When Rep. Leigh Finke spoke last month before the Minnesota House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee to testify against HF1434, a broad-sweeping proposal to age-gate the internet, she began with something disarming: agreement.

“I want to support the basic part of this,” she said, the shared goal of protecting young people online. Because that is not controversial: everyone wants kids to be safe. But HF1434, Minnesota’s proposed age-verification bill, simply won’t “protect children.” It mandates that websites hosting speech that is protected by the First Amendment for both adults and young people to verify users’ identities, often through government IDs or biometric data. As we’ve discussed before, the bill’s definition of speech that lawmakers deem “harmful to minors” is notoriously broad—broad enough to sweep in lawful, non-pornographic speech about sexual orientation, sexual health, and gender identity.

Rep. Finke, an openly transgender lawmaker, next raised a point that her critics have since tried to distort: age-verification laws like the Minnesota bill are already being used to block young LGBTQ+ people from exercising their First Amendment rights to access information that may be educational, affirming, or life-saving. Referencing the Supreme Court case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, she noted that state attorneys general have been “almost jubilant” about the ability to use these laws to restrict queer youth from accessing content. “We know that ‘prurient interest’ could be for many people, the very existence of transgender kids,” she added, referring to the malleable legal standard that would govern what content must be age-gated under the law. 

But despite years’ worth of evidence to back her up, Finke has faced a wave of attacks from countless media outlets and religious advocacy groups for her statements. Rep. Finke’s testimony was repeatedly mischaracterized as not having young people’s best interests in mind, when really she was accurately describing the lived reality of LGBTQ+ youth and advocating in support of their access to vital resources and community.

In fact, this backlash proves her point. Beyond attempting to silence queer voices and to scare other legislators from speaking up against these laws, it reveals how age-verification mandates are part of a larger effort to give the government much greater control of what young people are allowed to say, read, or see online. 

Rep. Finke was also right that these proposals are bad policy; they prevent all young people from finding community online, and that they violate young people and adults’ First Amendment rights.

Why FSC v. Paxton Matters

Rep. Finke was similarly right to bring up the Paxton case, because beyond the troubling Supreme Court precedent it produced, Texas’s age-verification law also drew eager support from an extraordinary number of amicus briefs from anti-LGBTQ organizations (some even designated hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center). 

In FSC v. Paxton, the Supreme Court gave Texas the green light to require age verification for sites where at least one-third of the content is sexual material deemed “harmful to minors,” which generally means explicit sexual content. This ruling, based on how young people do not have a First Amendment right to access explicit sexual content, allows states to enact onerous age-verification rules that will block adults from accessing lawful speech, curtail their ability to be anonymous, and jeopardize their data security and privacy. These are real and immense burdens on adults, and the Court was wrong to ignore them in upholding Texas’ law. 

But laws enacted by other states and Minnesota HF 1434 go further than the Texas statute. Rather than restricting young people from accessing sexual content, these proposals expand what the state deems “harmful to minors” to include any speech that may reference sex, sexuality, gender, and reproductive health. But young people have a First Amendment right to both speak on those topics and to access information online about them.

We will continue to fight against all online age restrictions, but bills like Minnesota’s HF 1434, which seek to restrict young people from accessing speech about their bodies, sexuality, and other truthful information, are especially pernicious.

EFF and Rep. Finke are on the same page here: age verification mandates create immense harm to our First Amendment rights, our right to privacy, as well as our online safety and security. These proposals also fully ignore the reality that LGBTQ young people often rely on the internet for information they cannot get elsewhere. 

But the Paxton case, and the coalition behind it, illustrates exactly how these laws can be weaponized. They weren’t there just to stand up for young people’s privacy online—they were there to argue that the state has a compelling interest in shielding minors from material that, in practice, often includes LGBTQ content. Ultimately, these groups would like to age-gate not just porn sites, but also any content that might discuss sex, sexuality, gender, reproductive health, abortion, and more.

Using Children as Props to Enact Censorship 

The coalition of organizations that filed amicus briefs in support of Texas’s age verification law tells us everything we need to know about the true intentions behind legislating access to information online: censorship, surveillance, and control. After all, if the race to age-gate the internet was purely about child safety, we would expect its strongest supporters to be child-development experts or privacy advocates. Instead, the loudest advocates are organizations dedicated to policing sexuality, attacking LGBTQ+ folks and reproductive rights, and censoring anything that doesn’t fit within their worldview.

Below are some of the harmful platforms that the organizations supporting the age-gating movement are advancing, and how their arguments echo in the attacks on Rep. Finke today:

Policing sexuality, bodily autonomy, and reproductive rights

Many of the organizations backing age-verification laws have spent decades trying to restrict access to accurate sexual health information and reproductive care.

Groups like Exodus Cry, for example, who filed a brief in support of the Texas AG in the SCOTUS case, frame pornography as part of a broader moral crisis. Founded by a “Christian dominionist” activist, Exodus Cry advocates for the criminalization of porn and sex work, and promotes a worldview that defines “sexual immorality” as any sexual activity outside marriage between one man and one woman. Its leadership describes the internet as a battleground in a “pornified world” that has to be reclaimed. Another brief in support of the age-verification law was filed by a group of organizations including the Public Advocate of the United States (an SPLC-designated hate group) and America’s Future. America’s Future is an organization that was formed to “revitalize the role of faith in our society” and fiercely advocates in favor of trans sports bans. 

These groups see age-verification laws as attractive solutions because they create a legal mechanism to wall off large swaths of content that merely mentions sex from not only young people but millions of adults, too.

Attacking LGBTQ+ Rights

Several of the most prominent legal advocates behind age-verification laws have also led the crusade against LGBTQ+ equality. The internet that these groups envision is one that heavily censors critical and even life-saving LGBTQ+ resources, community, and information. 

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), for instance (which is another SPLC-designated hate group), built its reputation on litigation aimed at rolling back LGBTQ+ protections—including  allowing businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples, criminalizing same-sex relationships abroad, and restricting transgender rights. 

Then there’s other groups like Them Before Us and Women’s Liberation Front, both of which submitted amici in support of the Texas Attorney General and are devoted to upending LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. Them Before Us says it’s “committed to putting the rights and well-being of children ahead of the desires and agendas of adults.” But it’s also running a campaign to “End Obergefell,” the 2015 Supreme Court case that upheld the right to same-sex marriage, and has been on the cutting edge of transphobic campaigning and pseudoscientific fearmongering about IVF and surrogacy. The Women’s Liberation Front, on the other hand, is an organization that has a long track record of supporting transphobic policies such as bathroom bills, bans on gender-affirming healthcare, and efforts to define “sex” strictly as the biological sex assigned at birth. 

Through cases like FSC v. Paxton, groups like these three continue to advance a vision of society that creates government mandates to enforce their worldviews over personal freedom, while hiding behind a shroud of concern for children’s safety. But when they also describe LGBTQ+ people as “evil” threats to children and run countless campaigns against their human rights, they are being clear about their intentions. This is why we continue to say: the impact of age verification measures goes beyond porn sites.

Expanding censorship beyond the internet into real-life public spaces

As we’ve said for years now, the push to age-gate the internet is part of a broader campaign to control what information people can access in public life both on- and offline. Many of the same organizations advancing these proposals claim to be acting on behalf of young people, but their arguments consistently use children as props to justify giving the government more control over speech and information.

Many of the organizations advocating for online age verification have also supported book bans, attacks on DEI policies and education, and efforts to remove LGBTQ+ materials from schools and libraries. Two of the organizations who supported the Texas Attorney General, Citizens Defending Freedom and Manhattan Institute, have led campaigns around the country to “abolish DEI” and ban classical books like “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison from school libraries. These efforts are not different from the efforts to restrict access to the internet—they reflect a broader strategy to restrict access to ideas or information that these groups find objectionable. And they discourage free thought, inquiry, and the ability for people to decide how to live their lives. 

These campaigns rely on the same core argument, that certain ideas are inherently dangerous to young people and must therefore be restricted. But that framing misrepresents an important reality: if lawmakers genuinely want to address harms that young people experience online, they should start by listening to young people themselves. When EFF spoke directly with young people about their online experiences, they overwhelmingly rejected restrictions on their access to the internet and came back with nuanced and diverse perspectives. Once that principle—that certain ideas are inherently dangerous—is accepted, the internet, once a symbol of free expression, connection, creativity, and innovation, becomes the next logical target. 

This also wouldn’t be the first time a vulnerable group is used as a prop to advance internet censorship laws. We’ve seen this playbook during the debate over FOSTA/SESTA, where many of the same advocates claimed to speak for trafficking victims/survivors and sex workers, while pushing legislation that ultimately censored online speech and harmed the very communities it invoked. It’s a familiar pattern: you invoke a vulnerable group, frame certain speech as a threat, and use that as a way to expand government control over the flow of information. And as we said in the fight against FOSTA: if lawmakers are serious about addressing harms to particular communities, they should start by talking to those communities. This means that lawmakers seeking to address online harms to young people should be talking to young people, not groups who claim their interests. 

Rep. Finke Was Not Radical. She Was Right.

The Paxton case, and the coalition backing age verification laws in the U.S., shows us exactly why the messaging around these laws draws superficial support from parents and lawmakers. But we’ve heard the quiet part said out loud before. Marsha Blackburn, a sponsor of the federal Kids Online Safety Act, has said that her goal with the legislation was to address what she called “the transgender” in society. When lawmakers and advocacy groups frame queer existence itself as a threat to young people, age-verification laws become ideological enforcement instead of regulatory policy.

In defending free speech, privacy, and the right of young people to access truthful information about themselves, Rep. Leigh Finke was not radical—she was right. She was warning that broad, ideologically driven laws will be used to erase, silence, and isolate young people under the banner of child protection. 

What’s at stake in the fight against age verification is not just a single bill in a single state, or even multiple states, for that matter. It’s about whether “protecting children” becomes a legal pretext for embedding government control over the internet to enforce specific moral and religious judgments—judgments that deny marginalized people access to speech, community, history, and truth—into law. 

And more people in public office need the courage of Rep. Finke to call this out.

Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

404 Media has a story about Proton Mail giving subscriber data to the Swiss government, who passed the information to the FBI.

It’s metadata—payment information related to a particular account—but still important knowledge. This sort of thing happens, even to privacy-centric companies like Proton Mail.

In late 2024, the federal government’s cybersecurity evaluators rendered a troubling verdict on one of Microsoft’s biggest cloud computing offerings.

The tech giant’s “lack of proper detailed security documentation” left reviewers with a “lack of confidence in assessing the system’s overall security posture,” according to an internal government report reviewed by ProPublica.

Or, as one member of the team put it: “The package is a pile of shit.”

Read full article

Comments

In the race to build the most capable LLM models, several tech companies sourced copyrighted content for use as training data, without obtaining permission from content owners.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, was one of the companies to get sued. In 2023, well-known book authors, including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden, filed a class-action lawsuit against the company.

Meta’s Bittersweet Victory

Last summer, Meta scored a key victory in this case, as the court concluded that using pirated books to train its Llama LLM qualified as fair use, based on the arguments presented in this case. This was a bittersweet victory, however, as Meta remained on the hook for downloading and sharing the books via BitTorrent.

By downloading books from shadow libraries such as Anna’s Archive, Meta relied on BitTorrent transfers. In addition to downloading content, these typically upload data to others as well. According to the authors, this means that Meta was engaged in widespread and direct copyright infringement.

In recent months, the lawsuit continued based on this remaining direct copyright infringement claim. While both parties collected additional evidence through the discovery process, it remained unclear what defense Meta would use. Until now.

Seeding Pirated Books is Fair Use

Last week, Meta served a supplemental interrogatory response at the California federal court, which marks a new direction in its defense. For the first time, the company argued that uploading pirated books to other BitTorrent users during the torrent download process also qualifies as fair use.

Meta’s reasoning is straightforward. Anyone who uses BitTorrent to transfer files automatically uploads content to other people, as it is inherent to the protocol. In other words, the uploading wasn’t a choice, it was simply how the technology works.

Meta also argued that the BitTorrent sharing was a necessity to get the valuable (but pirated) data. In the case of Anna’s Archive, Meta said, the datasets were only available in bulk through torrent downloads, making BitTorrent the only practical option.

“Meta used BitTorrent because it was a more efficient and reliable means of obtaining the datasets, and in the case of Anna’s Archive, those datasets were only available in bulk through torrent downloads,” Meta’s attorney wrote.

“Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiffs can come forth with evidence that their works or portions thereof were theoretically ‘made available’ to others on the BitTorrent network during the torrent download process, this was part-and-parcel of the download of Plaintiffs’ works in furtherance of Meta’s transformative fair use purpose.”

In other words, obtaining the millions of books that were needed to engage in the fair use training of its LLM, required the BitTorrent up- and downloading, which ultimately serves the same fair use purpose.

Authors and Meta Disagree over Fair Use Timing

The authors were not happy with last week’s late Friday submission and the new defense. On Monday morning, their lawyers filed a letter with Judge Vince Chhabria flagging the late-night filing as an improper end-run around the discovery deadline.

They point out that Meta had been aware of the uploading claims since November 2024, but that it never brought up this fair use defense in the past, not even when the court asked about it.

The letter specifically mentions that while Meta has a “continuing duty” to supplement discovery under Rule 26(e), this rule does not create a “loophole” allowing a party to add new defenses to its advantage after a court deadline has passed.

“Meta (for understandable reasons) never once suggested it would assert a fair use defense to the uploading-based claims, including after this Court raised the issue with Meta last November,” the lawyers write.

Meta’s legal team fired back the following day, filing their own letter with Judge Chhabria. This letter explains that the fair use argument for the direct copyright infringement claim is not new at all.

Meta pointed to the parties’ joint December 2025 case management statement, in which it had explicitly flagged the defense, and noted that the author’s own attorney had addressed it at a court hearing days later.

“In short, Plaintiffs’ assertion that Meta ‘never once suggested it would assert a fair use defense to the uploading-based claims, including after’ the November 2025 hearing, is false” Meta’s attorney writes in the letter.

Authors Admit No Harm, No Infringing Output

Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that Meta’s interrogatory response also cites deposition testimony from the authors themselves, using their own words to bolster its fair use defense.

The company notes that every named author has admitted they are unaware of any Meta model output that replicates content from their books. Sarah Silverman, when asked whether it mattered if Meta’s models never output language from her book, testified that “It doesn’t matter at all.”

Meta argues these admissions undercut any theory of market harm. If the authors themselves cannot point to infringing output or lost sales, the lawsuit is less about protecting their books and more about challenging the training process itself, which the court already ruled was fair use.

These admissions were central to Meta’s fair use defense on the training claims, which Meta won last summer. Whether they carry the same weight in the remaining BitTorrent distribution dispute has yet to be seen.

‘U.S. AI Leadership at Stake’

In its interrogatory response, Meta added further weight by stressing that its investment in AI has helped the U.S. to establish U.S. global leadership, putting the country ahead of geopolitical competitors. That’s a valuable asset worth treasuring, it indirectly suggested.

As the case moves forward, Judge Chhabria will have to decide whether to allow this “fair use by technical necessity” defense. Needless to say, this will be of vital importance to this and many other AI lawsuits, where the use of shadow libraries is at stake.

For now, the BitTorrent distribution claims remain the last live piece of a lawsuit filed in 2023. Whether Judge Chhabria will allow Meta’s new defense to proceed has yet to be seen.

—

A copy of Meta’s supplemental interrogatory response is available here (pdf). The authors’ letter to Judge Chhabria can be found here (pdf). Meta’s response to that letter is available here (pdf).

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

ICE has been telling itself all it needs to do is write its own paperwork and it can do whatever it wants. Memos — passed around secretively and publicly acknowledged by no one but whistleblowers — told ICE agents they don’t need judicial warrants to arrest people or enter people’s homes.

All they need — according to acting director Todd Lyons, who issued the memos — is paperwork they could create and authorize without any need to seek the approval of anyone else. ICE calls them warrants but they’re just self-issued paperwork in which the officer says a person needs to be arrested and then signs it. That’s it. The review process begins and ends at the same desk. If the agent swears it to be true, he’s only swearing it to himself, which means every finger can be crossed and every “fact” can be fiction.

Courts aren’t having it. ICE’s internal memos may claim there’s no need for the Constitution to come between them and their mass deportation efforts, but that doesn’t mean the Constitution agrees to be sidelined. The courts are stepping in with increasing frequency to protect constitutional rights. A lot of activity in recent months has focused on the due process rights being denied to detainees.

More recent activity is focusing on the Fourth Amendment which, if violated, naturally lends itself to other rights violations. Via Kyle Cheney of Politico (who has been tracking these cases since Trump’s most recent election) comes another case where a federal judge refuses to play along with ICE’s unconstitutional game of charades.

The opening paragraph of this opinion [PDF] lays out the facts. And they are ugly.

ICE officers are casting dragnets over Oregon towns they believe to be home to agricultural workers, calling them “target rich.” Landing in those communities, officers surveil apartment complexes in the early morning hours, scan license plates for details about the vehicles’ owners, and wait for them to get into their vehicles. Officers then stop, arrest, detain and transport people out of the District of Oregon to the Northwest ICE Processing Center (“NWIPC”), 144 miles away in Tacoma, Washington, before ultimately deporting them. Sworn testimony and substantial evidence before this Court show that ICE officers ask few questions and allow little time before shattering windows, handcuffing people, and detaining them at an ICE facility in another state.

There’s no “worst of the worst” going on here. These are the actions of masked opportunists who know the only way to make the boss happy is to value quantity over quality. Untargeted dragnets cannot possibly rely on probable cause, even considering Justice Kavanaugh’s blessing of racial profiling. Given this — and the administration’s desire to see 3,000 arrests per day — immigration officers can’t even be bothered to issue administrative warrants, much less secure judicial warrants, before performing arrests.

The Oregon courts drives home the point in the next paragraph (emphasis in the original):

The law on this issue is clear and undisputed. An ICE officer may arrest someone if the officer obtains in advance a warrant for their arrest. If the officer does not have a warrant, they cannot arrest someone unless they have probable cause to believe that both (1) the individual is in the United States unlawfully and (2) they are “likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.”

The government’s response to this could be generously called “implausible.” It’s more accurately “risible” and backed by absolutely nothing that can’t be immediately contradicted by literally everything everywhere, as the court points out.

Plaintiffs challenge ICE’s practice of abusing its arrest power by failing to meet those
criteria before arresting, detaining, and deporting people. Defendants do not—and could not— argue that this practice is lawful. Rather, they argue that there is no such practice, and that the
myriad cases presented to this Court are mere coincidence.

But there is “such practice.” It’s impossible to deny it, even though the government tried to. The court isn’t interested in the government’s deflections and straight-up lies. It’s here to compare the facts to the law. Here are the facts:

[T]he overwhelming evidence in this record confirms that ICE officers targeted Woodburn and other cities in Oregon because of the large number of agricultural workers living in those areas. Officer testimony regarding human smuggling serves only as an inappropriate pretextual reason for developing reasonable suspicion for a stop. That officer also testified that he believed the van was suspicious because it had tinted windows and did not have any commercial markings.

When asked what gave the officers “reasonable suspicion that there may have been a crime afoot or that the folks in the van may not have had legal status,” the officer noted that the registered owner of the van had an immigration history, and that “[p]eople are being — going into a van early in the morning.” The officers did not have the identities of anyone in the van and they were not pursuing any known targets.The officers did not have a warrant for M-J-M-A-’s arrest.

Here’s more:

The evidence also demonstrates ICE’s practice of fabricating warrants after arrests were made. Tr. 306 (if an officer “encountered a file that did not have a warrant for arrest, an I-200,” he would create one); Tr. 356 (officer affirming that “for any case” involving a warrantless arrest, he would “create a warrant for the arrest after” individuals were detained at ICE field offices). This practice of creating warrants after the fact is highly probative of ICE’s failure to make individualized determinations of one’s escape risk prior to arresting them. That is especially true where, as in M-J-M-A-’s case, the encounter narratives for arrestees were exactly “the same.” Tr. 401.

Heading towards the granting of requested restraining order, the court makes it explicitly clear that federal immigration officers are routinely violating constitutional rights:

The Court finds that ample evidence in this case demonstrates a high likelihood—if not a certainty—that Defendants are engaging in a pattern and practice of unlawful conduct in Oregon…

And if it’s unlawful in Oregon, it’s illegal everywhere in the United States. Nothing in this order relies on Oregon’s state Constitution. Everything here falls under the minimum standard set by the US Constitution and its amendments.

The order ends with a stark warning — one that makes it clear what’s happening now is not only extremely abnormal, but a threat to the Republic itself.

It is clear that there are countless more people who have been rounded up, and who either remain in detention or have “voluntarily” deported than those, like M-J-M-A-, who were fortunate enough to find counsel at the eleventh hour. Defendants benefit from this blitz approach to immigration enforcement that takes advantage of navigating outside of the boundaries of conducting lawful arrests. For the one detainee who has the audacity to challenge the legality of her detention and gains release, several more remain detained or succumb to the threat of lengthy detention, and then instead “voluntarily” deport. Defendants win the numbers game at the cost of debasing the rule of law.

Finally, this Court has previously described ICE officers’ field enforcement conduct as brutal and violent. The practices are intended to strike fear across large numbers of people throughout Oregon. The persistent intensity of regular ICE immigration enforcement operations may very well have the intended effect of normalizing this level of violence. If this normalization continues, then even greater harm will be inflicted.

This is all much larger than the individuals who have somehow managed to challenge this administration’s deportation activities. This is only where it begins. If the courts can’t get this shut down, this rot will be deliberately spread to cover anyone who isn’t sufficiently deferential to the authoritarians ensconced in the GOP.

Anna’s Archive has faced a barrage of domain takedowns in recent weeks, after Spotify and several major record labels filed a high-profile lawsuit.

The lawsuit was a direct response to Anna’s Archive’s announcement that it had backed up Spotify, with plans to gradually release the data, including the music files.

Spotify and the labels aimed to stop this. They obtained a preliminary injunction targeting domain registrars and registries, which resulted in the suspension of the .org domain as well as several other domains. However, since not all domain registries and registrars comply with U.S. court orders, the .li domain name survived. Until now.

Annas-Archive.li Deleted

A few hours ago, Annas-archive.li became unreachable. The domain wasn’t simply suspended through a clientHold or serverHold ICANN code. Instead, the entire domain name entry was deleted from the record.

As a result of the domain deletion, Anna’s Archive is down to a single domain name, the Greenland-based annas-archive.gl, which was just added last month after it lost the .pm domain. If that pattern repeats itself, the site will likely add another backup domain name soon.

Update: shortly after publication, the Anna’s Archive website lists .vg,.pk, and .gd as new alternative domains.

Given the continued pressure from the music industry through its U.S. lawsuit, as well as a separate injunction from OCLC in another lawsuit, legal pressure on the site has been relentless this year.

The Swiss Connection

At the time of writing, it is not clear who deleted the domain. Technically, domain registrars and registries both have the authority to take this action. However, neither acted when the injunction was first issued, so something must have changed.

The .li domain name was registered through Immaterialism Limited, which is connected to the domain privacy service Njalla. The same company also registered Anna’s Archive’s .gl domain, which remains online. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the registrar took action here.

That leaves the registry, the Switzerland-based Switch Foundation, as a likely candidate. However, Switch told us in January that foreign court orders don’t generally apply to its foundation.

“As a general matter, foreign court orders do not automatically have legal effect on Switch. Switch evaluates such matters solely in accordance with applicable local laws,” a Switch spokesperson said at the time.

It is possible, however, that the music industry’s global trade group, IFPI, has since gotten involved as well. The prominent music group is known for its anti-piracy work and happens to have its legal headquarters in Switzerland.

TorrentFreak reached out to both the Switch Foundation and registrar Immaterialism Limited, hoping to clarify the situation. As of publication, neither has replied to our requests for comment.

For now, the shadow library is down to a single working domain, and the pressure shows no sign of letting up.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.