A demonstrator holds a sign with a message that reads in Spanish; "Evict Peter Thiel" during a protest against the businessman and investor, opposing his growing presence and investments in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Saturday, Aug. 29, 2026. (AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd)

Thinking About the ‘Tech Fascists’ and What to Do About Them

People stand inside the California State Capitol, Monday, Aug. 31, 2026, in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Supporting Openness & Safety — Lessons From Recent State Laws

The memorial is seen on the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Friday, Sept. 11, 2026, in New York. (AP Photo/Angelina Katsanis)

Expert Views on Privacy and Civil Liberties 25 Years After September 11

People show the paint on their palms during an event marking Red Hand Day, also known as the International Day against the Use of Child Soldiers, in Bogota, Colombia, where illegal armed groups recruit children, Thursday, Feb. 12, 2026. (AP Photo/Fernando Vergara)

Social Media Helps Recruit Children for Colombian Armed Groups

Water flowing over Srisailam Dam in Andhra Pradesh, India in Aug. 2019. Photo by Sharath G. from Pexels (CC-licensed)

India’s Data Center Boom Should Learn from its Dams

A person takes a picture of the newly unveiled sign for Lake Ontario at Fifty Point Conservation Area in Grimsby, Ontario, on Saturday, Aug. 29, 2026. (Keito Newman/The Canadian Press via AP)

Canadian Hydronyms, Builders, and Other Adventures in Middle Power Tech Policy

The Muse logo is displayed on a smartphone screen placed on a reflective surface onto which the Meta AI logo is projected, in Creteil, France, on September 9, 2026, after Meta launched Muse, an autonomous personal artificial intelligence agent. (Photo by Samuel Boivin/NurPhoto via AP)

The Internet Was Built For Human Agency. AI Agents Are Changing the Rules.

A mouse pointer lingers on button in the shape of a cookie. Photo by: Lino Mirgeler/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Photo by: Lino Mirgeler/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Europe’s Cookie Law Is Really a Law About Surveillance

Image of map and computer language over binary codes on server racks in server room.

Global Digital Policy Roundup: August 2026

Electrical infrastructure with a data center in the background, and a large puddle of water on the ground with a reflection of the infrastructure. 

Electrical infrastructure at a Flexential data center in Hillsboro, Oregon, on May 16, 2026. (Photo by Alex Milan Tracy/Sipa USA)

To Change Data Centers, Flip the Narrative on Sustainability

A major data center project underway in Cape Town, South Africa. Photo: David Harrison/The Continent 

Cape Town is Approving Data Centers with Rules That Still Treat Them Like Warehouses

Students return to classrooms in Tuxtla Gutiérrez as the 2026–2027 school year begins across Chiapas. (Photo by Diego Pérez Gómez / JNA Press/Sipa via AP Images)

Building LLMs? Think Beyond Borders

Parents and teachers held a rally calling on Mayor Mamdani and NYC School Chancellor Kamar Samuels to have a two year moratorium on AI in public schools in New York City, NY. July 29, 2026 (Photo by Steve Sanchez/Sipa via AP Images)

Across the US, School Districts Wrestle With Classroom AI Policy

Deepfake vector illustration. Fake media method in tiny persons concept. Use artificial neural networks to make hoaxes video. Falsified machine learning autoencoders system. Fraud systems development.

China’s Disinformation Operations in Taiwan Are Changing with AI

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (center), flanked by Attorney General Letitia James (right) and supporters, holds up one of two bills she signed in July 2024 aimed at protecting children and youth from the harmful effects of social media. Photo by Susan Watts/Office of New York Gov. Source

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (center), flanked by Attorney General Letitia James (right) and supporters, holds up one of two bills she signed in July 2024 aimed at protecting children and youth from the harmful effects of social media. Photo by Susan Watts/Office of New York Gov. 

As Age Assurance Moves Into Practice, What Can Policymakers Learn From New York?

An illustration to depict a conceptual network, with various points connected by strings of different colors. The visualization represents networks, relationships, or interconnected systems, such as in social media, data flow, or neural networks.

Why the UK Needs Better Social Media Data Access to Research Online Harms

Within the frames are people bound to their office cubicles; beyond them, individuals work freely from diverse locations, connected through digital signals.

Digital Nomads Beyond the Cubicle by Yutong Liu & Digit / 

This Labor Day, Consider AI's Impact on Hiring

United States Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) speaking at a hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Energy at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on September 2, 2026. (Photo by Michael Brochstein/Sipa via AP Images)

Rep. Zoe Lofgren on FISA, Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment

The landmark front entrance of the Virginia State Capitol in Richmond, Virginia, the historic seat of the commonwealth government, on April 18, 2025. Shutterstock

The landmark front entrance of the Virginia State Capitol in Richmond, Virginia, the historic seat of the commonwealth government, on April 18, 2025. 

Virginia Eyes AI Chatbot Rules as Observable Risks Warrant Action

New York City Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels and Mayor Zohran Mamdani hold a press conference at the Brooklyn STEAM Center on September 2, 2026 in New York. Photo by: NDZ/STAR MAX/IPx

America’s Two Largest School Districts Impose AI Moratoriums

Nelson González Sánchez is one of the authors of “‘

I Thought I’d Never See My Mom Again’: Recruitment and Use of Children by Colombian Armed Groups,

” a report published in August by Human Rights Watch.

It was past midnight when my phone buzzed with a “friend suggestion” to look at Facebook.

Facebook had shown me this screen hundreds of times before, usually for an old classmate or a distant relative. This time, the suggestion was far more unsettling.

I recognized the name immediately. “Elenos,” a colloquial term for members of the National Liberation Army (ELN), one of the armed groups that have fought in Colombia for decades and a name long associated with violence in my country. The profile displayed the group’s logo, and had photos and videos of armed men conducting military drills in the mountains.

In the months that followed, Facebook and TikTok recommended dozens of profiles and content posted by these profiles tied to armed groups.

 child recruitment by armed groups in Colombia, a crime that has affected more than 1,500 children in the past five years. I have interviewed hundreds of recruited children, government officials, and others to understand why and how armed groups recruit. Over and over again, I heard the same thing: Armed groups are recruiting children through social media.

I immersed myself in TikTok and Facebook to learn more. Combing through profiles and posts, I found that armed groups use social media to showcase an alluring lifestyle for children and teenagers. Recruitment, in the past associated with coercion in remote rural areas, now often starts in a social media feed, where algorithms amplify and recommend content that glorifies armed groups and steers users, including children, into their grasp.

Screenshots from videos posted to TikTok in July 2026 showing the use of emojis to signal affiliation and explicitly seek new combatants for armed groups. Source: Human Rights Watch

Screenshots from videos posted to TikTok in July 2026 showing the use of emojis to signal affiliation and explicitly seek new combatants for armed groups. Source: 

“We use social media to reach them. That's how I first got in touch with them,” a 17-year-old boy told me. He had been recruited by a dissident group of the demobilized Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Catatumbo, on Colombia's border with Venezuela.

As I began interacting with this content, Facebook’s and TikTok’s algorithms flooded my feeds with accounts and posts linked to these groups. Facebook kept promoting profiles linked to armed groups and recommending them to me as friends. And after only five minutes of scrolling through TikTok, I stumbled upon several job offers inviting me to join an armed group. For children in Colombia’s most vulnerable regions, these videos can be deeply seductive.

I reviewed dozens of accounts and posts with images flaunting wads of cash, motorcycles, high-end pickup trucks and children wearing armed groups’ armbands and posing with rifles nearly as tall as they were. The videos were often overlaid with 

—songs that tell stories about cartels, groups’ commanders and drug kingpin lifestyles—and captioned with emojis.

I learned that armed groups rely on emojis as code, in an apparent effort to evade social media companies’ restrictions. A clover emoji refers to coca crops, and combined with cash and cell phone emojis, it can signal a job opportunity in coca cultivation—used to produce cocaine. Because the colors are similar, the Colombian and Armenian flag emojis refer to the FARC; the Angolan one, alongside black and red heart emojis, to the ELN. Nina emojis signal affiliation with armed groups.

Following these emoji signs, I found dozens of posts trying to recruit people. I saw posts that said “There are openings in the ranks“ and “Wanted: people to work for the FARC.” They asked people interested to send a direct message. This explicit recruitment content remained online for months, in some cases accumulating thousands of interactions. Hundreds of accounts commented that they would like to join.

But, as the 17-year-old recruited by FARC dissidents told me, “the reality in the group is very harsh, very different from what they portray on social media.” Children are often transferred to other regions where they are isolated from their family and community, making it difficult to escape. Many are indoctrinated, used in fighting, and abused, sometimes sexually, in the ranks of armed groups.

As part of the investigation, we reported dozens of accounts to Meta (Facebook) and ByteDance (TikTok), and the platforms removed them. Both companies also 

 that their community guidelines and standards ban violent organizations or individuals. However, they are clearly struggling with enforcement. I’ve continued to find accounts posting similar content on both social media platforms.

Armed groups in Colombia have long taken advantage of poverty, social exclusion, domestic violence, and barriers to education to draw children into their ranks. Today, digital platforms have become part of the terrain where armed groups shape aspirations, normalize violence, and identify vulnerable children. Some 

 that almost half of child recruitment in Colombia is driven by social media.

If Colombia wants to prevent more children from ending up in the mountains with armed groups, social media platform regulation that protects the full spectrum of children’s rights should be at the center of the debate. Social media companies should implement stronger measures for the detection and moderation of content linked to armed groups, ensuring that such content is not amplified or recommended by platform algorithms.

When a phone buzzes with a friend request, it shouldn't be an armed group targeting a child in rural Colombia.

Jake Laperruque is a fellow at Tech Policy Press.

A quarter century ago today, the September 11, 2001 attacks stunned the United States and the world. For millennials like myself growing up in the immediate post-Cold War period, this shocking tragedy represented a loss of innocence. That felt especially true for those who, like me, grew up in and around New York City; for me, news of the attacks arrived in a school filled with kids whose parents, my own father included, worked in downtown Manhattan, some in the World Trade Center itself. September 11 became an irreparable scar for the United States, not only because of the terrible scale of the loss—with nearly 3,000 innocent people killed on that day (and 

 since), including over 400 of the first responders who put themselves in harm's way to protect others—but also because it forever removed an expectation of safety we had in our daily lives.

With that sense of safety dramatically pulled away, the nation responded in drastic fashion: It launched what is colloquially known as the War on Terror in the form of clandestine operations and large-scale military engagements across the globe, accompanied by major changes to law and policy at home. Twenty-five years later, it is worth reflecting on how the US response to September 11 has reshaped privacy, civil liberties, and government power. We asked a set of experts to respond to a simple survey on how the United States has changed as a result of its War on Terror policies.

The responses are notable: on civil rights and civil liberties, there was general consensus that rights have declined, although there were split views on how much. There were also mixed views on whether the Department of Homeland Security is responsive to the purpose it was created for, and whether the government is less transparent on national security matters.

But on a few items there was strong agreement: Almost every respondent believes the public is now more skeptical of giving the government more counterterrorism and national security powers, and all agreed that terrorism has receded as a national security priority. In spite of this, there was universal agreement that the 

 is much stronger than it was 25 years ago. The lesson seems daunting but clear: over time the seriousness of the threats (or how we view those threats or their severity relative to other dangers) may change, but it is incredibly difficult to claw back security powers given to the government — and especially to the executive — or to restore rights and protections once they are lost.

This summer, Nvidia, Microsoft, and more than 250 other organizations signed 

 making the case for “open weight” AI. The letter argued that downloadable open-weight models can expand access, strengthen competition, give users greater control, and contribute to security—and urged policymakers to address genuine risks through targeted measures rather than sweeping restrictions.

The letter punctuated a long-running debate over how emerging safety rules should accommodate open source and collaborative technology development. For longtime Tech Policy Press readers, the point is familiar. Articles 

 not only the importance of openness, but also that openness is not binary. It exists on a spectrum and tends to advance collaboration, competition, autonomy, privacy, and user control.

Policy proposals to mitigate the risk of harm to users and society abound, especially in AI. And all too often, those policy proposals implicitly assume a centralized model: one company develops a product, controls its distribution, and can govern what happens downstream. But open source development often does not work that way.

Fortunately, in recent California debates, open source developers and community members were able to identify those mismatches, engage with lawmakers, and secure changes that preserved openness without abandoning safety goals. These examples show that responsible solutions are possible, but they also expose a capacity gap: achieving them requires technical and legal expertise to engage in the legislative process.

That need will only grow, as policymakers at every level continue to consider AI, child-safety, and other technology bills that may affect open development. The lesson is not that “open” should be exempt from regulation, but that obligations should reflect an actor’s actual knowledge and control rather than broadly requiring developers to monitor and control downstream uses.

Traditional open source development does something simple yet powerful: it gives downstream users reliable permission to use, study, modify, and redistribute software.

That enables collaboration and improvement. A developer can build on someone else’s work, fork it, adapt it for a different community, or continue maintaining it if the original developer changes direction. Widely used open source software also provides durable permission: the original developer generally cannot simply pull the rug out from under everyone who built on the software; permission persists for all those who downloaded it.

That architecture also supports autonomy. Tools that can be downloaded, modified, and run locally allow people and organizations to operate without continuously sending information to, or seeking permission from, a centralized provider. Users can customize software to their own needs and values and, in many cases, keep sensitive data on their own machines. As Mozilla chief technology officer Raffi Krikorian recently 

, one important choice in AI is whether users will ultimately own or rent the technology on which they depend.

 openness—and the ability to modify software or an AI model—as indicative of safety or security, or lack thereof. But open systems can incorporate safety testing, documentation, secure development practices, and other precautions. And many harms depend not simply on a model’s characteristics, but on the context in which it is deployed. As Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor have 

, AI safety is not solely a model property: deployment and surrounding systems matter too.

The policy question, then, is not binary—whether to regulate or not—but instead what obligations make sense for which actors in which contexts.

California’s Digital Age Assurance Act illustrates the challenge.

, the law requires operating-system providers to obtain a user’s age or birth date during account setup and make an age-range signal available to applications. That makes intuitive sense for something like iOS or Windows: a centrally maintained product with an identifiable provider, an account-setup process, and infrastructure capable of supplying an API.

But those assumptions do not map neatly onto much of the open source ecosystem. Linux distributions and other community-developed operating systems may be maintained by nonprofits, small teams, or volunteers, and may not have centralized user accounts at all. Requiring every such project to build age-attestation infrastructure could force open projects to fundamentally redesign how they operate.

What’s more, the law also appeared to treat contributors of software code incorporated into an operating system or application as responsible for implementing the requirements. Open source 

 warned that the resulting legal and technical burdens could make it impossible for smaller projects to continue serving users in covered states.

Legislators took these concerns into account. 

 to make clear that the law applied to stand-alone consumer applications and operating systems, not merely software components incorporated in building those tools. The revised bill also provides that an “operating system provider” does not include an entity distributing an operating system or application under license terms permitting recipients to “copy, redistribute, and modify” the software. Colorado adopted a 

These changes preserve the core intent of the bill while recognizing that requiring decentralized software projects to construct a centralized age-monitoring mechanism is a poor match between means and ends. The age rules can still operate at layers where companies possess the infrastructure and relationships necessary to implement them.

Other contexts may call for different approaches. The European Union’s Cyber Resilience Act, for instance, largely excludes free and open source software supplied outside commercial activity while creating a 

 for certain “open-source software stewards.” The precise solution will depend on the problem, but the underlying logic is similar: distinguish actors by their actual role rather than treating the software ecosystem as homogeneous.

California’s AI provenance law offers a second example.

, requires covered generative AI providers to include machine-readable provenance information in certain AI-generated content. That is a legitimate policy objective: provenance can help platforms and users understand where digital content came from and whether AI played a role in creating it.

But the original law created a problem for open source development. If a third-party licensee modified a covered AI system so it could no longer produce the disclosures required by SB 942, the original developer was required to revoke that party’s license to the underlying system.

That remedy assumes that the upstream developer retains continuing control over downstream permission to use the software. Open source licenses intentionally reject that premise. A coalition including GitHub, Mozilla, Hugging Face, and Black Forest Labs 

 that mandatory revocation of permissions was incompatible with the terms on which collaborative software development depends.

California legislators worked to address this concern in

, which also expanded the reach of the AI Transparency Act to smaller providers. Instead of requiring revocation as the only response, the revised language would allow a provider that learns of a downstream violation to notify the user. The downstream party must then bring the system into compliance or stop using or distributing it; if it does neither, the provider reports the violation to the Attorney General. The bill also expressly says providers have no duty to monitor or investigate downstream modifications.

The provenance requirement survives. What changes is the enforcement mechanism. Rather than forcing the upstream developer to maintain a technical or legal kill switch over everyone downstream, responsibility can fall on the actor actually violating the requirement.

These sorts of questions will become more important, not less. States are considering frontier AI safety rules, pre-deployment testing requirements, product and tort liability, child safety measures, and other regulations that may reach increasingly far down the technology stack. In fact, Illinois 

 an age attestation bill that mirrored California’s original version, while lacking the clarifications related to openness.

Without sustained participation from developers, community organizations, and experts who understand decentralized development, lawmakers may not know when a proposal rests on assumptions that do not fit the technology.

The California examples are encouraging because intervention worked. Developers and advocates helped identify alternatives that preserved the policy objective while avoiding unnecessary surveillance, control, or incompatibility with open source development.

Doing that consistently in Sacramento and beyond will require more capacity and resources than the open source community has historically devoted to state policy. There will be many more AI bills, and many more opportunities either to get these details right or miss them.

The goal should not be less responsibility. It should be responsible regulation: rules aimed at the actors who can actually prevent harm, designed with enough understanding of open systems to preserve the benefits policymakers were trying to protect in the first place.

, 2026) and Quinn Slobodian and Ben Tarnoff’s 

Do we really need more books explicating the philosophies of Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and their technology mogul brethren?

Their views and rise to prominence have been widely and deeply documented in 

. Musk preaches sovereignty via technology but whips up 

And yet, along with some of their Silicon Valley contemporaries, these are among the most influential figures in American public life. Musk was the 

 in 2024, injecting at least $291 million for Donald Trump and other MAGA candidates; he is expected to 

 to try to fend off a Democratic comeback in this year’s midterms. Thiel 

 the political career of Vice President J.D. Vance, the frontrunner to succeed Trump as Republican standard-bearer in 2028 (assuming Trump doesn’t seek an unconstitutional third term).

Their corporate heft is equally impressive. Much of the US space and satellite program is 

 to Musk’s SpaceX and its StarLink subsidiary. Palantir, which Thiel co-founded, does surveillance and data-mining for corporate and 

 in the US, Israel, and other nations. This kind of sway over public- and private-sector affairs demands continued analysis of the ideas held by the billionaire tech bros. Given their extraordinary leverage over our lives, we need to understand their truly twisted motives.

The Nerd Reich: Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy

 by journalist and former Democratic political adviser Gil Durán, and 

 by historian Quinn Slobodian and tech writer Ben Tarnoff — offer accessible accounts of their subjects’ thinking.

Gil Durán’s The Nerd Reich (Avid Reader Press, 2026) and Quinn Slobodian and Ben Tarnoff’s Muskism (HarperCollins, 2026).

, while marketed as addressing Silicon Valley at large, is mostly about Thiel, his affinity for authoritarianism, and his increasingly incoherent fascination with eschatological musing about the Antichrist. I already knew that Thiel drew ideas from, and promoted, the reactionary blogger Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug), who advocates displacing democracy with corporate dictatorship and has been thoroughly 

 elsewhere. I did not know that Thiel took seriously the conspiracy theories of a pair of get-rich-quick investment newsletter writers who produced a doomsday book called 

The Sovereign Individual: How to Survive and Thrive During the Collapse of the Welfare State

. A lot less discussion of the ridiculous-sounding 

 would still have gone a long way. The point is that Thiel admires crackpots and despises the necessary messiness of pluralistic society.

Durán helpfully emphasizes Thiel’s brittle intolerance of “politics in all its forms” and his juvenile yearning for “escape” from real life — escape onto the internet, into outer space or maybe to self-governing communities floating in the middle of the ocean, harkening back to Jules Verne’s 

, a novel published in 1895 about plutocrats who flee to a giant ship in the Pacific Ocean. It’s worth noting that Thiel hasn’t quite abandoned 

 politics, as he contributes millions to causes like trying to 

 California’s proposed billionaire tax and 

 is a more compact monograph on the “system” its subject embodies.The most valuable insight is its comparison of Muskism to Fordism. Henry Ford, an earlier automotive tycoon, confected a modernization project that shaped much of the 20th century. While a virulent 

, much admired by Hitler for those qualities, Ford, in the words of Slobodian and Tarnoff, also “rewrote the social contract with a promise of rising living standards for all: cars in every garage, fridges in every kitchen, wages climbing with productivity.”

Muskism, the authors argue, offers Americans a different arrangement for the 21st century: that “in an increasingly unstable world, both states and individuals can fortify their self-reliance by plugging into [Musk’s] infrastructures.” The Pentagon and NASA increasingly depend on SpaceX. Soldiers rely on Starlink. X and Grok define reality for many in the MAGA-sphere. Unlike Fordism, though, Muskism doesn’t seek to spread economic and social benefits broadly. It promises autonomy for some but excludes migrants, supposed DEI dependents, and what Musk calls their “woke mind virus” liberal enablers.

Henry Ford had a thing about Jews. Musk has a thing about everyone outside his culturally purified, genetically white, European-descended, technology-gated community. “If tolerance means the end of Western Civilization,” he posted to his 225 million X followers in August 2025, “then we cannot be tolerant.”

These, then, are the ideas men like Musk and Thiel are seeking to see enacted by men like Trump and Vance. They are not alone in their arrogant belief that their wealth validates their every passing notion. On the same day last month, 

 published thorough dispatches on how billionaire Silicon Valley venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, one of Thiel’s Palantir co-founders, has helped push Trump-era federal and state homelessness policies making it a crime worthy of imprisonment to sleep on the street.

The alliance between MAGA political forces and the tech moguls — whose Trump-enabling ranks also include, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, the leaders of Oracle, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Salesforce, and OpenAI — deserves ongoing attention. Excursions into the ideological weeds like 

 are part of that process. After putting down these volumes, however, the reader may conclude we have reached the moment when analytical energy should shift from intellectual and psychological diagnosis to more tangible resistance.

Having observed Trump 1.0 with ambivalence and at times revulsion — recall how Facebook and pre-Musk Twitter 

 Trump for inciting more violence in the wake of the January 6 insurrection — the technology industry 

 he returned to the White House. The industry, in other words, is facilitating the fascist movement seeking to exert a stranglehold on US society. It is time for action.

And gratifyingly, we are seeing action. Residents of red states and blue states alike are 

 against resource-sucking AI data center construction projects. School boards and superintendents are 

 student use of smart phones that may undermine the mental health of some young people and without a doubt distract many of them from learning and valuable in-person socializing. The recent 

 of state-initiated litigation, while imperfect, could further protect younger users by limiting how and when and for how long they are scrolling rather than sleeping, reading a book, or riding a bike.

Sadly, this incremental push-back on tech domination is unlikely to lead to earnest introspection or self-regulation in Silicon Valley, let alone deter MAGA’s authoritarian agenda. To face down Trump and his tech industry backers will require overwhelming voter turnout, courage in the face of voter intimidation, reform of lax campaign finance laws, an overhaul of a broken immigration system, and many other efforts to repair and defend damaged democratic institutions and norms.

Tech is far from the whole story. But it’s

a major part of the story. Understanding how the industry’s powerful leaders have contributed to our current predicament is necessary but not sufficient, as the authors of these worthy books doubtless would acknowledge.

A large number of people take part in a gathering of boats and motorbikes in support of the people of Ceuta on 30 August 2026 in Ceuta (Spain). (Europa Press via AP)

A large number of people took part in a gathering of boats and motorbikes in support of the people of Ceuta on 30 August 2026 in Ceuta (Spain). (Europa Press via AP)

How Disinformation Fueled the Latest Ceuta Mass Crossing

The TikTok logo is displayed through a magnifying glass in this photo illustration in Ontario, Canada, on February 5, 2026. (Photo by Thomas Fuller/NurPhoto via AP)

Understanding Brazil’s $29.7 Million TikTok Fine Over Children’s Data

Flock Safety camera on Haverhill Drive near Phillips Avenue in Toledo, Ohio. (Photo by Stephen Zenner / SOPA Images/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)

Unless Flock is Reined In, Mass Video Surveillance Will Grow Even More Pervasive

Tech Policy Press - Technology and Democracy

Tech Policy Press is tracking laws and regulations, along with government investigations and litigation, that will shape the rules and accountability for tech companies.

Latest

Podcast

Recent

Our content delivered to your inbox

Thank you!

Around the globe