net.wars

Whooped

In 2022, we noted a discussion by Julia Powles and Toby Walsh, summarized here, that warned about the increasing collection of data about elite athletes. The data, they said, does not flow to the sports scientists who really can help athletes perform better and minimize their risk of injury, but to data scientists and data crunchers. The money could be better spent on healthier environments and financial support. Powles, with Jacqueline Alderson, followed up in 2023 with best practice principles.

Cue tennis. At this year’s Australian Open, which concluded on February 1, eventual men’s singles champion Carlos Alcaraz, women’s singles finalist Aryna Sabalenka, and men’s singles semifinalist Jannik Sinner were all told to remove their Whoop tracker devices before playing early-round matches.

An important part of this story is the ridiculously convoluted nature of tennis politics. The International Tennis Federation runs lower-level tournaments and junior events; the Grand Slams are laws unto themselves; the men’s and women’s pro tours are run by the ATP and WTA respectively. That’s seven powers – without the national tennis federations or the national and international anti-doping edifice.

The players were caught between conflicting decisions. In mid-December, the ITF approved Whoop devices in competition as long as haptic feedback is disabled, adding it to its list of permitted “Player Analysis Technology” devices. On a Whoop, “haptic feedback” means the device vibrates to alert you to…something.

The ITF published its detailed examination (see also a wearer’s review by Emilie Lavinia at The Independent). Whoop’s array of sensors can capture: heart rate, heart rate variability, sleep stages and performance, recovery, activity strain metrics, blood oxygenation (SpO2), skin temperature, respiratory rate, and blood pressure (only some models), and perform on-demand ECG and irregular heart rhythm notification (only some regions, where it’s approved). As the ITF notes, data capture takes place automatically whenever the athlete is wearing the device. Players are allowed to charge the device on-court using its battery pack.

So far, so good. Turning off haptic feedback requires the player to disable alarms, turn off the “Strength Trainer” screens; and turn off “Strain Target” if they want to use “Live Activity” mode. The player has to show tournament officials on request that their settings are compliant (or that they’re using the Whoop 3.0, which has no haptic feedback).

The device has no screen; viewing the data requires an Android or iOS device, the app, paired via Bluetooth, and a subscription. This is the Gillette razor, or “free puppy” business model: the device is free, you pay for ongoing access to your own data.

So basically, the ITF is allowing players to collect data using the Whoop device for future inspection and discussion with their teams, as long as it doesn’t vibrate on their wrist. The key here is the potential for the device to be a conduit for an automated form of in-match coaching; the definition of PAT devices given in Appendix III of the ITF’s Rules of Tennis (PDF) specifically directs readers to Rule 30, which covers coaching.

For most of tennis’s Open Era – basically since 1968, when the sport went professional – coaching from the stands was banned. The original argument in favor of the ban was that tennis was and is a highly unequal sport. Top players can afford any assistance they want. The lowest-ranked players scrounge, as Irish player Conor Niland, who topped out at 129 in the world, recounts in a Guardian interview and in his excellent 2024 book, The Racket. Until the 1990s, even mid-range players often toured alone. Therefore, allowing coaching from the stands during matches threatened to make the playing field even more unequal.

As money flowed into tennis, the numbers who could afford traveling coaches rose and the no-coaching rule was increasingly flouted. Following a series of trials, the WTA began allowing coaching in 2022. The ATP, the ITF, and the Grand Slams finally began allowing it in 2025. Rule 30 leaves it open for events’ governing bodies to prohibit it.

The Whoop controversy digitizes all this baggage. Rule 30 differentiates between off-court coaching (coaching from the stands), which is permitted, and on-court coaching, which is only permitted during specific team events. Ordinary watches are allowed, but smart watches and mobile phones are banned because they are capable of communications, Teresa Merklin explains at Fiend at Court.

“We have coaching. why can’t you have your own data?” former champion Todd Woodbridge asked on TV.

We are still at the beginning of these technologies and their controversies. Merklin digs up a forgotten incident: in 2013, Wimbledon shot down Bethanie Mattek-Sands’ query about wearing Google Glass. Devices will keep shrinking and becoming harder to spot.

Unlike in the past, however, PATs are cheap compared to hiring traveling personnel. While Powles and Walsh were undoubtedly right that data analysis is no substitute for physiologists’ and sports scientists’ expertise, PATs might give lower-ranked players previously unaffordable insight. Given the increasing heat stress at many tournaments, feedback that warns when your body is overstressed seems like a good idea. On the other hand, can you imagine how much bettors would love to have access to this kind of data in real time?

Wendy M. Grossman is an award-winning journalist. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.

The panopticon in your home

In a series of stories, Lisa O’Carroll at the Guardian finds that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has had its hand in the cookie jar of airline passenger records. In hot pursuit of its goal of finding £350 million in benefit fraud, it’s been scouring these records to find people who have left the country for more than a month and not returned, so are no longer eligible.

In one case, a family was turned away at the gate when one of the children had an epileptic seizure; their child benefit was stopped because they had “emigrated” though they’d never left. A similar accusation was leveled at a women who booked a flight to Oslo even though she never checked in or flew.

These families can provide documentation proving they remained in the UK, but as one points out, the onus is on them to clean up an error they didn’t make. There are many others. Many simply traveled and returned by different routes. As of November 1, HMRC had reinstated 1,979 of the families affected but sticks to its belief that the rest have been correctly identified. HMRC also says it will check its PAYE records first for evidence someone is still here and working. This would help, but it’s not the only issue.

It’s unclear whether HMRC has the right to use this data in this way. The Guardian reports that the Information Commissioner’s Office, the data protection authority, has contacted HMRC to ask questions.

For privacy advocates, the case is disturbing. It is a clear example of the way data can mislead when it’s moved to a new context. For the people involved, it’s a hostage situation: there is no choice about providing the data siphoned from airlines to Home Office nor the financial information held by HMRC and no control over what happens next.

The essayist and former software engineer Ellen Ullman warned 20 years ago that she had never seen an owner of multiple databases who didn’t want to link them together. So this sort of “sharing” is happening all over the place.

In the US, Pro Publica reported this week that individual states have begun using a system provided by the Department of Homeland Security to check their voter rolls for non-citizens that has incorporated information from the Social Security Administration. Here again, data collected by one agency for one purpose is being shared with another for an entirely different one.

In both cases, data is being used for a purpose that wasn’t envisioned when it was collected. An airline collecting booking data isn’t checking it for errors or omissions that might cost a passenger their benefits. Similarly, the Social Security Administration isn’t normally concerned with whether you’re a citizen for voting purposes, just whether you qualify for one or another program – as it should be. Both changes of use fail to recognize the change in the impact of errors that goes along with them, especially at national scale.

I assume that in this age of AI-for-government-efficiency the goal for the future is to automate these systems even further while pulling in more sources of data.

Privacy advocates are used to encountering pushback that takes this form: “They know everything about me anyway.” I would dispute that. “They” certainly *can* collect a lot of uncorrelated data points about you if “they” aggregate the many available sources of data. But until recently, doing that was effortful enough that it didn’t happen unless you were suspected of something. Now, we’re talking sharing data and mining at scale as a matter of routine.

***

One of the most important lessons learned from 14 years of We, Robot conferences is that when someone shows a video clip of a robot doing something one should always ask how much it’s been speeded up.

This probably matters less in a home robot doing chores, as long as you don’t have to supervise. Leave a robot to fold laundry, and it can’t possibly matter if it takes all night.

From reports by Erik Kain at Forbes and Nilesh Christopher at the LA Times, it appears that 1X’s new Neo robot is indeed slow, even in its promotional video clips. The company says it has layers of security to prevent it from turning “murderous”, which seems an absurd bit of customer reassurance. However, 1X also calls it “lightweight”. The Neo is five foot six and weighs 66 pounds (30 kilos), which seems quite enough to hurt someone if it falls on them, even with padding. Granting the contributory design issues, Lime bikes weigh 50 pounds and break people’s legs. 1X’s website shows the Neo hugged by an avuncular taller man; imagine it instead with a five-foot 90-year-old woman.

Can we ask about hacking risks? And what happens if, like so many others, 1X shuts it down?

More incredibly, in buying one you must agree to allow a remote human operatorto drive the robot, along the way peering into your home. This is close to the original design of the panopticon, which chilled because those under surveillance never know whether they are being watched or not.

And it can be yours for the low, low price of $20,000 or $500 a month.

Illustrations: Jeremy Bentham’s original drawing of his design for the panopticon (via Wikimedia).

Also this week:
The Plutopia podcast interviews Sophie Nightingale on her research into deepfakes and the future of disinformation.
TechGrumps 3.33 podcast, The Final Step is Removing the Consumer, discusses AI web brorwsers, the Amazon outage, Python Foundation and DEI.

The absurdity card

Fifteen years ago, a new incoming government swept away a policy its immediate predecessors had been pushing since shortly after the 2001 9/11 attacks: identity cards. That incoming government was led by David Cameron’s conservatives, in tandem with Nick Clegg’s liberal democrats. The outgoing government was Tony Blair’s. When Keir Starmer’s reinvented Labour party swept the 2024 polls, probably few of us expected he would adopt Blair’s old policies so soon.

But here we are: today’s papers announce Starmer’s plan for mandatory “digital ID”.

Fifteen years is an unusually long time between ID card proposals in Britain. Since they were scrapped at the end of World War II, there has usually been a new proposal about every five years. In 2002, at a Scrambling for Safety event held by the Foundation for Information Policy Research and Privacy International, former minister Peter Lilley observed that during his time in Margaret Thatcher’s government ID card proposals were brought to cabinet every time there was a new minister for IT. Such proposals were always accompanied with a request for suggestions how it could be used. A solution looking for a problem.

In a 2005 paper I wrote for the University of Edinburgh’s SCRIPT-ED journal, I found evidence to support that view: ID card proposals are always framed around current obsessions. In 1993, it was going to combat fraud, illegal immigration, and terrorism. In 1995 it was supposed to cut crime (at that time, Blair argued expanding policing would be a better investment). In 1989, it was ensuring safety at football grounds following the Hillsborough disaster. The 2001-2010 cycle began with combating terrorism, benefit fraud, and convenience. Today, it’s illegal immigration and illegal working.

A report produced by the LSE in 2005 laid out the concerns. It has dated little, despite preceding smartphones, apps, covid passes, and live facial recognition. Although the cost of data storage has continued to plummet, it’s also worth paying attention to the chapter on costs, which the report estimated at roughly £11 billion.

As I said at the time, the “ID card”, along with the 51 pieces of personal information it was intended to store, was a decoy. The real goal was the databases. It was obvious even then that soon real time online biometric checking would be a reality. Why bother making a card mandatory when police could simply demand and match a biometric?

We’re going to hear a lot of “Well, it works in Estonia”. *A* digital ID works in Estonia – for a population of 1.3 million who regained independence in 1991. Britain has a population of 68.3 million, a complex, interdependent mass of legacy systems, and a terrible record of failed IT projects.

We’re also going to hear a lot of “people have moved on from the debates of the past”, code for “people like ID cards now” – see for example former Conservative leader William Hague. Governments have always claimed that ID cards poll well but always come up against the fact that people support the *goals*, but never like the thing when they see the detail. So it will probably prove now. Twelve years ago, I think they might have gotten away with that claim – smartphones had exploded, social media was at its height, and younger people thought everything should be digital (including voting). But the last dozen years began with Snowden‘s revelations, and continued with the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, ransomware, expanding acres of data breaches, policing scandals, the Horizon / Post Office disaster, and wider understanding of accelerating passive surveillance by both governments and massive companies. I don’t think acceptance of digital ID is a slam-dunk. I think the people who have failed to move on are the people who were promoting ID cards in 2002, when they had cross-party support, and are doing it again now.

So, to this new-old proposal. According to The Times, there will be a central database of everyone who has the right to work. Workers must show their digital ID when they start a new job to prove their employment is legal. They already have to show one of a variety of physical ID documents, but “there are concerns some of these can be faked”. I can think of a lot cheaper and less invasive solution for that. The BBC last night said checks for the right to live here would also be applied to anyone renting a home. In the Guardian, Starmer is quoted calling the card “an enormous opportunity” and saying the card will offer citizens “countless benefits” in streamlining access to key services, echoes of 2002’s “entitlement card”. I think it was on the BBC’s Newsnight that I heard someone note the absurdity of making it easier to prove your entitlement to services that no longer exist because of cuts.

So keep your eye on the database. Keep your eye on which department leads. Immigration suggests the Home Office, whose desires have little in common with the need of ordinary citizens’ daily lives. Beware knock-on effects. Think “poll tax”. And persistently ask: what problem do we have for which a digital ID is the right, the proportionate, the *necessary* solution?

There will be detailed proposals, consultations, and draft legislation, so more to come. As an activist friend says, “Nothing ever stays won.”

Illustrations: British National Identity document circa 1949 (via Wikimedia.)

Drought conditions

At 404 Media, Matthew Gault was first to spot a press release from the UK’s National Drought Group offering a list of things we can do to save water. The meeting makes sense: people think of the UK as a rainy country, but an increasing number of parts of the UK are experiencing extraordinarily dry weather. This “green and pleasant England” is brown.

Last on the Group’s list of things we can do to save water at home: “Delete old emails and pictures as data centres require vast amounts of water to cool their systems.”

I had to look up the National Drought Group. Says Water Magazine: “The National Drought Group includes the Met[eorology] Office, government, regulators, water companies, farmers, the [Canal and River Trust], angling groups and conservation experts. With further warm, dry weather expected, the NDG will continue to meet regularly to coordinate the national response and safeguard water supplies for people, agriculture, and the environment.”

For those outside the UK: its ten water companies are particular unpopular just now. Created by privatization during Margaret Thatcher’s decade as prime minister, six are being sued for £500 million for “underreporting sewage spills”. Others are being sued for overcharging 35 million household water customers. As just one example, Thames Water will raise prices by 35% over the next three years (on top of other recent rises), and expects customers to pay £7.5 billion for a new reservoir in Oxfordshire. It already has £17 billion in debt, and this week we learned environment secretary Steve Reed has made contingency plans in case the company goes bust. As George Monbiot writes at the Guardian, money that should have been invested in infrastructure went instead to shareholders. Climate change is a factor, sure, but so is poor water management.

All this being the case, the impact consumers can have by doing even the most effective things is dwarfed by the water companies’ failures. Deleting emails is not one of the most effective things.

At his The Weird Turn Pro Substack, Andy Masley provides some useful comparisons. Basic conclusion: you’d have to delete billions of emails to equal the savings of fixing your leaking toilet (if you have one). The whole thing reminds me of a while back when everyone was being told to save electricity by unplugging everything to extinguish all those standby lights. Last year, Which pointed out that the savings are really, really small.

The bizarre idea of deleting emails is coming, at least in part, from a government that is proposing a raft of technology-related legislation and wants, in the next five to ten years, to mastermind all sorts of IT projects, from making AI pervasive throughout government to bringing in a digital ID card. Are they thinking about the data centers they’ll need and the impact they’ll have on water management? Maybe instead tell people not to use generative AI or mine cryptocurrencies?

This much is true: data centers are a problem across the world because they require extreme amounts of water for cooling. In recent examples: at the New York Times, Eli Tan visits the US state of Georgia. At Rest of World, last year Ushar Daniele and Khadija Alam predicted upcoming water shortages in Malaysia, and Claudia Urquieta and Daniela Dib found protests in Chile, where 28 new data centers are planned.

Telling people to delete emails and pictures is just embarrassing – and sad, if people actually do it and sacrifice personal history they care about. As Masley writes, “Major governments should really know better than this.”

***

Two weeks ago we noted the arrival of age verification in the UK. Related, on May 8 the Wikimedia Foundation announced it had filed a legal challenge to the categorization provisions of the Online Safety Act (not the Act itself). The basic problem: there is little in the Act to distinguish between Wikipedia, a crowd-edited provider of highly curated information, and Facebook…or X.

The Foundation says nearly 260,000 volunteers worldwide in 300 languages contribute to Wikipedia. I do myself, but verified or not, I’m in no danger. Many are contributing factual information in countries where the facts offend an authoritarian government intent on shutting them up. The Foundation argues that 1) Wikipedia is “one of the world’s most trusted and widely used digital public goods; 2) it is at risk of being placed in the highest-risk category because of its size and interactive structure; 2) being so categorized would force it to verify the identity of contributors, placing many at risk; 4) could endanger the existence of tools the site uses to combat harmful content; 5) “criminal anonymous abuse”, which is what the Category 1 duty is supposed to help solve, isn’t a problem Wikipedia has. Instead, identifying volunteers is more likely to expose them to it.

So bad news: on August 11, the High Court of Justice dismissed the case.

The better news is that Justice Jeremy Johnson warned that if Ofcom does place Wikipedia in Category 1, it would have to be justifiable as proportionate. The judge also acknowledged the testimony of a user identified as “BLN”, who provided evidence of the extensive threats editors can face.

No one claims Wikipedia is perfect. But it remains an extraordinary collaborative achievement and a public good. It would be a horrifying consequence if legislation intended to protect children deprived them of it.

Illustrations: Kew Green, August 2025.

Conundrum

It took me six hours of listening to people with differing points of view discuss AI and copyright at a workshop, organized by the Sussex Centre for Law and Technology at the Sussex Humanities Lab (SHL), to come up with a question that seemed to me significant: what is all this talk about who “wins the AI race”? The US won the “space race” in 1969, and then for 50 years nothing happened.

Fretting about the “AI race”, an argument at least one participant used to oppose restrictions on using copyrighted data for training AI models, is buying into several ideas that are convenient for Big Tech.

One: there is a verifiable endpoint everyone’s trying to reach. That isn’t anything like today’s “AI”, which is a pile of math and statistics predicting the most likely answers to prompts. Instead, they mean artificial general intelligence, which would be as much like generative AI as I am like a mushroom.

Two: it’s a worthy goal. But is it? Why don’t we talk about the renewables race, the zero carbon race, or the sustainability race? All of those could be achievable. Why just this well-lobbied fantasy scenario?

Three: we should formulate public policy to eliminate “barriers” that might stop us from winning it. *This* is where we run up against copyright, a subject only a tiny minority used to care about, but that now affects everyone. And, accordingly, everyone has had time to formulate an opinion since the Internet first challenged the historical operation of intellectual property.

The law as it stands is clear: making a copy is the exclusive right of the rightsholder. This is the basis of AI-related lawsuits. For training data to escape that law, it would have to be granted an exemption: ruled fair use (as in the Anthropic and Meta cases), create an exception for temporary copies, or shoehorned into existing exceptions such as parody. Even then, copyright law is administered territorially, so the US may call it fair use but the rest of the world doesn’t have to agree. This is why the esteemed legal scholar Pamela Samuelson has said copyright law poses an existential threat to generative AI.

But, as one participant pointed out, although the entertainment industry dominates these discussions, there are many other sectors with different needs. Science, for example, both uses and studies AI, and is built on massive amounts of public funding. Surely that data should be free to access?

I wanted to be at this meeting because what should happen with AI, training data, and copyright is a conundrum. You do not have to work for a technology company to believe that there is value in allowing researchers both within and outwith companies to work on machine learning and build AI tools. When people balk at the impossible scale of securing permission from every copyright holder of every text, image, or sound, they have a point. The only organizations that could afford that are the companies we’re already mad at for being too big, rich, and powerful.

At the same time, why should we allow those big, rich, powerful companies to plunder our cultural domain without compensating anyone and extract even larger fortunes while doing it? To a published author who sees years of work reflected in a chatbot’s split-second answer to a prompt, it’s lost income and readers.

So for months, as Parliament has wrangled over the Data bill, the argument narrowed to copyright. Should there be an exception for data mining? Should technology companies have to get permission from creators and rights holders? Or should use of their work be automatically allowed, unless they opt out? All answers seem equally impossible. Technology companies would have to find every copyright holder of every datum to get permission. Licensing by the billion.

If creators must opt out, does that mean one piece at a time? How will they know when they need to opt out and who they have to notify? At the meeting, that was when someone said that the US and China won’t do this. Britain will fall behind internationally. Does that matter?

And yet, we all seemed to converge on this: copyright is the wrong tool. As one person said, technologies that threaten the entertainment industry always bring demands to tighten or expand copyright. See the last 35 years, in which Internet-fueled copying spawned the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the EU Copyright Directive, and copyright terms expanded from 28 years, renewable once, to author’s life plus 70.

No one could suggest what the right tool would be. But there are good questions. Such as: how do we grant access to information? With business models breaking, is copyright still the right way to compensate creators? One of us believed strongly in the capabilities of collection societies – but these tend to disproportionately benefit the most popular creators, who will survive anyway.

Another proposed the highly uncontroversial idea of taxing the companies. Or levies on devices such as smartphones. I am dubious on this one: we have been there before.

And again, who gets the money? Very successful artists like Paul McCartney, who has been vocal about this? Or do we have a broader conversation about how to enable people to be artists? (And then, inevitably, who gets to be called an artist.)

I did not find clarity in all this. How to resolve generative AI and copyright remains complex and confusing. But I feel better about not having an answer.

Illustrations: Drunk parrot in a Putney garden (by Simon Bisson; used by permission).

Wendy M. Grossman is the 2013 winner of the Enigma Award. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.

Negative externalities

A sheriff’s office in Texas searched a giant nationwide database of license plate numbers captured by automatic cameras to look for a woman they suspected of self-managing an abortion. As Rindala Alajazi writes at EFF, that’s 83,000 cameras in 6,809 networks belonging to Flock Safety, many of them in states where abortion is legal or protected as a fundamental right until viability.

We’ve known something like this was coming ever since 2022, when the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the power to regulate abortion to the individual US states. The resulting unevenness made it predictable that the strongest opponents to legal abortion would turn their attention to interstate travel.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been warning for some time about Flock’s database of camera-captured license plates. Recently, Jason Koebler reported at 404 Media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been using Flock’s database to find prospects for deportation. Since ICE does not itself have a contract with Flock, it’s been getting local law enforcement to perform search on its behalf. “Local” refers only to the law enforcement personnel; they have access to camera data that’s shared nationally.

The point is that once the data has been collected it’s very hard to stop mission creep. On its website, Flock says its technology is intended to “solve and eliminate crime” and “protect your community”. That might have worked when we all agreed what was a crime.

***

A new MCTD Cambridge report makes a similar point about menstrual data, when sold at scale. Now, I’m from the generation that managed fertility with a paper calendar, but time has moved on, and fertility tracking apps allow a lot more of the self-quantification that can be helpful in many situations. As Stephanie Felsberger writes in introducing the report, menstrual data is highly revealing of all sorts of sensitive information. Privacy International has studied period-tracking apps, and found that they’ve improved but still pose serious privacy risks.

On the other hand, I’m not so sure about the MCTD report’s third recommendation – that government build a public tracker app within the NHS. The UK doesn’t have anything like the kind of divisive rhetoric around abortion that the US does, but the fact remains that legal abortion is a 1967 carve-out from an 1861 law. In the UK, procuring an abortion is criminal *except* during the first 24 weeks, or if the mother’s life is in danger, or if the fetus has a serious abnormality. And even then, sign-off is required from two doctors.

Investigations and prosecutions of women under that 1861 law have been rising, as Shanti Das reported at the Guardian in January. Pressure in the other direction from US-based anti-choice groups such as the Alliance for Defending Freedom has also been rising. For years it’s seemed like this was a topic no one really wanted to reopen. Now, health care providers are calling for decriminalization, and, as Hannah Al-Oham reported this week, there are two such proposals currently in front of Parliament.

Also relevant: a month ago, Phoebe Davis reported at the Observer that in January the National Police Chiefs’ Council quietly issued guidance advising officers to search homes for drugs that can cause abortions in cases of stillbirths and to seize and examine devices to check Internet searches, messages, and health apps to “establish a woman’s knowledge and intention in relation to the pregnancy”. There was even advice on how to bypass the requirement for a court order to access women’s medical records.

In this context, it’s not clear to me that a publicly owned app is much safer or more private than a commercial one. What’s needed is open source code that can be thoroughly examined that keeps all data on the device itself, encrypted, in a segregated storage space over which the user has control. And even then…you know, paper had a lot of benefits.

***

This week the UK Parliament passed the Data (Use and Access) bill, which now just needs a royal signature to become law. At its site, the Open Rights Group summarizes the worst provisions, mostly a list of ways the bill weakens citizens’ rights over their data.

Brexit was sold to the public on the basis of taking back national sovereignty. But, as then-MEP Felix Reda said the morning after the vote, national sovereignty is a fantasy in a globalized world. Decisions about data privacy can’t be made imagining they are only about *us*.

As ORG notes, the bill has led European Digital Rights to write to the European Commission asking for a review of the UK’s adequacy status. This decision, granted in 2020, was due to expire in June 2025, but the Commission granted a six-month extension to allow the bill’s passage to complete. In 2019, when the UK was at peak Brexit chaos, it seemed possible that the Conservative then-government would allow the UK to leave the EU with no deal in place, net.wars noted the risk to data flows. The current Labour government, with its AI and tech policy ambitions, ought to be more aware of the catastrophe losing adequacy would present. And yet.

Illustrations: Map from the Center for Reproductive Rights showing the current state of abortion rights across the US.

Wendy M. Grossman is the 2013 winner of the Enigma Award. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast and a regular guest on the TechGrumps podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.