals
Rayhunter is an open source project from EFF to detect IMSI catchers. In this follow up to our main stage talk about the project we will take a deep dive into the internals of Rayhunter. We will talk about the architecture of the project, what we have gained by using Rust, porting to other devices, how to jailbreak new devices, the design of our detection heuristics, open source shenanigans, and how we analyze files sent to us.
WHEN: Saturday, August 9, at 12:00
WHERE: DEF CON, Hackers.Town Community Space

Ask EFF at DEF CON 33
We're excited to answer your burning questions on pressing digital rights issues! Our expert panelists will offer brief updates on EFF's work defending your digital rights, before opening the floor for attendees to ask their questions. This dynamic conversation centers challenges DEF CON attendees actually face, and is an opportunity to connect on common causes.
WHEN: Saturday, August 9, at 14:30
WHERE: DEF CON, LVCC - L1 - EHW3 - Track 4

The EFF Benefit Poker Tournament is back for DEF CON 33! Your buy-in is paired with a donation to support EFF’s mission to protect online privacy and free expression for all. Join us at the Planet Hollywood Poker Room as a player or spectator. Play for glory. Play for money. Play for the future of the web. 
WHEN: Friday, August 8, 2025 - 12:00-15:00
WHERE: Planet Hollywood Poker Room, 3667 Las Vegas Blvd South, Las Vegas, NV 89109

Yes, it's exactly what it sounds like. Join EFF at the intersection of facial hair and hacker culture. Spectate, heckle, or compete in any of four categories: Full beard, Partial Beard, Moustache  Only, or Freestyle (anything goes so create your own facial apparatus!). Prizes! Donations to EFF! Beard oil! Get the latest updates.
WHEN: Saturday, August 9, 10:00- 12:00
WHERE: DEF CON, Contest Stage (Look for the Moustache Flag)

Join us for some tech trivia on Saturday, August 9 at 7:00 PM! EFF's team of technology experts have crafted challenging trivia about the fascinating, obscure, and trivial aspects of digital security, online rights, and internet culture. Competing teams will plumb the unfathomable depths of their knowledge, but only the champion hive mind will claim the First Place Tech Trivia Trophy and EFF swag pack. The second and third place teams will also win great EFF gear.
WHEN: Saturday, August 9, 19:00-22:00
WHERE: DEF CON, Contest Stage

Come find our table at BSidesLV (Middle Ground), Black Hat USA (back of the Business Hall), and DEF CON (Vendor Hall) to learn more about the latest in online rights, get on our action alert list, or donate to become an EFF member. We'll also have our limited-edition DEF CON 33 shirts available starting Monday at BSidesLV! These shirts have a puzzle incorporated into the design. Snag one online for yourself starting on Tuesday, August 5 if you're not in Vegas!

Join EFF

Support Security & Digital Innovation

Companies large and small are doubling down on digital rights, and we’re excited to see more and more of them join EFF. We’re first and always an organization who fights for users, so you might be asking: Why does EFF work with corporate donors, and why do they want to work with us?

SHOW YOUR COMPANY SUPPORTS A BETTER DIGITAL FUTURE

JOIN EFF TODAY

Businesses want to work with EFF for two reasons:

Both customers and employees alike care about working with organizations they know share their values. And issues like data privacy, sketchy uses of surveillance, and free expression are pretty top of mind for people these days. Research shows that today’s working adults take philanthropy seriously, whether they’re giving organizations their money or their time. For younger generations (like the Millennial EFFer writing this blog post!) especially, feeling like a meaningful part of the fight for good adds to a sense of purpose and fulfillment. Given the choice to spend hard-earned cash with techno-authoritarians versus someone willing to take a stand for digital freedom: We’ll take option two, thanks.

When EFF wins, users win. Standing up for the ability to access, use, and build on technology means that a handful of powerful interests won’t have unfair advantages over everyone else. Whether it’s the fight for net neutrality, beating back patent trolls in court, protecting the right to repair and tinker, or pushing for decentralization and interoperability, EFF’s work can build a society that supports creativity and innovation; where established players aren’t allowed to silence the next generation of creators. Simply put: Digital rights are good for business!

The trust of EFF’s membership is based on 35 years of speaking truth to power, whether it’s on Capitol Hill or in Silicon Valley (and let’s be honest, if EFF was Big Tech astroturf, we’d drive nicer cars). EFF will always lead the work and invite supporters to join us, not the other way around. EFF will gratefully thank the companies who join us and offer employees and customers ways to get involved, too. EFF won’t take money from Google, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, or Tesla, and we won’t endorse or sponsor a company, service, or product. Most importantly: EFF won’t alter the mission or the message to meet a donor’s wishes, no matter how much they’ve donated.

A few of the ways your team can support EFF:

Ready to join us in the fight for a better future? Visit eff.org/thanks.

Of the many principles EFF fights for in consumer data privacy legislation, one of the most basic is a right to access the data companies have about you. It’s only fair. So many companies collect information about us without our knowledge or consent. We at least should have a way to find out what they purport to know about our lives.

Yet a recent paper from researchers at the University of Californian-Irvine found that, of 543 data brokers in California’s data broker registry at time of publishing, 43 percent failed to even respond to requests to access data.

43 percent of registered data brokers in California failed to even respond to requests to access data, one study shows.

Let’s stop there for a second. That’s more than four in ten companies from an industry that makes its money from collecting and selling our personal information, ignoring one of our most basic rights under the California Consumer Privacy Act: the right to know what information companies have about us.

Such failures violate the law. If this happens to you, you should file a complaint with the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) and the California Attorney General's Office. 

This is particularly galling because it’s not easy to file a request in the first place. As these researchers pointed out, there is no streamlined process for these time-consuming requests. People often won’t have the time or energy to see them through. Yet when someone does make the effort to file a request, some companies still feel just fine ignoring the law and their customers completely.

Four in ten data brokers are leaving requesters on read, in violation of the law and our privacy rights. That’s not a passing grade in anyone’s book.

Without consequences to back up our rights, as this research illustrates, many companies will bank on not getting caught, or factor weak slaps on the wrist into the cost of doing business.

This is why EFF fights for bills that have teeth. For example, we demand that people have the right to sue for privacy violations themselves—what’s known as a private right of action. Companies hate this form of enforcement, because it can cost them real money when they flout the law.

When the CCPA started out as a ballot initiative, it had a private right of action, including to enforce access requests. But when the legislature enacted the CCPA (in exchange for the initiative’s proponents removing it from the ballot), corporate interests killed the private right of action in negotiations.

We encourage the California Privacy Protection Agency and the California Attorney General’s Office, which both have the authority to bring these companies to task under the CCPA, to look into these findings. Moving forward, we all have to continue to fight for better laws, to strengthen existing laws, and call on states to enforce the laws on their books to respect everyone’s privacy. Data brokers must face real consequences for brazenly flouting our privacy rights.

Young people should be able to access information, speak to each other and to the world, play games, and express themselves online without the government making decisions about what speech is permissible. But in one of the latest misguided attempts to protect children online, internet users of all ages in the UK are being forced to prove their age before they can access millions of websites under the country’s Online Safety Act (OSA). 

The legislation attempts to make the UK the “the safest place” in the world to be online by placing a duty of care on online platforms to protect their users from harmful content. It mandates that any site accessible in the UK—including social media, search engines, music sites, and adult content providers—enforce age checks to prevent children from seeing harmful content. This is defined in three categories, and failure to comply could result in fines of up to 10% of global revenue or courts blocking services:

Online service providers must make a judgement about whether the content they host is harmful to children, and if so, address the risk by implementing a number of measures, which includes, but is not limited to:

Since these measures took effect in late July, social media platforms Reddit, Bluesky, Discord, and X all introduced age checks to block children from seeing harmful content on their sites. Porn websites like Pornhub and YouPorn implemented age assurance checks on their sites, now asking users to either upload government-issued ID, provide an email address for technology to analyze other online services where it has been used, or submit their information to a third-party vendor for age verification. Sites like Spotify are also requiring users to submit face scans to third-party digital identity company Yoti to access content labelled 18+. Ofcom, which oversees implementation of the OSA, went further by sending letters to try to enforce the UK legislation on U.S.-based companies such as the right-wing platform Gab. 

The UK is not alone in pursuing such a misguided approach to protect children online: the U.S. Supreme Court recently paved the way for states to require websites to check the ages of users before allowing them access to graphic sexual materials; courts in France last week ruled that porn websites can check users’ ages; the European Commission is pushing forward with plans to test its age-verification app; and Australia’s ban on youth under the age of 16 accessing social media is likely to be implemented in December. 

But the UK’s scramble to find an effective age verification method shows us that there isn't one, and it’s high time for politicians to take that seriously. The Online Safety Act is a threat to the privacy of users, restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposes users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form of ID excluded from accessing the internet.

And, to top it all off, UK internet users are sending a very clear message that they do not want anything to do with this censorship regime. Just days after age checks came into effect, VPN apps became the most downloaded on Apple's App Store in the UK, and a petition calling for the repeal of the Online Safety Act recently hit more than 400,000 signatures. 

The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users—including children—rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect.

Earlier this year, EFF welcomed Technology Education Collaborative (TEC) into the Electronic Frontier Alliance (EFA). TEC empowers everyday people to become informed users of today's extraordinary technology, and helps people better understand the tech that surrounds them on a daily basis. TEC does this by hosting in-person, hands-on events, including right to repair workshops, privacy meetups, tech field trips, and demos. We got the chance to catch up with Connor Johnson, Chief Technology Officer of TEC, and speak with him about the work TEC is doing in the Greater Phoenix area:

Connor, tell us how Technology Education Collaborative got started, and about its mission.

TEC was started with the idea of creating a space where industry professionals, students, and the community at large could learn about technology together. We teamed up with Gateway Community College to build the Advanced Cyber Systems Lab. A lot of tech groups in Phoenix meet at varying locations, because they can’t afford or find a dedicated space. TEC hosts community technology-focused groups at the Advanced Cyber Systems Lab, so they can have the proper equipment to work on and collaborate on their projects.

Speaking of projects, let's talk about some of the main priorities of TEC: right to repair, privacy, and cybersecurity. Having the only right to repair hub in the greater Phoenix metro valley, what concerns do you see on the horizon? 

One of our big concerns is that many companies have slowly shifted away from repairability to a sense of convenience. We are thankful for the donations from iFixIt that allow people to use the tools they may otherwise not know they need or could afford. Community members and IT professionals have come to use our anti-static benches to fix everything from TVs to 3D printers. We are also starting to host ‘Hardware Happy Hour’ so anyone can bring their hardware projects in and socialize with like-minded people.

How’s your privacy and cybersecurity work resonating with the community?

We have had a host of different speakers discuss the current state of privacy and how it can affect different individuals. It was also wonderful to have your Surveillance Litigation Director, Andrew Crocker, speak at our July edition of Privacy PIE. So many of the attendees were thrilled to be able to ask him questions and get clarification on current issues. Christina, CEO of TEC, has done a great job leading our Privacy PIE events and discussing the legal situation surrounding many privacy rights people take for granted. One of my favorite presentations was when we discussed privacy concerns with modern cars, where she touched on aspects like how the cameras are tied to car companies' systems and data collection.

TEC’s current goal is to focus on building a community that is not just limited to cybersecurity itself. One problem that we’ve noticed is that there are a lot of groups focused on security but don’t branch out into other fields in tech. Security affects all aspects of technology, which is why TEC has been branching out its efforts to other fields within tech like hardware and programming. A deeper understanding of the fundamentals can help us to build better systems from the ground up, rather than applying cybersecurity as an afterthought.

In the field of cybersecurity, we have been working on a project building a small business network. The idea behind this initiative is to allow small businesses to independently set up their network, so that provides a good layer of security. Many shops don’t either have the money to afford a security-hardened network or don’t have the technical know-how to set one up. We hope this open-source project will allow people to set up the network themselves, and allow students a way to gain valuable work experience.

It’s awesome to hear of all the great things TEC is doing in Phoenix! How can people plug in and get engaged and involved?

TEC can always benefit from more volunteers or donations. Our goal is to build community, and we are happy to have anyone join us. All are welcome to the Advanced Cyber System lab at Gateway Community College – Washington Campus Monday through Thursday 4 pm to 8 pm. Our website is www.techedcollab.org and on facebook we’re: www.facebook.com/techedcollab People can also join our discord server for some great discussions and updates on our upcoming events!

EFF is gearing up to beat the heat in Las Vegas for the summer security conferences! Before we make our journey to the Strip, we figured let's get y'all up-to-speed with a new edition of EFFector.

This time we're covering an illegal mass surveillance scheme by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, calling out dating apps for using intimate data—like sexual preferences or identity—to train AI , and explaining why we're backing the Wikimedia Foundation in their challenge to the UK’s Online Safety Act.

Don't forget to also check out our audio companion to EFFector as well! We're interviewing staff about some of the important work that they're doing. This time, EFF Senior Policy Analyst Matthew Guariglia explains how Amazon Ring is cashing in on the rising tide of techno-authoritarianism. Listen now on YouTube or the Internet Archive.

Listen TO EFFECTOR

EFFECTOR 37.9 - Amazon Ring Is Back in the Mass Surveillance Game

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.