The promise of personal AI assistants rests on a dangerous assumption: that we can trust systems we haven’t made trustworthy. We can’t. And today’s versions are failing us in predictable ways: pushing us to do things against our own best interests, gaslighting us with doubt about things we are or that we know, and being unable to distinguish between who we are and who we have been. They struggle with incomplete, inaccurate, and partial context: with no standard way to move toward accuracy, no mechanism to correct sources of error, and no accountability when wrong information leads to bad decisions.

These aren’t edge cases. They’re the result of building AI systems without basic integrity controls. We’re in the third leg of data security—the old CIA triad. We’re good at availability and working on confidentiality, but we’ve never properly solved integrity. Now AI personalization has exposed the gap by accelerating the harms.

The scope of the problem is large. A good AI assistant will need to be trained on everything we do and will need access to our most intimate personal interactions. This means an intimacy greater than your relationship with your email provider, your social media account, your cloud storage, or your phone. It requires an AI system that is both discreet and trustworthy when provided with that data. The system needs to be accurate and complete, but it also needs to be able to keep data private: to selectively disclose pieces of it when required, and to keep it secret otherwise. No current AI system is even close to meeting this.

To further development along these lines, I and others have proposed separating users’ personal data stores from the AI systems that will use them. It makes sense; the engineering expertise that designs and develops AI systems is completely orthogonal to the security expertise that ensures the confidentiality and integrity of data. And by separating them, advances in security can proceed independently from advances in AI.

What would this sort of personal data store look like? Confidentiality without integrity gives you access to wrong data. Availability without integrity gives you reliable access to corrupted data. Integrity enables the other two to be meaningful. Here are six requirements. They emerge from treating integrity as the organizing principle of security to make AI trustworthy.

First, it would be broadly accessible as a data repository. We each want this data to include personal data about ourselves, as well as transaction data from our interactions. It would include data we create when interacting with others—emails, texts, social media posts—and revealed preference data as inferred by other systems. Some of it would be raw data, and some of it would be processed data: revealed preferences, conclusions inferred by other systems, maybe even raw weights in a personal LLM.

Second, it would be broadly accessible as a source of data. This data would need to be made accessible to different LLM systems. This can’t be tied to a single AI model. Our AI future will include many different models—some of them chosen by us for particular tasks, and some thrust upon us by others. We would want the ability for any of those models to use our data.

Third, it would need to be able to prove the accuracy of data. Imagine one of these systems being used to negotiate a bank loan, or participate in a first-round job interview with an AI recruiter. In these instances, the other party will want both relevant data and some sort of proof that the data are complete and accurate.

Fourth, it would be under the user’s fine-grained control and audit. This is a deeply detailed personal dossier, and the user would need to have the final say in who could access it, what portions they could access, and under what circumstances. Users would need to be able to grant and revoke this access quickly and easily, and be able to go back in time and see who has accessed it.

Fifth, it would be secure. The attacks against this system are numerous. There are the obvious read attacks, where an adversary attempts to learn a person’s data. And there are also write attacks, where adversaries add to or change a user’s data. Defending against both is critical; this all implies a complex and robust authentication system.

Sixth, and finally, it must be easy to use. If we’re envisioning digital personal assistants for everybody, it can’t require specialized security training to use properly.

I’m not the first to suggest something like this. Researchers have proposed a “Human Context Protocol” (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=5403981) that would serve as a neutral interface for personal data of this type. And in my capacity at a company called Inrupt, Inc., I have been working on an extension of Tim Berners-Lee’s Solid protocol for distributed data ownership.

The engineering expertise to build AI systems is orthogonal to the security expertise needed to protect personal data. AI companies optimize for model performance, but data security requires cryptographic verification, access control, and auditable systems. Separating the two makes sense; you can’t ignore one or the other.

Fortunately, decoupling personal data stores from AI systems means security can advance independently from performance (https:// ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/ 10352412). When you own and control your data store with high integrity, AI can’t easily manipulate you because you see what data it’s using and can correct it. It can’t easily gaslight you because you control the authoritative record of your context. And you determine which historical data are relevant or obsolete. Making this all work is a challenge, but it’s the only way we can have trustworthy AI assistants.

This essay was originally published in IEEE Security & Privacy .

Two competing arguments are making the rounds. The first is by a neurosurgeon in the New York Times . In an op-ed that honestly sounds like it was paid for by Waymo, the author calls driverless cars a “public health breakthrough”:

In medical research, there’s a practice of ending a study early when the results are too striking to ignore. We stop when there is unexpected harm. We also stop for overwhelming benefit, when a treatment is working so well that it would be unethical to continue giving anyone a placebo. When an intervention works this clearly, you change what you do.

There’s a public health imperative to quickly expand the adoption of autonomous vehicles. More than 39,000 Americans died in motor vehicle crashes last year, more than homicide, plane crashes and natural disasters combined. Crashes are the No. 2 cause of death for children and young adults. But death is only part of the story. These crashes are also the leading cause of spinal cord injury. We surgeons see the aftermath of the 10,000 crash victims who come to emergency rooms every day.

The other is a soon-to-be-published book: Driving Intelligence: The Green Book . The authors, a computer scientist and a management consultant with experience in the industry, make the opposite argument. Here’s one of the authors:

There is something very disturbing going on around trials with autonomous vehicles worldwide, where, sadly, there have now been many deaths and injuries both to other road users and pedestrians. Although I am well aware that there is not, senso stricto , a legal and functional parallel between a “drug trial” and “AV testing,” it seems odd to me that if a trial of a new drug had resulted in so many deaths, it would surely have been halted and major forensic investigations carried out and yet, AV manufacturers continue to test their products on public roads unabated.

I am not convinced that it is good enough to argue from statistics that, to a greater or lesser degree, fatalities and injuries would have occurred anyway had the AVs had been replaced by human-driven cars: a pharmaceutical company, following death or injury, cannot simply sidestep regulations around the trial of, say, a new cancer drug, by arguing that, whilst the trial is underway, people would die from cancer anyway….

Both arguments are compelling, and it’s going to be hard to figure out what public policy should be.

This paper, from 2016, argues that we’re going to need other metrics than side-by-side comparisons: Driving to safety: How many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability? “:

Abstract : How safe are autonomous vehicles? The answer is critical for determining how autonomous vehicles may shape motor vehicle safety and public health, and for developing sound policies to govern their deployment. One proposed way to assess safety is to test drive autonomous vehicles in real traffic, observe their performance, and make statistical comparisons to human driver performance. This approach is logical, but it is practical? In this paper, we calculate the number of miles of driving that would be needed to provide clear statistical evidence of autonomous vehicle safety. Given that current traffic fatalities and injuries are rare events compared to vehicle miles traveled, we show that fully autonomous vehicles would have to be driven hundreds of millions of miles and sometimes hundreds of billions of miles to demonstrate their reliability in terms of fatalities and injuries. Under even aggressive testing assumptions, existing fleets would take tens and sometimes hundreds of years to drive these miles—­an impossible proposition if the aim is to demonstrate their performance prior to releasing them on the roads for consumer use. These findings demonstrate that developers of this technology and third-party testers cannot simply drive their way to safety. Instead, they will need to develop innovative methods of demonstrating safety and reliability. And yet, the possibility remains that it will not be possible to establish with certainty the safety of autonomous vehicles. Uncertainty will remain. Therefore, it is imperative that autonomous vehicle regulations are adaptive­—designed from the outset to evolve with the technology so that society can better harness the benefits and manage the risks of these rapidly evolving and potentially transformative technologies.

One problem, of course, is that we treat death by human driver differently than we do death by autonomous computer driver. This is likely to change as we get more experience with AI accidents—and AI-caused deaths.

Here’s a fun paper: “ The Naibbe cipher: a substitution cipher that encrypts Latin and Italian as Voynich Manuscript-like ciphertext “:

Abstract: In this article, I investigate the hypothesis that the Voynich Manuscript (MS 408, Yale University Beinecke Library) is compatible with being a ciphertext by attempting to develop a historically plausible cipher that can replicate the manuscript’s unusual properties. The resulting cipher­a verbose homophonic substitution cipher I call the Naibbe cipher­can be done entirely by hand with 15th-century materials, and when it encrypts a wide range of Latin and Italian plaintexts, the resulting ciphertexts remain fully decipherable and also reliably reproduce many key statistical properties of the Voynich Manuscript at once. My results suggest that the so-called “ciphertext hypothesis” for the Voynich Manuscript remains viable, while also placing constraints on plausible substitution cipher structures.

The vampire squid ( Vampyroteuthis infernalis ) has the largest cephalopod genome ever sequenced: more than 11 billion base pairs. That’s more than twice as large as the biggest squid genomes.

It’s technically not a squid: “The vampire squid is a fascinating twig tenaciously hanging onto the cephalopod family tree. It’s neither a squid nor an octopus (nor a vampire), but rather the last, lone remnant of an ancient lineage whose other members have long since vanished.”

As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered.

Blog moderation policy.

A new anonymous phone service allows you to sign up with just a zip code.

Democracy is colliding with the technologies of artificial intelligence. Judging from the audience reaction at the recent World Forum on Democracy in Strasbourg, the general expectation is that democracy will be the worse for it. We have another narrative. Yes, there are risks to democracy from AI, but there are also opportunities.

We have just published the book Rewiring Democracy: How AI will Transform Politics, Government, and Citizenship . In it, we take a clear-eyed view of how AI is undermining confidence in our information ecosystem, how the use of biased AI can harm constituents of democracies and how elected officials with authoritarian tendencies can use it to consolidate power. But we also give positive examples of how AI is transforming democratic governance and politics for the better.

Here are four such stories unfolding right now around the world, showing how AI is being used by some to make democracy better, stronger, and more responsive to people.

Japan

Last year, then 33-year-old engineer Takahiro Anno was a fringe candidate for governor of Tokyo. Running as an independent candidate, he ended up coming in fifth in a crowded field of 56 , largely thanks to the unprecedented use of an authorized AI avatar. That avatar answered 8,600 questions from voters on a 17-day continuous YouTube livestream and garnered the attention of campaign innovators worldwide.

Two months ago, Anno-san was elected to Japan’s upper legislative chamber, again leveraging the power of AI to engage constituents—this time answering more than 20,000 questions . His new party, Team Mirai, is also an AI-enabled civic technology shop, producing software aimed at making governance better and more participatory. The party is leveraging its share of Japan’s public funding for political parties to build the Mirai Assembly app, enabling constituents to express opinions on and ask questions about bills in the legislature, and to organize those expressions using AI. The party promises that its members will direct their questioning in committee hearings based on public input.

Brazil

Brazil is notoriously litigious , with even more lawyers per capita than the US. The courts are chronically overwhelmed with cases and the resultant backlog costs the government billions to process. Estimates are that the Brazilian federal government spends about 1.6% of GDP per year operating the courts and another 2.5% to 3% of GDP issuing court-ordered payments from lawsuits the government has lost.

Since at least 2019, the Brazilian government has aggressively adopted AI to automate procedures throughout its judiciary. AI is not making judicial decisions, but aiding in distributing caseloads, performing legal research, transcribing hearings, identifying duplicative filings, preparing initial orders for signature and clustering similar cases for joint consideration: all things to make the judiciary system work more efficiently. And the results are significant; Brazil’s federal supreme court backlog, for example, dropped in 2025 to its lowest levels in 33 years .

While it seems clear that the courts are realizing efficiency benefits from leveraging AI, there is a postscript to the courts’ AI implementation project over the past five-plus years: the litigators are using these tools, too. Lawyers are using AI assistance to file cases in Brazilian courts at an unprecedented rate , with new cases growing by nearly 40% in volume over the past five years.

It’s not necessarily a bad thing for Brazilian litigators to regain the upper hand in this arms race. It has been argued that litigation, particularly against the government, is a vital form of civic participation , essential to the self-governance function of democracy. Other democracies’ court systems should study and learn from Brazil’s experience and seek to use technology to maximize the bandwidth and liquidity of the courts to process litigation.

Germany

Now, we move to Europe and innovations in informing voters. Since 2002, the German Federal Agency for Civic Education has operated a non-partisan voting guide called Wahl-o-Mat . Officials convene an editorial team of 24 young voters (under 26 and selected for diversity) with experts from science and education to develop a slate of 80 questions. The questions are put to all registered German political parties. The responses are narrowed down to 38 key topics and then published online in a quiz format that voters can use to identify the party whose platform they most identify with.

In the past two years, outside groups have been innovating alternatives to the official Wahl-o-Mat guide that leverage AI. First came Wahlweise , a product of the German AI company AIUI. Second, students at the Technical University of Munich deployed an interactive AI system called Wahl.chat . This tool was used by more than 150,000 people within the first four months. In both cases, instead of having to read static webpages about the positions of various political parties, citizens can engage in an interactive conversation with an AI system to more easily get the same information contextualized to their individual interests and questions.

However, German researchers studying the reliability of such AI tools ahead of the 2025 German federal election raised significant concerns about bias and “hallucinations”—AI tools making up false information. Acknowledging the potential of the technology to increase voter informedness and party transparency, the researchers recommended adopting scientific evaluations comparable to those used in the Agency for Civic Education’s official tool to improve and institutionalize the technology.

United States

Finally, the US—in particular, California, home to CalMatters , a non-profit, nonpartisan news organization. Since 2023, its Digital Democracy project has been collecting every public utterance of California elected officials—every floor speech, comment made in committee and social media post, along with their voting records, legislation, and campaign contributions—and making all that information available in a free online platform.

CalMatters this year launched a new feature that takes this kind of civic watchdog function a big step further. Its AI Tip Sheets feature uses AI to search through all of this data, looking for anomalies, such as a change in voting position tied to a large campaign contribution. These anomalies appear on a webpage that journalists can access to give them story ideas and a source of data and analysis to drive further reporting.

This is not AI replacing human journalists; it is a civic watchdog organization using technology to feed evidence-based insights to human reporters. And it’s no coincidence that this innovation arose from a new kind of media institution—a non-profit news agency. As the watchdog function of the fourth estate continues to be degraded by the decline of newspapers’ business models, this kind of technological support is a valuable contribution to help a reduced number of human journalists retain something of the scope of action and impact our democracy relies on them for.

These are just four of many stories from around the globe of AI helping to make democracy stronger. The common thread is that the technology is distributing rather than concentrating power. In all four cases, it is being used to assist people performing their democratic tasks—politics in Japan, litigation in Brazil, voting in Germany and watchdog journalism in California—rather than replacing them.

In none of these cases is the AI doing something that humans can’t perfectly competently do. But in all of these cases, we don’t have enough available humans to do the jobs on their own. A sufficiently trustworthy AI can fill in gaps: amplify the power of civil servants and citizens, improve efficiency, and facilitate engagement between government and the public.

One of the barriers towards realizing this vision more broadly is the AI market itself. The core technologies are largely being created and marketed by US tech giants. We don’t know the details of their development: on what material they were trained, what guardrails are designed to shape their behavior, what biases and values are encoded into their systems. And, even worse, we don’t get a say in the choices associated with those details or how they should change over time. In many cases, it’s an unacceptable risk to use these for-profit, proprietary AI systems in democratic contexts.

To address that, we have long advocated for the development of “public AI”: models and AI systems that are developed under democratic control and deployed for public benefit, not sold by corporations to benefit their shareholders. The movement for this is growing worldwide.

Switzerland has recently released the world’s most powerful and fully realized public AI model. It’s called Apertus , and it was developed jointly by public Swiss institutions: the universities ETH
Zurich and EPFL, and the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre (CSCS). The development team has made it entirely open source–open data, open code, open weights—and free for anyone to use. No illegally acquired copyrighted works were used in its training. It doesn’t exploit poorly paid human laborers from the global south. Its performance is about where the large corporate giants were a year ago, which is more than good enough for many applications. And it demonstrates that it’s not necessary to spend trillions of dollars creating these models. Apertus takes a huge step forward to realizing the vision of an alternative to big tech—controlled corporate AI.

AI technology is not without its costs and risks, and we are not here to minimize them. But the technology has significant benefits as well.

AI is inherently power-enhancing, and it can magnify what the humans behind it want to do. It can enhance authoritarianism as easily as it can enhance democracy. It’s up to us to steer the technology in that better direction. If more citizen watchdogs and litigators use AI to amplify their power to oversee government and hold it accountable, if more political parties and election administrators use it to engage meaningfully with and inform voters and if more governments provide democratic alternatives to big tech’s AI offerings, society will be better off.

This essay was written with Nathan E. Sanders, and originally appeared in The Guardian .

In his 2020 book, “ Future Politics , ” British barrister Jamie Susskind wrote that the dominant question of the 20th century was “How much of our collective life should be determined by the state, and what should be left to the market and civil society?” But in the early decades of this century, Susskind suggested that we face a different question: “To what extent should our lives be directed and controlled by powerful digital systems—and on what terms?”

Artificial intelligence (AI) forces us to confront this question. It is a technology that in theory amplifies the power of its users: A manager, marketer, political campaigner, or opinionated internet user can utter a single instruction, and see their message—whatever it is—instantly written, personalized, and propagated via email, text, social, or other channels to thousands of people within their organization, or millions around the world. It also allows us to individualize solicitations for political donations, elaborate a grievance into a well-articulated policy position, or tailor a persuasive argument to an identity group, or even a single person.

But even as it offers endless potential, AI is a technology that—like the state—gives others new powers to control our lives and experiences.

We’ve seen this out play before. Social media companies made the same sorts of promises 20 years ago: instant communication enabling individual connection at massive scale. Fast-forward to today, and the technology that was supposed to give individuals power and influence ended up controlling us. Today social media dominates our time and attention , assaults our mental health , and—together with its Big Tech parent companies—captures an unfathomable fraction of our economy , even as it poses risks to our democracy .

The novelty and potential of social media was as present then as it is for AI now, which should make us wary of its potential harmful consequences for society and democracy. We legitimately fear artificial voices and manufactured reality drowning out real people on the internet: on social media, in chat rooms, everywhere we might try to connect with others.

It doesn’t have to be that way. Alongside these evident risks, AI has legitimate potential to transform both everyday life and democratic governance in positive ways . In our new book, “ Rewiring Democracy ,” we chronicle examples from around the globe of democracies using AI to make regulatory enforcement more efficient, catch tax cheats, speed up judicial processes, synthesize input from constituents to legislatures, and much more. Because democracies distribute power across institutions and individuals, making the right choices about how to shape AI and its uses requires both clarity and alignment across society.

To that end, we spotlight four pivotal choices facing private and public actors. These choices are similar to those we faced during the advent of social media, and in retrospect we can see that we made the wrong decisions back then. Our collective choices in 2025—choices made by tech CEOs, politicians, and citizens alike—may dictate whether AI is applied to positive and pro-democratic, or harmful and civically destructive, ends.

A Choice for the Executive and the Judiciary: Playing by the Rules

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) calls it fraud when a candidate hires an actor to impersonate their opponent. More recently, they had to decide whether doing the same thing with an AI deepfake makes it okay. ( They concluded it does not .) Although in this case the FEC made the right decision, this is just one example of how AIs could skirt laws that govern people.

Likewise, courts are having to decide if and when it is okay for an AI to reuse creative materials without compensation or attribution, which might constitute plagiarism or copyright infringement if carried out by a human. (The court outcomes so far are mixed .) Courts are also adjudicating whether corporations are responsible for upholding promises made by AI customer service representatives. (In the case of Air Canada , the answer was yes, and insurers have started covering the liability .)

Social media companies faced many of the same hazards decades ago and have largely been shielded by the combination of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1994 and the safe harbor offered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. Even in the absence of congressional action to strengthen or add rigor to this law, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Supreme Court could take action to enhance its effects and to clarify which humans are responsible when technology is used, in effect, to bypass existing law.

A Choice for Congress: Privacy

As AI-enabled products increasingly ask Americans to share yet more of their personal information— their “context “—to use digital services like personal assistants, safeguarding the interests of the American consumer should be a bipartisan cause in Congress.

It has been nearly 10 years since Europe adopted comprehensive data privacy regulation . Today, American companies exert massive efforts to limit data collection, acquire consent for use of data, and hold it confidential under significant financial penalties—but only for their customers and users in the EU.

Regardless, a decade later the U.S. has still failed to make progress on any serious attempts at comprehensive federal privacy legislation written for the 21st century, and there are precious few data privacy protections that apply to narrow slices of the economy and population. This inaction comes in spite of scandal after scandal regarding Big Tech corporations’ irresponsible and harmful use of our personal data: Oracle’s data profiling , Facebook and Cambridge Analytica , Google ignoring data privacy opt-out requests , and many more.

Privacy is just one side of the obligations AI companies should have with respect to our data; the other side is portability—that is, the ability for individuals to choose to migrate and share their data between consumer tools and technology systems. To the extent that knowing our personal context really does enable better and more personalized AI services, it’s critical that consumers have the ability to extract and migrate their personal context between AI solutions. Consumers should own their own data, and with that ownership should come explicit control over who and what platforms it is shared with, as well as withheld from. Regulators could mandate this interoperability . Otherwise, users are locked in and lack freedom of choice between competing AI solutions—much like the time invested to build a following on a social network has locked many users to those platforms.

A Choice for States: Taxing AI Companies

It has become increasingly clear that social media is not a town square in the utopian sense of an open and protected public forum where political ideas are distributed and debated in good faith. If anything, social media has coarsened and degraded our public discourse. Meanwhile, the sole act of Congress designed to substantially reign in the social and political effects of social media platforms—the TikTok ban , which aimed to protect the American public from Chinese influence and data collection, citing it as a national security threat—is one it seems to no longer even acknowledge.

While Congress has waffled, regulation in the U.S. is happening at the state level. Several states have limited children’s and teens’ access to social media. With Congress having rejected—for now—a threatened federal moratorium on state-level regulation of AI, California passed a new slate of AI regulations after mollifying a lobbying onslaught from industry opponents. Perhaps most interesting, Maryland has recently become the first in the nation to levy taxes on digital advertising platform companies.

States now face a choice of whether to apply a similar reparative tax to AI companies to recapture a fraction of the costs they externalize on the public to fund affected public services. State legislators concerned with the potential loss of jobs, cheating in schools, and harm to those with mental health concerns caused by AI have options to combat it. They could extract the funding needed to mitigate these harms to support public services —strengthening job training programs and public employment, public schools, public health services, even public media and technology.

A Choice for All of Us: What Products Do We Use, and How?

A pivotal moment in the social media timeline occurred in 2006, when Facebook opened its service to the public after years of catering to students of select universities. Millions quickly signed up for a free service where the only source of monetization was the extraction of their attention and personal data.

Today, about half of Americans are daily users of AI, mostly via free products from Facebook’s parent company Meta and a handful of other familiar Big Tech giants and venture-backed tech firms such as Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and Anthropic—with every incentive to follow the same path as the social platforms.

But now, as then, there are alternatives. Some nonprofit initiatives are building open-source AI tools that have transparent foundations and can be run locally and under users’ control, like AllenAI and EleutherAI . Some governments, like Singapore , Indonesia , and Switzerland , are building public alternatives to corporate AI that don’t suffer from the perverse incentives introduced by the profit motive of private entities.

Just as social media users have faced platform choices with a range of value propositions and ideological valences—as diverse as X, Bluesky, and Mastodon —the same will increasingly be true of AI. Those of us who use AI products in our everyday lives as people, workers, and citizens may not have the same power as judges, lawmakers, and state officials. But we can play a small role in influencing the broader AI ecosystem by demonstrating interest in and usage of these alternatives to Big AI. If you’re a regular user of commercial AI apps, consider trying the free-to-use service for Switzerland’s public Apertus model .

None of these choices are really new. They were all present almost 20 years ago, as social media moved from niche to mainstream. They were all policy debates we did not have, choosing instead to view these technologies through rose-colored glasses. Today, though, we can choose a different path and realize a different future. It is critical that we intentionally navigate a path to a positive future for societal use of AI—before the consolidation of power renders it too late to do so.

This post was written with Nathan E. Sanders, and originally appeared in Lawfare .

This is crazy. Lawmakers in several US states are contemplating banning VPNs , because…think of the children!

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

The EFF link explains why this is a terrible idea.

A meter-long flying neon squid ( Ommastrephes bartramii ) was found dead on an Israeli beach. The species is rare in the Mediterranean.

As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered.

Blog moderation policy.