Both statements verified that the integration never launched and that no Ring customers’ videos were ever sent to Flock.

Ring did not credit users’ privacy concerns for its change of heart. Instead, they claimed that a joint decision was made “following a comprehensive review” where Ring “determined the planned Flock Safety integration would require significantly more time and resources than anticipated.”

Separately, Flock said that “we believe this decision allows both companies to best serve their respective customers and communities.”

The only hint that Ring gave users that their concerns had been heard came in the last line of its blog, which said, “We’ll continue to carefully evaluate future partnerships to ensure they align with our standards for customer trust, safety, and privacy.”

Sharing his views on X and Bluesky, John Scott-Railton, a senior cybersecurity researcher at the Citizen Lab, joined critics calling Ring’s statement insufficient. He posted an image of the ad frame that Markey found creepy next to a statement from Ring, writing, “On the left? A picture of mass surveillance from #Ring’s ad. On the right? A ring [spokesperson] saying that they are not doing mass surveillance. The company cannot have it both ways.”

Ring’s statements so far do not “acknowledge the real issue,” Scott-Railton said, which is privacy risks. For Ring, it seemed like a missed opportunity to discuss or introduce privacy features to reassure concerned users, he suggested, noting the backlash showed “Americans want more control of their privacy right now” and “are savvy enough to see through sappy dog pics.”

“Stop trying to build a surveillance dystopia consumers didn’t ask for” and “focus on shipping good, private products,” Scott-Railton said.

He also suggested that lawmakers should take note of the grassroots support that could possibly help pass laws to push back on mass surveillance. That could help block not just a potential future partnership with Flock, but possibly also stop Ring from becoming the next Flock.

“Ring communications not acknowledging the lesson they just got publicly taught is a bad sign that they hope this goes away,” Scott-Railton said.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/after-creepy-super-bowl-ad-sparks-outrage-ring-abandons-flock-deal/

“The nature and content of the Defendants’ communications with these technology companies” is “critical for determining whether they crossed the line from governmental cajoling to unconstitutional coercion,” EFF’s complaint said.

EFF Senior Staff Attorney Mario Trujillo told Ars that the EFF is confident it can win the fight to expose government demands, but like most FOIA lawsuits, the case is expected to move slowly. That’s unfortunate, he said, because ICE activity is escalating, and delays in addressing these concerns could irreparably harm speech at a pivotal moment.

Like users, platforms are seemingly victims, too, FIRE senior attorney Colin McDonnell told Ars.

They’ve been forced to override their own editorial judgment while navigating implicit threats from the government, he said.

“If Attorney General Bondi demands that they remove speech, the platform is going to feel like they have to comply; they don’t have a choice,” McDonnell said.

But platforms do have a choice and could be doing more to protect users, the EFF has said. Platforms could even serve as a first line of defense, requiring officials to get a court order before complying with any requests.

Platforms may now have good reason to push back against government requests—and to give users the tools to do the same. Trujillo noted that while courts have been slow to address the ICEBlock removal and FOIA lawsuits, the government has quickly withdrawn requests to unmask Facebook users soon after litigation began.

“That’s like an acknowledgement that the Trump administration, when actually challenged in court, wasn’t even willing to defend itself,” Trujillo said.

Platforms could view that as evidence that government pressure only works when platforms fail to put up a bare-minimum fight, Trujillo said.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/platforms-bend-over-backward-to-help-dhs-censor-ice-critics-advocates-say/

In a widely expected move, the Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it is revoking an analysis of greenhouse gases that laid the foundation for regulating their emissions by cars, power plants, and industrial sources. The analysis, called an endangerment finding, was initially ordered by the US Supreme Court in 2007 and completed during the Obama administration; it has, in theory, served as the basis of all government regulations of carbon dioxide emissions since.

In practice, lawsuits and policy changes between Democratic and Republican administrations have meant it has had little impact. In fact, the first Trump administration left the endangerment finding in place, deciding it was easier to respond to it with weak regulations than it was to challenge its scientific foundations, given the strength of the evidence for human-driven climate change.

Legal tactics

The second Trump administration, however, was prepared to tackle the science head-on, gathering a group of contrarians to write a report questioning that evidence. It did not go well, either scientifically or legally.

Today’s announcement ignores the scientific foundations of the endangerment finding and argues that it’s legally flawed. “The Trump EPA’s final rule dismantles the tactics and legal fictions used by the Obama and Biden Administrations to backdoor their ideological agendas on the American people,” the EPA claims. The claim is awkward, given that the “legal fictions” referenced include a Supreme Court decision ordering the EPA to conduct an endangerment analysis.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/as-expected-trumps-epa-guts-climate-endangerment-finding/

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson has accused Apple of violating US law by suppressing conservative-leaning news outlets on Apple News.

Ferguson pointed to research by a pro-Trump group that accused Apple News of suppressing articles by Fox News, the New York Post, Daily Mail, Breitbart, and The Gateway Pundit. The FTC chair claims that Apple News might be violating promises made to consumers in its terms of service, but his letter doesn’t cite any specific provisions from the Apple terms that might have been violated.

“Recently, there have been reports that Apple News has systematically promoted news articles from left-wing news outlets and suppressed news articles from more conservative publications,” Ferguson wrote in the letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook yesterday. He said the “reports raise serious questions about whether Apple News is acting in accordance with its terms of service and its representations to consumers, as well as the reasonable consumer expectations of the tens of millions of Americans who use Apple News.”

Craig Aaron, president and co-CEO of media advocacy group Free Press, told Ars that Ferguson’s “letter would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. This is what government censorship looks like. Ferguson’s claims of course aren’t based on any facts or evidence, just innuendo from discredited partisan operatives who think The Wall Street Journal is too woke. Just imagine if another administration had told Drudge or Fox News what stories they should feature on their apps or home pages.”

Ferguson told Cook, “As an American citizen, I abhor and condemn any attempt to censor content for ideological reasons. Such efforts, whether taken to appease overzealous activists, at the behest of foreign governments, or simply to advance the political views of Silicon Valley elites, stifle the free exchange of ideas, manipulate the public discourse, and are inconsistent with American values.”

We contacted Apple about Ferguson’s letter and will update this article if it provides a response. Aaron said that “Apple must respond and condemn this government intrusion. Capitulating to or appeasing government censors will never work. If these companies are as committed to free expression as they claim to be, it’s time to take a stand.”

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/trump-ftc-denies-being-speech-police-but-says-apple-news-is-too-liberal/

Today’s executive order takes a different route to propping up coal: artificially inflating demand. “The Secretary of War, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy,” the order reads, “shall seek to procure power from the United States coal generation fleet by approving long-term Power Purchase Agreements, or entering into any similar contractual agreements, with coal-fired energy production facilities to serve Department of War installations or other mission-critical facilities.”

The justification for this seems to come from an alternate reality with little relationship to the US grid. “It’s going to be less expensive and actually much more effective than what we have been using for many, many years,” Trump said at the event. “And again, with the environmental progress that’s been made on coal, it’s going to be just as clean.” None of that is true.

The executive order instead seeks to highlight coal’s supposed ability to produce a constant power output, touting the “proven reliability of our coal-fired generation fleet in providing continuous, on-demand baseload power.” This seemingly ignores Texas’ recent experience, in which coal plants contributed significantly to the collapse of the state grid, having gone offline for a wide range of reasons.

The Trump administration, however, has rarely let spurious justifications stand in the way of its preferred policy actions. The key action here is likely to be locking the military into long-term contracts that would persist beyond the end of Trump’s term in 2029.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/02/trumps-latest-plan-to-revive-coal-power-make-the-military-buy-it/

It’s possible the Wikimedia Foundation will act even if the volunteer editors decide to maintain the status quo. “We know that WMF intervention is a big deal, but we also have not ruled it out, given the seriousness of the security concern for people who click the links that appear across many wikis,” Mill wrote.

Blogger tried to uncover founder’s identity

The Wikipedia request for comments acknowledged that whether to blacklist would be a difficult decision. There are “significant concerns for readers’ safety, as well as the long-term stability and integrity of the service,” but “a significant amount of people also think that mass-removing links to Archive.today may harm verifiability, and that the service is harder to censor than certain other archiving sites,” it said.

An update to the request for comments yesterday indicated that the attack temporarily stopped, but the malicious code had been reactivated. “Please do not visit the archive without blocking network requests to gyrovague.com to avoid being part of the attack!” it said.

The code’s first public mention was apparently in a Hacker News thread on January 14, and Patokallio wrote about the DDoS in a February 1 blog post. “Every 300 milliseconds, as long as the CAPTCHA page is open, this makes a request to the search function of my blog using a random string, ensuring the response cannot be cached and thus consumes resources,” he wrote. The Javascript code in the Archive.today CAPTCHA page is as follows:

 setInterval(function() { fetch("https://gyrovague.com/?s=" + Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 3 + Math.random() * 8), { referrerPolicy: "no-referrer", mode: "no-cors" }); }, 300);

In August 2023, Patokallio wrote a post attempting to uncover the identity of Archive.today founder “Denis Petrov,” which seems to be an alias. Patokallio wasn’t able to figure out who the founder is but cobbled together various tidbits from Internet searches, including a Stack Exchange post that mentioned another potential alias, “Masha Rabinovich.”

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-might-blacklist-archive-today-after-site-maintainer-ddosed-a-blog/

In short, the state attorneys general object to the document treating facts as facts, as there have been lawsuits that contested them. “Among other things, the Manual states that human activities have ‘unequivocally warmed the climate,’ that it is ‘extremely likely’ human influence drives ocean warming, and that researchers are ‘virtually certain’ about ocean acidification,” their letter states, “treating contested litigation positions as settled fact.” In other words, they’re arguing that, if someone is ignorant enough to start a suit based on ignorance of well-established science, then the Federal Judicial Center should join them in their ignorance.

The attorneys general also complain that the report calls the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change an “authoritative science body,” citing a conservative Canadian public policy think tank that disagreed with that assessment.

These complaints were mixed in with some more potentially reasonable complaints about how the climate chapter gave specific suggestions on how to legally approach some issues and assigned significance to one or two recent studies that haven’t yet been validated by follow-on work. But the letter’s authors would not settle for revisions based on a few reasonable complaints; instead, they demand the entire chapter be removed because it accurately reflects the status of climate science.

Naturally, the Federal Judicial Center has agreed. We have confirmed that the current version of the document no longer includes a chapter on climate science, even though the foreword by Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan still mentions it. The full text of the now-deleted chapter has been posted by the RealClimate blog, though.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/02/us-court-agency-pulls-climate-change-from-science-advisory-document/

The FCC Media Bureau’s January 21 public notice to broadcast TV stations said that despite a 2006 decision in which the FCC exempted The Tonight Show with Jay Leno from the rule, current entertainment shows may not qualify for that exemption. “Importantly, the FCC has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bona fide news exemption,” the notice said.

The Media Bureau’s January 21 notice said the equal-time rule applies to broadcast TV stations because they “have been given access to a valuable public resource (namely, spectrum),” and that compliance with “these requirements is central to a broadcast licensee’s obligation to operate in the public interest.”

The FCC notice got this detail wrong, according to Harold Feld, a longtime telecom attorney who is senior VP of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. The equal-time rule actually applies to cable channels, too, he wrote in a January 29 blog post.

“Yes, contrary to what a number of people think, including, annoyingly, the Media Bureau which gets this wrong in its recent order, this is not a ‘public interest obligation’ for using spectrum,” Feld wrote. “It’s a conditional right of access (like leased access for cable) that members of Congress gave themselves (and other candidates) because they recognized the power of mass media to shape elections.” The US law applies both to broadcast stations using public spectrum and “community antenna television,” the old name for cable TV, Feld pointed out.

This doesn’t actually mean that people can file FCC complaints against the Fox News cable channel, though, Feld wrote. This is because the FCC “has consistently interpreted Section 315(c) since it was added as applying only to ‘local origination cablecasting,’ meaning locally originated programming and not the national cable channels that cable operators distribute as part of their bundle,” he wrote.

Leno ruling just one of many

In any case, Feld said the Media Bureau’s “guidance ignores all of the other precedent that creates settled law as to how the FCC evaluates eligibility for an exemption on which broadcast shows have relied.” While the FCC cited its Jay Leno decision, Feld said the Leno ruling was “merely one of a long line of FCC decisions expanding the definition of ‘news interview’ and ‘news show.’”

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/trump-fcc-investigates-the-view-reportedly-says-fake-news-will-be-punished/

Badalich confirmed that Discord is bracing for some users to leave Discord over the update but suggested that “we’ll find other ways to bring users back.”

On Reddit, Discord users complained that age verification is easy to bypass, forcing adults to share sensitive information without keeping kids away from harmful content. In Australia, where Discord’s policy first rolled out, some kids claimed that Discord never even tried to estimate their ages, while others found it easy to trick k-ID by using AI videos or altering their appearances to look older. A teen girl relied on fake eyelashes to do the trick, while one 13-year-old boy was estimated to be over 30 years old after scrunching his face to seem more wrinkled.

Badalich told The Verge that Discord doesn’t expect the tools to work perfectly but acts quickly to block workarounds, like teens using Death Stranding‘s photo mode to skirt age gates. However, questions remain about the accuracy of Discord’s age estimation model in assessing minors’ ages, in particular.

It may be noteworthy that Privately only claims that its technology is “proven to be accurate to within 1.3 years, for 18-20-year-old faces, regardless of a customer’s gender or ethnicity.” But experts told Ars last year that flawed age-verification technology still frequently struggles to distinguish minors from adults, especially when differentiating between a 17- and 18-year-old, for example.

Perhaps notably, Discord’s prior scandal occurred after hackers stole government IDs that users shared as part of the appeal process in order to fix an incorrect age estimation. Appeals could remain the most vulnerable part of this process, The Verge’s report indicated. Badalich confirmed that a third-party vendor would be reviewing appeals, with the only reassurance for users seemingly that IDs shared during appeals “are deleted quickly—in most cases, immediately after age confirmation.”

On Reddit, Discord fans awaiting big changes remain upset. A disgruntled Discord user suggested that “corporations like Facebook and Discord, will implement easily passable, cheapest possible, bare minimum under the law verification, to cover their ass from a lawsuit,” while forcing users to trust that their age-check data is secure.

Another user joked that she’d be more willing to trust that selfies never leave a user’s device if Discord were “willing to pay millions to every user” whose “scan does leave a device.”

This story was updated on February 9 to add comments from Discord and k-ID, and to clarify that government IDs are checked off-device.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/discord-faces-backlash-over-age-checks-after-data-breach-exposed-70000-ids/

Another signal of declining enforcement: Through September of last year, the EPA issued $41 million in penalties—$8 million less than the same period in the first year of the Biden administration, after adjusting for inflation. This suggests “the Trump Administration may be letting more polluters get by with a slap on the wrist when the Administration does take enforcement action,” the report reads.

Combined, the lack of lawsuits, penalties, and other enforcement actions for environmental violations could impact communities across the country, said Erika Kranz, a senior staff attorney in the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School, who was not involved in the report.

“We’ve been seeing the administration deregulate by repealing rules and extending compliance deadlines, and this decline in enforcement action seems like yet another mechanism that the administration is using to de-emphasize environmental and public health protections,” Kranz said. “It all appears to be connected, and if you’re a person in the US who is worried about your health and the health of your neighbors generally, this certainly could have effects.”

The report notes that many court cases last longer than a year, so it will take time to get a clearer sense of how environmental enforcement is changing under the Trump administration. However, the early data compiled by the Environmental Integrity Project and other nonprofits shows a clear and steep shift away from legal actions against polluters.

Historically, administrations have a “lot of leeway on making enforcement decisions,” Kranz said. But this stark of a drop could prompt lawsuits against the Trump administration, she added.

“Given these big changes and trends, you might see groups arguing that this is more than just an exercise of discretion or choosing priorities [and] this is more of an abdication of an agency’s core mission and its statutory duties,” Kranz said. “I think it’s going to be interesting to see if groups make those arguments, and if they do, how courts look at them.”

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/02/under-trump-epas-enforcement-of-environmental-laws-collapses-report-finds/