New research calls out President Donald Trump specifically for this ability to spread falsehoods about global warming.

Threatening to kill green legislation is becoming a habit in Brussels.

Deteriorating rail systems, jammed ports and frequent blackouts have hindered vital industries like mining and auto manufacturing in South Africa.

Europcar Mobility Group, A2A and Legrand are among companies that will be judged against promises made to buyers of sustainability-linked bonds.

The campaign is targeting trustees of the SAG-Producers Pension Plan, which has assets of about $5 billion, with at least $100 million invested in fossil fuels.

On June 5th, the FBI released a PSA titled “Home Internet Connected Devices Facilitate Criminal Activity.” This PSA largely references devices impacted by the latest generation of BADBOX malware (as named by HUMAN’s Satori Threat Intelligence and Research team) that EFF researchers also encountered primarily on Android TV set-top boxes. However, the malware has impacted tablets, digital projectors, aftermarket vehicle infotainment units, picture frames, and other types of IoT devices. 

One goal of this malware is to create a network proxy on the devices of unsuspecting buyers, potentially making them hubs for various potential criminal activities, putting the owners of these devices at risk from authorities. This malware is particularly insidious, coming pre-installed out of the box from major online retailers such as Amazon and AliExpress. If you search “Android TV Box” on Amazon right now, many of the same models that have been impacted are still up being sold by sellers of opaque origins. Facilitating the sale of these devices even led us to write an open letter to the FTC, urging them to take action on resellers.

The FBI listed some indicators of compromise (IoCs) in the PSA for consumers to tell if they were impacted. But the average person isn’t running network detection infrastructure in their homes, and cannot hope to understand what IoCs can be used to determine if their devices generate “unexplained or suspicious Internet traffic.” Here, we will attempt to help give more comprehensive background information about these IoCs. If you find any of these on devices you own, then we encourage you to follow through by contacting the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) at www.ic3.gov.

The FBI lists these IoC:

• The presence of suspicious marketplaces where apps are downloaded.
• Requiring Google Play Protect settings to be disabled.
• Generic TV streaming devices advertised as unlocked or capable of accessing free content.
• IoT devices advertised from unrecognizable brands.
• Android devices that are not Play Protect certified.
• Unexplained or suspicious Internet traffic.

The following adds context to above, as well as some added IoCs we have seen from our research.

Play Protect Certified

“Android devices that are not Play Protect certified” refers to any device brand or partner not listed here: https://www.android.com/certified/partners/. Google subjects devices to compatibility and security tests in their criteria for inclusion in the Play Protect program, though the mentioned list’s criteria are not made completely transparent outside of Google. But this list does change, as we saw with the tablet brand we researched being de-listed. This encompasses “devices advertised from unrecognizable brands.” The list includes international brands and partners as well.

Outdated Operating Systems

Other issues we saw were really outdated Android versions. For posterity, Android 16 just started rolling out. Android 9-12 appeared to be the most common versions routinely used. This could be a result of “copied homework” from previous legitimate Android builds, and often come with their own update software that can present a problem on its own and deliver second-stage payloads for device infection in addition to what it is downloading and updating on the device.

You can check which version of Android you have by going to Settings and searching “Android version”.

Android App Marketplaces

We’ve previously argued how the availability of different app marketplaces leads to greater consumer choice, where users can choose alternatives even more secure than the Google Play Store. While this is true, the FBI’s warning about suspicious marketplaces is also prudent. Avoiding “downloading apps from unofficial marketplaces advertising free streaming content” is sound (if somewhat vague) advice for set-top boxes, yet this recommendation comes without further guidelines on how to identify which marketplaces might be suspicious for other Android IoT platforms. Best practice is to investigate any app stores used on Android devices separately, but to be aware that if a suspicious Android device is purchased, it can contain preloaded app stores that mimic the functionality of legitimate ones but also contain unwanted or malicious code.

Models Listed from the Badbox Report

We also recommend looking up device names and models that were listed in the BADBOX 2.0 report. We investigated the T95 models along with other independent researchers that initially found this malware present. A lot of model names could be grouped in families with the same letters but different numbers. These operations are iterating fast, but the naming conventions are often lazy in this respect. If you're not sure what model you own, you can usually find it listed on a sticker somewhere on the device. If that fails, you may be able to find it by pulling up the original receipt or looking through your order history.

A Note from Satori Researchers:

“Below is a list of device models known to be targeted by the threat actors. Not all devices of a given model are necessarily infected, but Satori researchers are confident that infections are present on some devices of the below device models:”

List of Potentially Impacted Models

Broader Picture: The Digital Divide

Unfortunately, the only way to be sure that an Android device from an unknown brand is safe is not to buy it in the first place. Though initiatives like the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark are welcome developments intended to encourage demand-side trust in vetted products, recent shake ups in federal regulatory bodies means the future of this assurance mark is unknown. This means those who face budget constraints and have trouble affording top-tier digital products for streaming content or other connected purposes may rely on cheaper imitation products that are rife with not only vulnerabilities, but even come out-of-the-box preloaded with malware. This puts these people disproportionately at legal risk when these devices are used to provide the buyers’ home internet connection as a proxy for nefarious or illegal purposes.

Cybersecurity and trust that the products we buy won’t be used against us is essential: not just for those that can afford name-brand digital devices, but for everyone. While we welcome the IoCs that the FBI has listed in its PSA, more must be done to protect consumers from a myriad of dangers that their devices expose them to.

Modern fighter jets contain hundreds or even thousands of sensors. Some of those sensors collect data every second, others every nanosecond. For the engineering teams building and testing those jets, all those data points are hugely valuable — if they can make sense of them.

Nominal is an advanced software platform made for engineers building complex systems ranging from fighter jets to nuclear reactors, satellites, rockets, and robots. Nominal’s flagship product, Nominal Core, helps teams organize, visualize, and securely share data from tests and operations. The company’s other product, Nominal Connect, helps engineers build custom applications for automating and syncing their hardware systems.

“It’s a very technically challenging problem to take the types of data that our customers are generating and get them into a single place where people can collaborate and get insights,” says Nominal co-founder Jason Hoch ’13. “It’s hard because you’re dealing with a lot of different data sources, and you want to be able to correlate those sources and apply mathematical formulas. We do that automatically.”

Hoch started Nominal with Cameron McCord ’13, SM ’14 and Bryce Strauss after the founders had to work with generic data tools or build their own solutions at places like Lockheed Martin and Anduril. Today, Nominal is working with organizations in aerospace, defense, robotics, manufacturing, and energy to accelerate the development of products critical for applications in U.S. national security and beyond.

“We built Nominal to take the best innovations in software and data technology and tailor them to the workflows that engineers go through when building and testing hardware systems,” McCord says. “We want to be the data and software backbone across all of these types of organizations.”

Accelerating hardware development

Hoch and McCord met during their first week at MIT and joined the same fraternity as undergraduates. Hoch double majored in mathematics and computer science and engineering, and McCord participated in the Navy Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (NROTC) while majoring in physics and nuclear science and engineering.

“MIT let me flex my technical skills, but I was also interested in the broader implications of technology and national security,” McCord says. “It was an interesting balance where I was learning the hardcore engineering skills, but always having a wider aperture to understand how the technology I was learning about was going to impact the world.”

Following MIT, McCord spent eight years in the Navy before working at the defense technology company Anduril, where he was charged with building the software systems to test different products. Hoch also worked at the intelligence and defense-oriented software company Palantir.

McCord met Strauss, who had worked as an engineer at Lockheed Martin, while the two were at Harvard Business School. The eventual co-founders realized they had each struggled with software during complex hardware development projects, and set out to build the tools they wished they’d had.

At the heart of Nominal’s platform is a unified database that can connect and organize hundreds of data sources in real-time. Nominal’s system allows engineers to search through or visualize that information, helping them spot trends, catch critical events, and investigate anomalies — what Nominal’s team describes as learning the rules governing complex systems.

“We’re trying to get answers to engineers so they understand what’s happening and can keep projects moving forward,” says Strauss. “Testing and validating these systems are fundamental bottlenecks for hardware progress. Our platform helps engineers answer questions like, ‘When we made a 30-degree turn at 16,000 feet, what happened to the engine’s temperature, and how does that compare to what happened yesterday?’”

By automating tasks like data stitching and visualization, Nominal’s platform helps accelerate post-test analysis and development processes for complex systems. And because the platform is cloud-hosted, engineers can easily share visualizations and other dynamic assets with members of their team as opposed to making static reports, allowing more people in an organization to interact directly with the data.

From satellites to drones, robots to rockets

Nominal recently announced a $75 million Series B funding round, led by Sequoia Capital, to accelerate their growth.

“We’ll use the funds to accelerate product roadmaps for our existing products, launch new products across the hardware test stack, and more than double our team,” says McCord.

Today, aerospace customers are using Nominal’s platform to monitor their assets in orbit. Manufacturers are using Nominal to make sure their components work as expected before they’re integrated into larger systems. Nuclear fusion companies are using Nominal to understand when their parts might fail due to heat.

“The products we’ve built are transferrable,” Hoch says. “It doesn’t matter if you’re building a nuclear fusion reactor or a satellite, those teams can benefit from the Nominal tool chain.”

Ultimately the founders believe the platform helps create better products by enabling a data-driven, iterative design process more commonly seen in the software development industry.

“The concept of continuous integration and development in software revolutionized the industry 20 years ago. Before that, it was common to build software in large, slow batches – developing for months, then testing and releasing all at once,” Strauss explains. “We’re bringing continuous testing to hardware. It’s about constantly creating that feedback loop to improve performance. It’s a new paradigm for how hardware is built. We’ve seen companies like SpaceX do this well to move faster and outpace the competition. Now, that approach is available to everyone.”

Since MIT opened the first-of-its-kind venture studio within a university in 2019, it has demonstrated how a systemic process can help turn research into impactful ventures. 

Now, MIT Proto Ventures is launching the “R&D Venture Studio Playbook,” a resource to help universities, national labs, and corporate R&D offices establish their own in-house venture studios. The online publication offers a comprehensive framework for building ventures from the ground up within research environments.

“There is a huge opportunity cost to letting great research sit idle,” says Fiona Murray, associate dean for innovation at the MIT Sloan School of Management and a faculty director for Proto Ventures. “The venture studio model makes research systematic, rather than messy and happenstance.” 

Bigger than MIT

The new playbook arrives amid growing national interest in revitalizing the United States’ innovation pipeline — a challenge underscored by the fact that just a fraction of academic patents ever reach commercialization.

“Venture-building across R&D organizations, and especially within academia, has been based on serendipity,” says MIT Professor Dennis Whyte, a faculty director for Proto Ventures who helped develop the playbook. “The goal of R&D venture studios is to take away the aspect of chance — to turn venture-building into a systemic process. And this is something not just MIT needs; all research universities and institutions need it.”

Indeed, MIT Proto Ventures is actively sharing the playbook with peer institutions, federal agencies, and corporate R&D leaders seeking to increase the translational return on their research investments.

“We’ve been following MIT’s Proto Ventures model with the vision of delivering new ventures that possess both strong tech push and strong market pull,” says Mark Arnold, associate vice president of Discovery to Impact and managing director of Texas startups at The University of Texas at Austin. “By focusing on market problems first and creating ventures with a supportive ecosystem around them, universities can accelerate the transition of ideas from the lab into real-world solutions.” 

What’s in the playbook

The playbook outlines the venture studio model process followed by MIT Proto Ventures. MIT’s venture studio embeds full-time entrepreneurial scientists — called venture builders — inside research labs. These builders work shoulder-to-shoulder with faculty and graduate students to scout promising technologies, validate market opportunities, and co-create new ventures.

“We see this as an open-source framework for impact,” says MIT Proto Ventures Managing Director Gene Keselman. “Our goal is not just to build startups out of MIT — it’s to inspire innovation wherever breakthrough science is happening.”

The playbook was developed by the MIT Proto Ventures team — including Keselman, venture builders David Cohen-Tanugi and Andrew Inglis, and faculty leaders Murray, Whyte, Andrew Lo, Michael Cima, and Michael Short. 

“This problem is universal, so we knew if it worked there’d be an opportunity to write the book on how to build a translational engine,” Keselman said. “We’ve had enough success now to be able to say, ‘Yes, this works, and here are the key components.’” 

In addition to detailing core processes, the playbook includes case studies, sample templates, and guidance for institutions seeking to tailor the model to fit their unique advantages. It emphasizes that building successful ventures from R&D requires more than mentorship and IP licensing — it demands deliberate, sustained focus, and a new kind of translational infrastructure. 

How it works

A key part of MIT’s venture studio is structuring efforts into distinct tracks or problem areas — MIT Proto Ventures calls these channels. Venture builders work in a single track that aligns with their expertise and interest. For example, Cohen-Tanugi is embedded in the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, working in the Fusion and Clean Energy channel. His first two venture successes have been a venture using superconducting magnets for in-space propulsion and a deep-tech startup improving power efficiency in data centers.

“This playbook is both a call to action and a blueprint,” says Cohen-Tanugi, lead author of the playbook. “We’ve learned that world-changing inventions often remain on the lab bench not because they lack potential, but because no one is explicitly responsible for turning them into businesses. The R&D venture studio model fixes that.”

Four MIT rising seniors have been selected to receive a 2025 Barry Goldwater Scholarship, including Avani Ahuja and Jacqueline Prawira in the School of Engineering and Julianna Lian and Alex Tang from the School of Science. An estimated 5,000 college sophomores and juniors from across the United States were nominated for the scholarships, of whom only 441 were selected.

The Goldwater Scholarships have been conferred since 1989 by the Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation. These scholarships have supported undergraduates who go on to become leading scientists, engineers, and mathematicians in their respective fields.

Avani Ahuja, a mechanical engineering and electrical engineering major, conducts research in the Conformable Decoders group, where she is focused on developing a “wearable conformable breast ultrasound patch” that makes ultrasounds for breast cancer more accessible.

“Doing research in the Media Lab has had a huge impact on me, especially in the ways that we think about inclusivity in research,” Ahuja says.

In her research group, Ahuja works under Canan Dagdeviren, the LG Career Development Professor of Media Arts and Sciences. Ahuja plans to pursue a PhD in electrical engineering. She aspires to conduct research in electromechanical systems for women’s health applications and teach at the university level.

“I want to thank Professor Dagdeviren for all her support. It’s an honor to receive this scholarship, and it’s amazing to see that women’s health research is getting recognized in this way,” Ahuja says.

Julianna Lian studies mechanochemistry, organic, and polymer chemistry in the lab of Professor Jeremiah Johnson, the A. Thomas Guertin Professor of Chemistry. In addition to her studies, she serves the MIT community as an emergency medical technician (EMT) with MIT Emergency Medical Services, is a member of MIT THINK, and a ClubChem mentorship chair.

“Receiving this award has been a tremendous opportunity to not only reflect on how much I have learned, but also on the many, many people I have had the chance to learn from,” says Lian. “I am deeply grateful for the guidance, support, and encouragement of these teachers, mentors, and friends. And I am excited to carry forward the lasting curiosity and excitement for chemistry that they have helped inspire in me.”

Lian’s career goals post-graduation include pursuing a PhD in organic chemistry, to conduct research at the interface of synthetic chemistry and materials science, aided by computation, and to teach at the university level.

Jacqueline Prawira, a materials science and engineering major, joined the Center of Decarbonization and Electrification of Industry as a first-year Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program student and became a co-inventor on a patent and a research technician at spinout company Rock Zero. She has also worked in collaboration with Indigenous farmers and Diné College students on the Navajo Nation.

“I’ve become significantly more cognizant of how I listen to people and stories, the tangled messiness of real-world challenges, and the critical skills needed to tackle complex sustainability issues,” Prawira says.

Prawira is mentored by Yet-Ming Chiang, professor of materials science and engineering. Her career goals are to pursue a PhD in materials science and engineering and to research sustainable materials and processes to solve environmental challenges and build a sustainable society.

“Receiving the prestigious title of 2025 Goldwater Scholar validates my current trajectory in innovating sustainable materials and demonstrates my growth as a researcher,” Prawira says. “This award signifies my future impact in building a society where sustainability is the norm, instead of just another option.”

Alex Tang studies the effects of immunotherapy and targeted molecular therapy on the tumor microenvironment in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. He is supervised by professors Jonathan Chen at Northwestern University and Nir Hacohen at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.

“My mentors and collaborators have been instrumental to my growth since I joined the lab as a freshman. I am incredibly grateful for the generous mentorship and support of Professor Hacohen and Professor Chen, who have taught me how to approach scientific investigation with curiosity and rigor,” says Tang. “I’d also like to thank my advisor Professor Adam Martin and first-year advisor Professor Angela Belcher for their guidance throughout my undergraduate career thus far. I am excited to carry forward this work as I progress in my career.” Tang intends to pursue physician-scientist training following graduation.

The Scholarship Program honoring Senator Barry Goldwater was designed to identify, encourage, and financially support outstanding undergraduates interested in pursuing research careers in the sciences, engineering, and mathematics. The Goldwater Scholarship is the preeminent undergraduate award of its type in these fields.

In 2025, MIT granted tenure to 11 faculty members across the School of Engineering. This year’s tenured engineers hold appointments in the departments of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Biological Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) — which reports jointly to the School of Engineering and MIT Schwarzman College of Computing — Materials Science and Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Nuclear Science and Engineering.

“It is with great pride that I congratulate the 11 newest tenured faculty members in the School of Engineering. Their dedication to advancing their fields, mentoring future innovators, and contributing to a vibrant academic community is truly inspiring,” says Anantha Chandrakasan, chief innovation and strategy officer, dean of engineering, and the Vannevar Bush Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science who will assume the title of MIT provost July 1. “This milestone is not only a testament to their achievements, but a promise of even greater impact ahead.”

This year’s newly tenured engineering faculty include:

Bryan Bryson, the Phillip and Susan Ragon Career Development Professor in the Department of Biological Engineering, conducts research in infectious diseases and immunoengineering. He is interested in developing new tools to dissect the complex dynamics of bacterial infection at a variety of scales ranging from single cells to infected animals, sitting in both “reference frames” by taking both an immunologist’s and a microbiologist’s perspective.

Connor Coley is the Class of 1957 Career Development Professor and associate professor of chemical engineering, with a shared appointment in EECS. His research group develops new computational methods at the intersection of artificial intelligence and chemistry with relevance to small molecule drug discovery, chemical synthesis, and structure elucidation.

Mohsen Ghaffari is the Steven and Renee Finn Career Development Professor and an associate professor in the EECS. His research explores the theory of distributed and parallel computation. He has done influential work on a range of algorithmic problems, including generic derandomization methods for distributed computing and parallel computing, improved distributed algorithms for graph problems, sublinear algorithms derived via distributed techniques, and algorithmic and impossibility results for massively parallel computation.

Rafael Gomez-Bombarelli, the Paul M. Cook Development Professor and associate professor of materials science and engineering, works at the interface between machine learning and atomistic simulations. He uses computational tools to tackle design of materials in complex combinatorial search spaces, such as organic electronic materials, energy storage polymers and molecules, and heterogeneous (electro)catalysts. 

Song Han, an associate professor in EECS, is a pioneer in model compression and TinyML. He has innovated in key areas of pruning quantization, parallelization, KV cache optimization, long-context learning, and multi-modal representation learning to minimize generative AI costs, and he designed the first hardware accelerator (EIE) to exploit weight sparsity.

Kaiming He, the Douglass Ross (1954) Career Development Professor of Software Technology and an associate professor in EECS, is best known for his work on deep residual networks (ResNets). His research focuses on building computer models that can learn representations and develop intelligence from and for the complex world, with the long-term goal of augmenting human intelligence with more capable artificial intelligence.

Phillip Isola, the Class of 1948 Career Development Professor and associate professor in EECS, studies computer vision, machine learning, and AI. His research aims to uncover fundamental principles of intelligence, with a particular focus on how models and representations of the world can be acquired through self-supervised learning, from raw sensory experience alone, and without the use of labeled data.

Mingda Li is the Class of 1947 Career Development Professor and an associate professor in the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering. His research lies in characterization and computation.

Richard Linares is an associate professor in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His research focuses on astrodynamics, space systems, and satellite autonomy. Linares develops advanced computational tools and analytical methods to address challenges associated with space traffic management, space debris mitigation, and space weather modeling.

Jonathan Ragan-Kelley, an associate professor in EECS, has designed everything from tools for visual effects in movies to the Halide programming language that’s widely used in industry for photo editing and processing. His research focuses on high-performance computer graphics and accelerated computing, at the intersection of graphics with programming languages, systems, and architecture.

Arvind Satyanarayan is an associate professor in EECS. His research areas cover data visualization, human-computer interaction, and artificial intelligence and machine learning. He leads the MIT Visualization Group, which uses interactive data visualization as a petri dish to study intelligence augmentation — how computation can help amplify human cognition and creativity while respecting our agency.

Written in collaboration with Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

Hundreds of data brokers have not registered with state consumer protection agencies. These findings come as more states are passing data broker transparency laws that require brokers to provide information about their business and, in some cases, give consumers an easy way to opt out.

In recent years, California, Texas, Oregon, and Vermont have passed data broker registration laws that require brokers to identify themselves to state regulators and the public. A new analysis by Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (PRC) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reveals that many data brokers registered in one state aren’t registered in others.

Companies that registered in one state but did not register in another include: 291 companies that did not register in California, 524 in Texas, 475 in Oregon, and 309 in Vermont. These numbers come from data analyzed from early April 2025.

PRC and EFF sent letters to state enforcement agencies urging them to investigate these findings. More investigation by states is needed to determine whether these registration discrepancies reflect widespread noncompliance, gaps and definitional differences in the various state laws, or some other explanation.

New data broker transparency laws are an essential first step to reining in the data broker industry. This is an ecosystem in which your personal data taken from apps and other web services can be bought and sold largely without your knowledge. The data can be highly sensitive like location information, and can be used to target you with ads, discriminate against you, and even enhance government surveillance. The widespread sharing of this data also makes it more susceptible to data breaches. And its easy availability allows personal data to be obtained by bad actors for phishing, harassment, or stalking.

Consumers need robust deletion mechanisms to remove their data stored and sold by these companies. But the potential registration gaps we identified threaten to undermine such tools. California’s Delete Act will soon provide consumers with an easy tool to delete their data held by brokers—but it can only work if brokers register. California has already brought a handful of enforcement actions against brokers who failed to register under that law, and such compliance efforts are becoming even more critical as deletion mechanisms come online.

It is important to understand the scope of our analysis.

This analysis only includes companies that registered in at least one state. It does not capture data brokers that completely disregard state laws by failing to register in any state. A total of 750 data brokers have registered in at least one state. While harder to find, shady data brokers who have failed to register anywhere should remain a primary enforcement target.

This analysis also does not claim or prove that any of the data brokers we found broke the law. While the definition of “data broker” is similar across states, there are variations that could require a company to register in one state and not another. To take one example, a data broker registered in Texas that only brokers the data of Texas residents would not be legally required to register in California. To take another, a data broker that registered with Vermont in 2020 that then changed its business model and is no longer a broker, would not be required to register in 2025. More detail on variations in data broker laws is outlined in our letters to regulators.

States should investigate compliance with data broker registration requirements, enforce their laws, and plug any loopholes. Ultimately, consumers deserve protections regardless of where they reside, and Congress should also work to pass baseline federal data broker legislation that minimizes collection and includes strict use and disclosure limits, transparency obligations, and consumer rights.

Read more here:

California letter

Texas Letter

Oregon Letter

Vermont Letter

Spreadsheet of data brokers

Startups and government defense agencies have historically seemed like polar opposites. Startups thrive on speed and risk, while defense agencies are more cautious. Over the past few years, however, things have changed. Many startups are eager to work with these organizations, which are always looking for innovative solutions to their hardest problems.

To help bridge that gap while advancing research along the way, MIT Lecturer Gene Keselman launched MIT’s Mission Innovation X (MIx) along with Sertac Karaman, a professor in the MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and Fiona Murray, the William Porter Professor of Entrepreneurship at the MIT Sloan School of Management. MIx develops educational programming, supports research at MIT, and facilitates connections among government organizations, startups, and researchers.

“Startups know how to commercialize their tech, but they don’t necessarily know how to work with the government, and especially how to understand the needs of defense customers,” explains MIx Senior Program Manager Keenan Blatt. “There are a lot of different challenges when it comes to engaging with defense, not only from a procurement cycle and timeline perspective, but also from a culture perspective.”

MIx’s work helps innovators secure crucial early funding while giving defense agencies access to cutting-edge technologies, boosting America’s security capabilities in the process. Through the work, MIx has also become a thought leader in the emerging “dual-use” space, in which researchers and founders make strategic choices to advance technologies that have both civilian and defense applications.

Gene Keselman, the executive director of MIx as well as managing director of MIT’s venture studio Proto Ventures and a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, believes MIT is uniquely positioned to deliver on MIx’s mission.

“It’s not a coincidence MIx is happening at MIT,” says Keselman, adding that supporting national security “is part of MIT’s ethos.”

A history of service

MIx’s work has deep roots at the Institute.

“MIT has worked with the Department of Defense since at least since the 1940s, but really going back to its founding years,” says Karaman, who is also the director of MIT’s Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS), a research group with its own long history of working with the government.

“The difference today,” adds Murray, who teaches courses on building deep tech ventures and regional innovation ecosystems and is the vice chair of NATO's Innovation Fund, “is that defense departments and others looking to support the defense, security, and resilience agenda are looking to several innovation ecosystem stakeholders — universities, startup ventures, and venture capitalists — for solutions. Not only from the large prime contractors.  We have learned this lesson from Ukraine, but the same ecosystem logic is at the core of our MIx offer.”

MIx was borne out of the MIT Innovation Initiative in response to interest Keselman saw from researchers and defense officials in expanding MIT’s work with the defense and global security communities. About seven years ago, he hired Katie Person, who left MIT last year to become a battalion commander, to handle all that interest as a program manager with the initiative. MIx activities, like mentoring and educating founders, began shortly after, and MIx officially launched at MIT in 2021.

“It was a good example of the ways in which MIT responds to its students’ interests and external demand,” Keselman says.

One source of early interest was from startup founders who wanted to know how to work with the defense industry and commercialize technology that could have dual commercial and defense applications. That led the team to launch the Dual Use Ventures course, which helps startup founders and other innovators work with defense agencies. The course has since been offered annually during MIT’s Independent Activities Period (IAP) and tailored for NATO’s Defense Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA).

Personnel from agencies including U.S. Special Operations Command were also interested in working with MIT students, which led the MIx team to develop course 15.362/6.9160 (Engineering Innovation: Global Security Systems), which is taken each spring by students across MIT and Harvard University.

“There are the government organizations that want to be more innovative and work with startups, and there are startups that want to get access to funding from government and have government as a customer,” Keselman says. “We’re kind of the middle layer, facilitating connections, educating, and partnering on research.”

MIx research activities give student and graduate researchers opportunities to work on pressing problems in the real world, and the MIT community has responded eagerly: More than 150 students applied for MIx’s openings in this summer’s Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program.

"We’re helping push the boundaries of what’s possible and explore the frontiers of technology, but do it in a way that is publishable," says MIx Head Research Scientist A.J. Perez ’13, MEng ’14, PhD ’23. “More broadly, we want to unlock as much support for students and researchers at MIT as possible to work on problems that we know matter to defense agencies.”

Early wins

Some of MIx’s most impactful research so far has come in partnership with startups. For example, MIx helped the startup Picogrid secure a small business grant from the U.S. Air Force to build an early wildfire detection system. As part of the grant, MIT students built a computer vision model for Picogrid’s devices that can detect smoke in the sky, proving the technical feasibility of the system and describing a promising new pathway in the field of machine learning.

In another recent project with the MIT alumni-founded startup Nominal, MIT students helped improve and automate post-flight data analysis for the U.S. Air Force’s Test Pilot School.

MIx’s work connecting MIT’s innovators and the wider innovation ecosystem with defense agencies has already begun to bear fruit, and many members of MIx believe early collaborations are a sign of things to come.

“We haven’t even scratched the surface of the potential for MIx,” says Karaman, “This could be the start of something much bigger.”

This is the third post of a series about internet intermediary liability in Brazil. Our first post gives an overview of Brazil's current internet intermediary liability regime, set out in a law known as "Marco Civil da Internet," the context of its approval in 2014, and the beginning of the Supreme Court's judgment of such regime in November 2024. Our second post provides a bigger picture of the Brazilian context underlying the court's analysis and its most likely final decision. 

The court’s examination of Marco Civil’s Article 19 began with Justice Dias Toffoli in November last year. We explained here about the cases under trial, the reach of the Supreme Court’s decision, and Article 19’s background related to Marco Civil’s approval in 2014. We also highlighted some aspects and risks of Justice Dias Toffoli’s vote, who considered the intermediary liability regime established in Article 19 unconstitutional.  

Most of the justices have agreed to find this regime at least partially unconstitutional, but differ on the specifics. Relevant elements of their votes include: 

• Notice-and-takedown is likely to become the general rule for platforms' liability for third-party content (based on Article 21 of Marco Civil). Justices still have to settle whether this applies to internet applications in general or if some distinctions are relevant, for example, applying only to those that curate or recommend content. Another open question refers to the type of content subject to liability under this rule: votes pointed to unlawful content/acts, manifestly criminal or clearly unlawful content, or opted to focus on crimes. Some justices didn’t explicitly qualify the nature of the restricted content under this rule.   

• If partially valid, the need for a previous judicial order to hold intermediaries liable for user posts (Article 19 of Marco Civil) remains in force for certain types of content (or certain types of internet applications). For some justices, Article 19 should be the liability regime in the case of crimes against honor, such as defamation. Justice Luís Roberto Barroso also considered this rule should apply for any unlawful acts under civil law. Justice Cristiano Zanin has a different approach. For him, Article 19 should prevail for internet applications that don’t curate, recommend or boost content (what he called “neutral” applications) or when there’s reasonable doubt about whether the content is unlawful.
  

• Platforms are considered liable for ads and boosted content that they deliver to users. This was the position held by most of the votes so far. Justices did so either by presuming platforms’ knowledge of the paid content they distribute, holding them strictly liable for paid posts, or by considering the delivery of paid content as platforms’ own act (rather than “third-party” conduct). Justice Dias Toffoli went further, including also non-paid recommended content. Some justices extended this regime to content posted by inauthentic or fake accounts, or when the non-identification of accounts hinders holding the content authors liable for their posts.   

• Monitoring duty of specific types of harmful and/or criminal content. Most concerning is that different votes establish some kind of active monitoring and likely automated restriction duty for a list of contents, subject to internet applications' liability. Justices have either recognized a “monitoring duty” or considered platforms liable for these types of content regardless of a previous notification. Justices Luís Roberto Barroso, Cristiano Zanin, and Flávio Dino adopt a less problematic systemic flaw approach, by which applications’ liability would not derive from each piece of content individually, but from an analysis of whether platforms employ the proper means to tackle these types of content. The list of contents also varies. In most of the cases they are restricted to criminal offenses, such as crimes against the democratic state, racism, and crimes against children and adolescents; yet they may also include vaguer terms, like “any violence against women,” as in Justice Dias Toffoli’s vote. 

• Complementary or procedural duties. Justices have also voted to establish complementary or procedural duties. These include providing a notification system that is easily accessible to users, a due process mechanism where users can appeal against content restrictions, and the release of periodic transparency reports. Justice Alexandre de Moraes also specifically mentioned algorithmic transparency measures. 

• Oversight. Justices also discussed which entity or oversight model should be used to monitor compliance while Congress doesn’t approve a specific regulation. They raised different possibilities, including the National Council of Justice, the General Attorney’s Office, the National Data Protection Authority, a self-regulatory body, or a multistakeholder entity with government, companies, and civil society participation. 

Three other justices have yet to present their votes to complete the judgment. As we pointed out, the ruling will both decide the individual cases that entered the Supreme Court through appeals and the “general repercussion” issues underlying these individual cases. For addressing such general repercussion issues, the Supreme Court approves a thesis that orients lower court decisions in similar cases. The final thesis will reflect the majority of the court's agreements around the topics we outlined above. 

Justice Alexandre de Moraes argued that the final thesis should equate the liability regime of social media and private messaging applications to the one applied to traditional media outlets. This disregards important differences between both: even if social media platforms curate content, it involves a massive volume of third-party posts, mainly organized through algorithms. Although such curation reflects business choices, it does not equate to media outlets that directly create or individually purchase specific content from approved independent producers. This is even more complicated with messaging applications, seriously endangering privacy and end-to-end encryption. 

Justice André Mendonça was the only one so far to preserve the full application of Article 19. His proposed thesis highlighted the necessity of safeguarding privacy, data protection, and the secrecy of communications in messaging applications, among other aspects. It also indicated that judicial takedown orders must provide specific reasoning and be made available to platforms, even if issued within a sealed proceeding. The platform must also have the ability to appeal the takedown order. These are all important points the final ruling should endorse. 

Risks and Blind Spots 

We have stressed the many problems entangled with broad notice-and-takedown mandates and expanded content monitoring obligations. Extensively relying on AI-based content moderation and tying it to intermediary liability for user content will likely exacerbate the detrimental effects of these systems’ limitations and flaws. The perils and concerns that grounded Article 19's approval remain valid and should have led to a position of the court preserving its regime.  

However, given the judgement’s current stage, there are still some minimum safeguards that justices should consider or reinforce to reduce harm.  

It’s crucial to put in place guardrails against the abuse and weaponization of notification mechanisms. At a minimum, platforms shouldn’t be liable following an extrajudicial notification when there’s reasonable doubt concerning the content’s lawfulness. In addition, notification procedures should make sure that notices are sufficiently precise and properly substantiated indicating the content’s specific location (e.g. URL) and why the notifier considers it to be illegal. Internet applications must also provide reasoned justification and adequate appeal mechanisms for those who face content restrictions.  

On the other hand, holding intermediaries liable for individual pieces of user content regardless of notification, by massively relying on AI-based content flagging, is a recipe for over censorship. Adopting a systemic flaw approach could minimally mitigate this problem. Moreover, justices should clearly set apart private messaging applications, as mandated content-based restrictions would erode secure and end-to-end encrypted implementations. 

Finally, we should note that justices generally didn’t distinguish large internet applications from other providers when detailing liability regimes and duties in their votes. This is one major blind spot, as it could significantly impact the feasibility of alternate and decentralized alternatives to Big Tech’s business models, entrenching platform concentration. Similarly, despite criticism of platforms’ business interests in monetizing and capturing user attention, court debates mainly failed to address the pervasive surveillance infrastructure lying underneath Big Tech’s power and abuses.   

Indeed, while justices have called out Big Tech’ enormous power over the online flow of information – over what’s heard and seen, and by whom – the consequences of this decision can actually deepen this powerful position. 

It’s worth recalling a line of Aaron Schwarz in the film “The Internet’s Own Boy” when comparing broadcasting and the internet. He said: “[…] what you see now is not a question of who gets access to the airwaves, it’s a question of who gets control over the ways you find people.” As he puts it, today’s challenge is less about who gets to speak, but rather about who gets to be heard.  

There’s an undeniable source of power in operating the inner rules and structures by which the information flows within a platform with global reach and millions of users. The crucial interventions must aim at this source of power, putting a stop to behavioral surveillance ads, breaking Big Tech’s gatekeeper dominance, and redistributing the information flow.  

That’s not to say that we shouldn’t care about how each platform organizes its online environment. We should, and we do. The EU Digital Services Act, for example, established rules in this sense, leaving the traditional liability regime largely intact. Rather than leveraging platforms as users’ speech watchdogs by potentially holding intermediaries liable for each piece of user content, platform accountability efforts should broadly look at platforms’ processes and business choices. Otherwise, we will end up focusing on monitoring users instead of targeting platforms’ abuses. 

This is the second post of a series about intermediary liability in Brazil. Our first post gives an overview of Brazil's current intermediary liability regime, the context of its approval in 2014, and the beginning of the Supreme Court's analysis of such regime in November 2024. Our third post provides an outlook on justices' votes up until June 23, underscoring risks, mitigation measures, and blind spots of their potential decision.

The Brazilian Supreme Court has formed a majority to overturn the country’s current online intermediary liability regime. With eight out of eleven justices having presented their opinions, the court has reached enough votes to mostly remove the need for a previous judicial order demanding content takedown to hold digital platforms liable for user posts, which is currently the general rule.  

The judgment relates to Article 19 of Brazil’s Civil Rights Framework for the Internet (“Marco Civil da Internet,” Law n. 12.965/2014), wherein internet applications can only be held liable for third-party content if they fail to comply with a judicial decision ordering its removal. Article 19 aligns with the Manila Principles and reflects the important understanding that holding platforms liable for user content without a judicial analysis creates strong incentives for enforcement overreach and over censorship of protected speech.  

Nonetheless, while Justice André Mendonça voted to preserve Article 19’s application, four other justices stated it should prevail only in specific cases, mainly for crimes against honor (such as defamation). The remaining three justices considered that Article 19 offers insufficient protection to constitutional guarantees, such as the integral protection of children and teenagers.  

The judgment will resume on June 25th, with the three final justices completing the analysis by the plenary of the court. Whereas Article 19’s partial unconstitutionality (or its interpretation “in accordance with” the Constitution) seems to be the position the majority of the court will take, the details of each vote vary, indicating important agreements still to sew up and critical tweaks to make.   

As we previously noted, the outcome of this ruling can seriously undermine free expression and privacy safeguards if they lead to general content monitoring obligations or broadly expand notice-and-takedown mandates. This trend could negatively shape developments globally in other courts, parliaments, or with respect to executive powers. Sadly, the votes so far have aggravated these concerns.  

But before we get to them, let's look at some circumstances underlying the Supreme Court's analysis. 

2014 vs. 2025: The Brazilian Techlash After Marco Civil's Approval 

How did Article 19 end up (mostly) overturned a decade after Marco Civil’s much-celebrated approval in Brazil back in 2014?   

In addition to the broader techlash following the impacts of an increasing concentration of power in the digital realm, developments in Brazil have leveraged a harsher approach towards internet intermediaries. Marco Civil became a scapegoat, especially Article 19, within regulatory approaches that largely diminished the importance of the free expression concerns that informed its approval. Rather than viewing the provision as a milestone to be complemented with new legislation, this context has reinforced the view that Article 19 should be left behind. 

 The tougher approach to internet intermediaries gained steam after former President Jair Bolsonaro’s election in 2018 and throughout the legislative debates around draft bill 2630, also known as the “Fake News bill.”  

Specifically, though not exhaustive, concerns around the spread of disinformation, online-fueled discrimination, and political violence, as well as threats to election integrity, constitute an important piece of this scenario. This includes the use of social media by the far right within the escalation of acts seeking to undermine the integrity of elections and ultimately overthrow the legitimately elected President Luis Inácio da Silva in January 2023. Investigations later unveiled that related plans included killing the new president, the vice-president, and Justice Alexandre de Moraes.  

Concerns over child and adolescents’ rights and safety are another part of the underlying context. Among others, a wave of violent threats and actual attacks in schools in early 2023 was bolstered by online content. Social media challenges also led to injuries and deaths of young people.  

Finally, the political reactions to Big Tech’s alignment with far-right politicians and feuds with Brazilian authorities complete this puzzle. It includes reactions to Meta’s policy changes in January 2025 and the Trump’s administration’s decision to restrict visas to foreign officials based on grounds of limiting free speech online. This decision is viewed as an offensive against Brazil's Supreme Court from U.S. authorities in alliance with Bolsonaro’s supporters, including his son now living in the U.S. 

Changes in the tech landscape, including concerns about the attention-driven information flow, alongside geopolitical tensions, landed in Article 19 examination by the Brazilian Supreme Court. Hurdles in the legislative debate of draft bill 2630 turned attention to the internet intermediary liability cases pending in the Supreme Court as the main vehicles for providing “some” response. Yet, the scope of such cases (explained here) determined the most likely outcome. As they focus on assessing platform liability for user content and whether it involves a duty to monitor, these issues became the main vectors for analysis and potential change. Alternative approaches, such as improving transparency, ensuring due process, and fostering platform accountability through different measures, like risk assessments, were mainly sidelined.  

Read our third post in this series to learn more about the analysis of the Supreme Court so far and its risks and blind spots. 

Scientists can manipulate air bubbles trapped in ice to encode messages.

Tax credits for clean energy have previously enjoyed bipartisan support.

Red states are urging the Trump administration to take steps to quash lawsuits that seek to hold the oil and gas industry accountable for climate change.

The proposal for a Saudi Aramco oil company staffer to become author of key science report is denounced as “political capture.”

A new World Bank report says 40 percent of global industrial emissions are now regulated through carbon taxes or carbon markets.

The dashboard was launched Tuesday by UCLA’s Latino Policy and Politics Institute.