Recently, a California Superior Court jury found that Meta and YouTube harmed a user through some of the features they offered. And a New Mexico jury concluded that Meta deceived young users into thinking its platforms were safe from predation.
It’s clear that many people are frustrated by big tech companies and perhaps Meta in particular. We too have been highly critical of them and have pushed for years to end their harmful corporate surveillance. So it’s not surprising that a jury felt like Mark Zuckerberg and his company, along with YouTube, needed to be held accountable.
While it would be easy to claim that these cases set a legal precedent that should make social media companies fearful, that’s not exactly true. And that’s actually a good thing for the internet and its users.
These jury trials were just an early step in a long road through the court system. These cases will now go up on appeal, where the courts’ rulings about the First Amendment and immunity under Section 230 will likely get reconsidered.
As we have argued many times before, the First Amendment protects both user speech and the choices platforms make on how to deliver that speech (in the same way it protects newspapers’ right to curate their editorial pages as they see fit). Features on social media sites that are designed to connect users cannot be separated from the users’ speech, which is why courts have repeatedly held that these features are indeed protected.
So while it may be tempting to celebrate these juries’ decisions as a “win” against big tech, in fact the ramifications of lowering First Amendment and immunity standards on other speakers—ones that members of the public actually like, and do not want to punish—are bad. We can’t create less protective speech rules for Meta and Google alone just because we want them held accountable for something else.
As we have often said, much of the anger against these companies arises from people rightfully feeling that these companies harvest and exploit their data, and monetize their lives for crass economic reasons. We therefore continue to urge Congress to pass a comprehensive national privacy law with a private right of action to address these core concerns.
Copyright law is supposed to encourage creativity. Too often, it’s used to extract payouts from others.
Higbee & Associates, a law firm known for sending copyright demand letters to website owners, targeted May First Movement Technology, accusing it of infringing a photograph owned by Agence France-Presse (AFP). The claim was baseless. May First didn’t post the photo. It didn’t even own the website where the photo appeared.
May First is a nonprofit membership organization that provides web hosting and technical infrastructure to social justice groups around the world. The allegedly infringing image was posted years ago by one of May First’s members, a human rights group based in Mexico. When May First learned about the copyright complaint, it ensured that the group removed the image.
That should have been the end of it. Instead, the firm demanded payment.
So EFF stepped in as May First’s counsel and explained why AFP and Higbee had no valid claim. After receiving our response, Higbee backed down.
This outcome is a reminder that targets of copyright demands often have strong defenses—especially when someone else posted the material.
Hosting Content Isn’t the Same as Publishing It
Copyright law treats those who create or control content differently from those who simply provide the tools or infrastructure for others to communicate.
In this case, May First provided hosting services but didn’t post the photo. Courts have long recognized that service providers aren’t direct infringers when they merely store material at the direction of users. In those cases, service providers lack “volitional conduct”—the intentional act of copying or distributing the work.
Copyright law also recognizes that intermediaries can’t realistically police everything users upload. That’s why legal protections like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbors exist. Even outside those safe harbors, courts still shield service providers from liability when they promptly respond to notices.
May First did exactly what the law expects: it notified its member, and the image came down.
A Claim That Should Have Been Withdrawn Much Sooner
The troubling part of this story isn’t just that a demand was sent. It’s that Higbee and AFP continued to demand money and threaten litigation after May First explained that it was merely a hosting provider and had the image removed.
In other words, the claim was built on shaky legal ground from the start. Once May First explained its role, Higbee should have withdrawn its demand. Individuals and small nonprofits shouldn’t need lawyers just to stop aggressive copyright shakedowns.
Statutory Damages Fuel Copyright Abuse
This isn’t an isolated case—it’s a predictable result of copyright law’s statutory damages regime.
Statutory damages can reach $150,000 per work, regardless of actual harm. That enormous leverage incentivizes firms like Higbee to send mass demand letters seeking quick settlements. Even meritless claims can generate revenue when recipients are too afraid, confused, or resource-constrained to fight back.
This hits community organizations, independent publishers, and small service providers that don’t have in-house legal teams especially hard. Faced with the threat of ruinous statutory damages, many just pay what is demanded.
That’s not how copyright law should work.
Know Your Rights
If you receive a copyright demand based on material someone else posted, don’t assume you’re liable.
You may have defenses based on:
Your role as a hosting or service provider
Lack of volitional conduct
Prompt removal of the material after notice
The statute of limitations
The copyright owner’s failure to timely register the work
The absence of actual damages
Every situation is different, but the key point is this: a demand letter is not the same as a valid legal claim.
Standing Up to Copyright Trolls
May First stood its ground, and Higbee abandoned its demand after we explained the law.
But the bigger problem remains. Copyright’s statutory damages framework enables aggressive enforcement tactics that targets the wrong parties, and chills lawful online activity.
Until lawmakers fix these structural incentives, organizations and individuals will keep facing pressure to pay up—even when they’ve done nothing wrong.
If you get one of these demand letters, remember: you may have more rights than it suggests.
The Israeli Knesset passed a new law this week, championed by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, that mandates the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of murder—but not Israelis. The law is specifically crafted to discriminate along ethnic lines. On paper, it punishes “terrorists who have carried out murderous terror attacks,” but the wording is carefully chosen so that it only applies to crimes committed “with the aim of negating the existence of the State of Israel.” This means that Israelis who kill Palestinians, with the intent to promote or defend Israel, are excluded by definition. As the New York Times delicately puts it, the law “almost certainly cannot be applied to Jewish extremists convicted of similar crimes.”
Legislatorsacross the U.S. are proposinglaws to force “print blockers” on 3D printers sold in their states. This mandated censorware is doomed to fail for its intended purpose, but will still manage to hurt the professional and hobbyist communities relying on these tools.
Many states have already banned manufacturing firearms using computer controlled machine tools, which are called “Computer Numerical Control or CNC machines,” and 3D printers without a license. Recently proposed laws seek to impose technical limitations onto 3D printers (and in some cases, CNC machines) in the hope of enforcing this prohibition.
This is a terrible idea; these mandates will be onerous to implement and will lock printer users into vendor software, impose one-time and ongoing costs on both printer vendors and users, and lay the foundation for a 3D-print censorship platform to be used in other jurisdictions. We dive more into these issues in the first part of this series.
On a pragmatic level, however, these state mandates are just wishful thinking. Below, we dive into how 3D printing works, why these laws won’t deter the printing of firearms, and how regular lawful use will be caught in the proposed dragnet.
How 3D Printers Work
To understand the impact of this proposed legislation, we need to know a bit about how 3D printers work. The most common printers work similarly to a computer-controlled hot glue gun on a motion platform; they follow basic commands to maintain temperature, extrude (push) plastic through a nozzle, and move a platform. These motions together build up layers to make a final “print.” Modern 3D printers often offer more features like Wi-Fi connectivity or camera monitoring, but fundamentally they are very simple machines.
The basic instructions used by most 3D printers are called Geometric Code, or G-Code, which specify very basic motions such as “move from position A to position B while extruding plastic.” The list of commands that will eventually print up a part are transferred to the printer in a text file thousands-to-millions of lines long. The printer dutifully follows these instructions with no overall idea of what it is printing.
While it is possible to write G-Code by hand for either a CNC machine or a 3D printer, the vast majority is generated by computer aided manufacturing (CAM) software, often called a “slicer” in 3D printing since it divides a 3D model into many 2D slices then generates motion instructions.
This same general process applies to CNC machines which use G-Code instructions to guide a metal removal tool. CNC machines have been included in previous prohibitions on firearm manufacturing and file distribution and are also targeted in some of these bills.
There are other types of 3D printers such as those that print concrete, resin, metal, chocolate and other materials using slightly different methods. All of these would be subject to the proposed requirements regardless of how unlikely doing harm with a gun made out of chocolate would be.
Simple rectangular 3D model for test fit
Part of a 173490 line long G-Code file produced by slicer for simple rectangular model.
Part of a 173,490 line long G-Code file for a simple rectangular part.
How is Firearm Detection Supposed to Work?
Under these proposed laws, manufacturers of consumer 3D printers must ensure their printers only work with their software, and implement firearm detection algorithms on either the printer itself or in a slicer software. These algorithms must detect firearm files using a maintained database of existing models. Vendors of printers must then verify that printers are on the allow-list maintained by the state before they can offer them for sale.
Owners of printers will be guilty of a crime if they circumvent these intrusive scanning procedures or load alternative software, which they might do because their printer manufacturer ends support. Owners of existing noncompliant 3D printers in regulated states will be unable to resell their printers on the secondary market legally.
What Will Actually Happen?
While the proposed laws allow for scanning to happen on either the printer itself or in the slicer software, the reality is more complicated.
The computers inside many 3D printers have very limited computational and storage ability; it will be impossible for the printer’s computer to render the G-Code into a 3D model to compare with the database of prohibited files. Thus the only way to achieve this through the machine would be to upload all printer files to a cloud comparison tool, creating new delays, errors, and unacceptable invasions of privacy.
Many vendors will instead choose to permanently link their printers to a specific slicer that implements firearm detection. This requires cryptographic signing of G-Code to ensure only authorized prints are completed, and will lock 3D printer owners into the slicer chosen by their printer vendor.
Regardless of the specifics of their implementation, these algorithms will interfere with 3D printers’ ability to print other parts without actually stopping manufacture of guns. It takes very little skill for a user to make slight design tweaks to either a model or G-Code to evade detection. One can also design incomplete or heavily adorned models which can be made functional with some post-print alterations. While this would be pioneered by skilled users—like the ones who designed today’s 3D printed guns—once the design and instructions are out there anyone able to print a gun today will be able to follow suit.
Firearm part identification features also impose costs onto 3D printer manufacturers, and hence their end consumers. 3D printer manufacturers must develop or license these costly algorithms and continuously maintain and update both the algorithm and the database of firearm models. Older printers that cannot comply will not be able to be resold in states where they are banned, creating additional E-waste.
While those wishing to create guns will still be able to do so, people printing other functional parts will likely be caught up in these algorithms, particularly for things like film props, kids’ toys, or decorative models, which often closely resemble real firearms or firearm components.
What Are The Impacts of These Changes?
Technological restrictions on manufacturing tools’ abilities are harmful for many reasons. EFF is particularly concerned with this regulation locking a 3D printer to proprietary vendor software. Vendors will be able to use this mandate to support only in-house materials, locking users into future purchases. Vendor slicer software is often based on out-of-date, open source software, and forcing users to use that software deprives them of new features or even use of their printer altogether if the vendor goes out of business. At worst, some of these bill will make it a misdemeanor to fix those problems and gain full control of your printer.
File-scanning frameworks required by this regulation will lay the foundation for future privacy and freedom intrusions. This requirement could be co-opted to scan prints for copyright violations and be abused similar to DMCA takedowns, or to suppress models considered obscene by a patchwork of definitions. What if you were unable to print a repair part because the vendor asserted the model was in violation of their trademark? What if your print was considered obscene?
Regardless of your position on current prohibitions on firearms, we should all fight back against this effort to force technological restrictions on 3D printers, and legislators must similarly abandon the idea. These laws impose real costs and potential harms among lawful users, lay the groundwork for future censorship, and simply won’t deter firearm printing.
When legislators give companies an excuse to write untouchable code, it’s a disaster for everyone. This time, 3D printers are in the crosshairs across a growing number of states. Even if you’ve never used one, you’ve benefited from the open commons these devices have created—which is now under threat.
This isn’t the first time we’ve gone to bat for 3D printing. These devices come in many forms and can construct nearly any shape with a variety of materials. This has made them absolutely crucial for anything from life-saving medical equipment, to little Iron Man helmets for cats, to everyday repairs. For decades these devices have been a proven engine for innovation, while democratizing a sliver of manufacturing for hobbyists, artists, and researchers around the world.
For us all to continue benefiting from this grassroots creativity, we need to guard against the type of corporate centralization that has undermined so much of the promise of the digital era. Unfortunately some state legislators are looking to repeat old mistakes by demanding printer vendors install an enshittification switch.
In the U.S, three states have recently proposed that commercial 3D-printer manufacturers must ensure their printers only work with their software, and are responsible for checking each print for forbidden shapes—for now, any shape vendors consider too gun-like. The 2D equivalent of these “print-blocking” algorithms would be demanding HP prevent you from printing any harmful messages or recipes. Worse still, some bills can introduce criminal penalties for anyone who bypasses this censorware, or for anyone simply reselling their old printer without these restrictions.
If this sounds like Digital Rights Management (DRM) to you, you’ve been paying attention. This is exactly the sort of regulation that creates a headache and privacy risk for law-abiding users, is a gift for would-be monopolists, and can be totally bypassed by the lawbreakers actually being targeted by the proposals.
Ghosting Innovation
“Print blocking” is currently coming for an unpopular target: ghost guns. These are privately made firearms (PMFs) that are typically harder to trace and can bypass other gun regulations. Contrary to what the proposed regulations suggest, these guns are often not printed at home, but purchased online as mass-produced build-it-yourself kits and accessories.
Scaling production with consumer 3D printers is expensive, error-prone, and relatively slow. Successfully making a working firearm with just a printer still requires some technical know-how, even as 3D printers improve beyond some of these limitations. That said, many have concerns about unlicensed firearm production and sales. Which is exactly why these practices are already illegal in many states, including all of the states proposing print blocking.
Mandating algorithmic print-blocking software on 3D printers and CNC machines is just wishful thinking. People illegally printing ghost guns and accessories today will have no qualms with undetectably breaking another law to bypass censoring algorithms. That’s if they even need to—the cat and mouse game of detecting gun-like prints might be doomed from the start, as we dive into in this companion post.
Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of 3D-printer users do not print guns. Punishing innovators, researchers, and hobbyists because of a handful of outlaws is bad enough, but this proposal does it by also subjecting everyone to the anticompetitive and anticonsumer whims of device manufacturers.
Can’t make the DRM thing work
We’ve been railing against Digital Rights Management (DRM) since the DMCA made it a federal crime to bypass code restricting your use of copyrighted content. The DRM distinction has since been weaponized by manufacturers to gain greater leverage over their customers and enforce anti-competitive practices.
The same enshittification playbook applies to algorithmic print blockers.
Restricting devices to manufacturer-provided software is an old tactic from the DRM playbook, and is one that puts you in a precarious spot where you need to bend to the whims of the manufacturer. Only Windows 11 supported? You need a new PC. Tools are cloud-based? You need a solid connection. The company shutters? You now own an expensive paperweight—which used to makepaperweights.
It also means useful open source alternatives which fit your needs better than the main vendor’s tools are off the table. The 3D-printer community got a taste of this recently, as manufacturer Bambu Labs pushed out restrictive firmware updates complicating the use of open source software like OrcaSlicer. The community blowback forced some accommodations for these alternatives to remain viable. Under the worst of these laws, such accommodations, and other workarounds, would be outlawed with criminal penalties.
People are right to be worried about vendor lock-in, beyond needing the right tool for the job. Making you reliant on their service allows companies to gradually sour the deal. Sometimes this happens visibly, with rising subscription fees, new paywalls, or planned obsolescence. It can also be more covert, like collecting and selling more of your data, or cutting costs by neglecting security and bug fixes.
With expensive hardware on the line, they can get away with anything that won’t make you pay through the nose to switch brands.
Indirectly, this sort of print-blocking mandate is a gift to incumbent businesses making these printers. It raises the upfront and ongoing costs associated with smaller companies selling a 3D printer, including those producing new or specialized machines. The result is fewer and more generic options from a shrinking number of major incumbents for any customer not interested in building their own 3D printer.
Reaching the Melting Point
It’s already clear these bills will be bad for anyone who currently uses a 3D printer, and having alternative software criminalized is particularly devastating for open source contributors. These impacts to manufacturers and consumers culminate into a major blow to the entire ecosystem of innovation we have benefited from for decades.
But this is just the beginning.
Once the infrastructure for print blocking is in place, it can be broadened. This isn’t a block of a very specific and static design, like how some copiers block reproductions of currency. Banning a category of design based on its function is a moving target, requiring a constantly expanding blacklist. Nothing in this legislation restricts those updates to firearm-related designs. Rather, if we let proposals like this pass, we open the door to the database of forbidden shapes for other powerful interests.
Intellectual property is a clear expansion risk. This could look like Nintendo blocking a Pikachu toy, John Deere blocking a replacement part, or even patent trolls forcing the hand of hardware companies. Repressive regimes, here or abroad, could likewise block the printing of “extreme” and “obscene” symbols, or tools of resistance like popular anti-ICE community whistles.
Finally, even the most sympathetic targets of algorithmic censorship will result in false positives—blocking 3D-printer users’ lawful expression. This is something proven again and again in online moderation. Whether by mistake or by design, a platform that has you locked in has little incentive to offer remedies to this censorship. And these new incentives for companies to surveil each print can also impose a substantial chilling effect on what the user chooses to create.
While 3D printers aren’t in most households, this form of regulation would set a dangerous precedent. Government mandating on-device censors which are maintained by corporate algorithms is bad. It won’t work. It consolidates corporate power. It criminalizes and blocks the grassroots innovation and empowerment which has defined the 3D-printer community. We need to roundly reject these onerous restraints on creation.
Nepalese police arrested alleged high-level power broker and businessman Deepak Bhatta in Kathmandu on Thursday on money laundering charges.
Bhatta, who chairs Infinity Holdings, has long faced scrutiny for allegedly leveraging political and bureaucratic connections to secure lucrative government contracts, operating with perceived impunity under multiple administrations.
Additional Inspector General Manoj Kumar K.C., head of the police’s Central Investigation Bureau, confirmed the arrest in Kathmandu’s Naxal Gairidhara neighborhood.
“We have arrested him and sent him to the Department of Money Laundering Investigation for further investigations,” K.C. told OCCRP.
Following the transfer, the Kathmandu District Court granted the department a 10-day remand on Thursday to detain and investigate Bhatta.
The arrest follows an escalating probe by investigators into Bhatta’s finances. Earlier this week, immigration authorities barred him from leaving the country after records showed frequent travel to the U.S., Thailand and the United Arab Emirates.
Authorities are examining multiple suspicious transactions linked to Bhatta. In June 2021, Nepal’s central bank flagged a 450 million Nepalese rupee ($3.02 million) transfer from Jagadamba Steel to Bhatta’s personal account—a transaction omitted from the steel company’s audit report. Investigators allege Bhatta then funneled the money through Infinity Holdings into Himalayan Reinsurance Co. Ltd., where he is a promoter.
Additionally, the DMLI asked the Nepal Insurance Authority last month to investigate Bhatta’s 3.81 billion rupees ($25.6 million) purchase of secondary market shares in Nepal Reinsurance Co. Ltd. and other entities. Investigators allege Bhatta misappropriated these funds for personal stock purchases through a local brokerage firm.
Police said the ongoing investigation targets Bhatta, his affiliated companies and his personal assets.
The crackdown aligns with a renewed anti-graft push in the country. The Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers recently directed all government agencies to aggressively tackle financial crimes.
“The recently formed government has placed high priority on ending policy-level, institutional and procedural corruption in public bodies,” the prime minister’s directive read. “It is necessary for all agencies to take the required initiative to end corruption.”
Bellingcat has identified several high-profile incidents where authorities in the United Arab Emirates have downplayed damage, mischaracterised interceptions and in some instances not acknowledged successful Iranian drone strikes on the country.
A review of official statements shows that the public account does not always align with what can be observed through open sources. This comes as the UAE faces sustained aerial attacks on civilian and economic infrastructure, challenging its image as a secure global hub for business and tourism. Hours after the United States and Israel launched coordinated attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, the Islamic Republic responded by launching an attack against US-allies in the region including the UAE.
In the wake of the attacks, the UAE’s attorney general warned that publication of images or videos of strikes was illegal. People were also encouraged to report anyone sharing photos or videos of the strikes to authorities.
The country’s attorney general has ordered the arrest of 35 people and said they would face an expedited trial for “publishing video clips on social media platforms containing misleading, fabricated content and content that harmed defence measures and glorified acts of military aggression against UAE.” Separately police in Abu Dhabi reported they had arrested just over 100 people on suspicion of filming incidents related to Iran’s attacks on the UAE and sharing misleading information online.
Bellingcat contacted the Dubai Media Office, the Fujairah Media Office as well as the UAE’s Ministry of Defence to understand how statements are put out and how distinctions are made between successful drone strikes and damage caused by debris. We did not receive a response by the time of publication.
“Spreading Rumours is a Crime”
During the first days of the conflict several videos were posted on social media, primarily on X, TikTok and Telegram showing footage of Iranian attacks and interceptions across the UAE.
Around the same time the Dubai Media Office, the X account of the Government of Dubai’s press office, warned followers that legal action would be taken against those sharing “unverified material”.
The X account of the Dubai Media Office has more than 2.3 million followers making it one of the largest state-run accounts in the country.
“The public and media are urged to rely solely on official sources for accurate information and refrain from sharing unverified material,” the account posted.
Dubai Police issued similar warnings on social media, stating that sharing content that contradicts official announcements could lead to imprisonment of at least two years and fines of no less than 200,000 dirhams (approximately $55,000).
Despite authorities urging the public to rely on official sources only, Bellingcat found that some of the videos posted online as well as satellite imagery from the region contradicts a number of official accounts of high-profile attacks. For this piece we have only included links to videos that have already been widely published in mainstream news outlets, posted by professional journalists, or have been widely viewed on social media.
Successful Interceptions?
On March 3, a video filmed from a vessel appears to show a drone striking the port of Fujairah, one of the UAE’s most strategically important energy hubs. The port handles roughly 1.7 million barrels of oil per day and is among the world’s largest.
The drone appears to approach its target intact, with no visible sign of interception, Sam Lair, a researcher at James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, told Bellingcat.
Moments after it descends behind storage tanks, an explosion is heard and a large plume of smoke rises from the site.
On the same day, the Fujairah Media Office stated that a fire resulted from debris following a successful interception, adding that the had been brought under control. Satellite images captured on March 4 and 5 show thick black smoke rising from the site. NASA FIRMS data also detected fires on March 3, March 4 and March 5. By March 7, satellite imagery shows at least three storage tanks fully destroyed (25.184565, 56.345481).
Satellite imagery of Fujiarah oil port from March 7, 2026, provided by Planet Labs PBC.
Detained in Dubai, a group that provides legal advice to people detained in the UAE, said that a Vietnamese national who filmed the strike on Fujairah port had been detained by authorities after posting the footage online.
Authorities made a similar report on March 1, stating that a fire at one of the berths of Jebel Ali Port was caused by debris from an aerial interception. Satellite imagery from the same day shows fires at two separate locations – approximately 3 km apart – within the port. One appears to be a central facility associated with fuel handling operations, connected via pipelines to surrounding storage tanks (25.00704, 55.07499). The other is a large structure (24.97953, 55.05204) in the military area of the port, which is one of the US Navy’s busiest ports in the Middle East. The New York Times previously identified an Iranian strike as the cause of the fire at the site.
Satellite imagery of Jebel Ali Port from March 1, 2026, Planet Labs PBC, inset imagery Google Earth.
Burj Al Arab: A “Limited” Fire
Damage at Dubai’s Burj Al Arab Hotel was attributed by the Dubai Media Office to “shrapnel” from an intercepted drone and described as a “limited” fire. However, footage shows the fire extended to approximately 30 metres in height, covering approximately eight floors of the building, suggesting a far more significant incident than officially described.
Lair told Bellingcat that the damage appeared more consistent with a direct impact. He added that if the damage had resulted from an interception it would have occurred irresponsibly close to the building.
Fairmont The Palm: Omission of Cause
On Feb. 28, the Fairmont hotel in Dubai’s Palm Jumeirah area was struck by a drone, as shown in footage verified by Bellingcat.
However the Dubai Media office did not confirm a strike took place, instead they stated only that an “incident occurred in a building in the Palm Jumeirah area,” and urged the public not to share footage.
One video of the fire was shared by a Dubai-based Bloomberg journalist. In the replies to the journalist’s post, multiple users tagged the Dubai Police, a pattern seen across posts documenting the strikes, in an apparent effort to flag violations of the cyber-crime laws to authorities.
The aftermath of the strike was also captured by a content-creator who has since left the UAE.
Radha Stirling, founder of Detained in Dubai, told Bellingcat at least five people have been confirmed by the British embassy to have been charged and detained under the UAE’s cybercrime law in connection with documenting this strike. According to Stirling, authorities have sought access to individuals’ phones following incidents to determine whether they filmed or shared footage.
“Even just taking a photo is illegal, it’s illegal to share content that the government deems negative, even in a private message,” Stirling said.
Dubai International Airport: An Unacknowledged Strike
On March 7, the Dubai Media Office announced the temporary suspension of operations at Dubai International Airport, stating only that a situation was being handled under safety protocols.
Footage that emerged online around the same time, and was verified by Bellingcat, shows a drone strike next to an airport terminal building (25.24165, 55.37498).
Stirling told Bellingcat that she has been in contact with a cabin crew member who was detained after sending an image to colleagues of Dubai airport after an explosion.
Warda Complex: A Direct Hit
On March 1, a drone struck a residential apartment on the 19th floor of the Warda complex in Dubai (25.004320, 55.293164). Two videos filmed from different angles show the drone hitting the building directly, with no visible sign of interception. In one clip, filmed inside the apartment, a British resident says: “We’ve just been hit by a drone… I didn’t even finish my cup of tea.”
Geolocation diagram with screengrab of drone before impact. Satellite imagery provided by Google Earth.
The footage shows relatively limited damage and no explosion, indicating the drone did not detonate. However, the incident appears to show a direct hit by an Iranian drone.
In contrast, statementspublished the same day by the Dubai Media Office describe air defence activity and attribute sounds heard across the emirate to successful interception operations. Bellingcat was unable to find any acknowledgement of a direct hit in UAE media.
These cases point to a gap between official accounts and observable evidence, raising questions about how incidents are being presented to the public.
Influencers and Narrative Control
At the same time, pro-government messaging has proliferated online. A number of near-identical videos posted by influencers promoting the UAE’s safety and leadership appeared, often using the format: “You live in Dubai, aren’t you scared?” followed by images of UAE leaders and the response: “No, because I know who protects us.”
Analysis by the BBC found that some of these videos were uploaded within seconds of each other, suggesting coordinated activity.
Stirling told Bellingcat that influencers in the UAE, who require licences to operate, are often paid to promote official narratives. “They are seen as an asset,” she said, describing them as “almost an extension of the government.”
As of April 1, UAE media reported that a total of 12 people had been killed and 190 injured by strikes since the beginning of the war.
“People are dying. It’s not as safe as the government is reporting. It’s not as safe as influencers are reporting. It’s like a dream narrative that you wish was true.” Stirling said.
Bellingcat also identified a numberof incidents in which authorities reported deaths or injuries caused by “debris” following “successful interceptions”. In these cases, however, we were unable to identify supporting photo, video, or other independently verifiable evidence to corroborate the official account.
Notably, fewer videos of such incidents appear to have emerged online in recent weeks, likely as public awareness of detentions under the cyber-criminality law has increased.
Jonathan Dagher, head of the Middle East desk at Reporters Without Borders told Bellingcat that the UAE government was using the Iran war to further restrict independent reporting in the country.
“When the conflict began, the government stepped up this repression, explicitly prohibiting the public (including journalists) from publishing photos or information related to the strikes, and encouraging the public to report on such incidents.”
He added that legitimate concerns about national security should not infringe on the public’s right to information.
“Broad and loosely worded bans on covering events, in the name of security, violate this right and expose journalists to arrest and violence.”
Bellingcat contacted the Dubai Media Office, the Fujairah Media Office as well as the UAE’s Ministry of Defence to understand how statements are put out and how distinctions are made between successful drone strikes and damage caused by debris. We did not receive a response by the time of publication.
“In order for everyone to feel safe it’s important at this time that the information is credible and the sources are reliable. That is the basis of the legislation that has come into play in this State, which is obviously a tense time.”
She added that her advice for residents, citizens, tourists and journalists in the UAE was to: “Follow the guidelines. The guidelines are there for your safety and for your protection.”
Merel Zoet contributed to this report.
Bellingcat is a non-profit and the ability to carry out our work is dependent on the kind support of individual donors. If you would like to support our work, you can do so here. You can also subscribe to our Patreon channel here. Subscribe to our Newsletter and follow us on Bluesky here, Instagram here, Reddit here and YouTube here.
President Trump has systematically broken virtually every promise made on the campaign trail to court health-focused voters.
His most recent walk-backs on pesticide reform are a cruel insult to the idea of “making America healthy again.” Among other controversies, he issued an executive order to boost the production of glyphosate, a toxic pesticide linked to cancer. And he’s repeatedlysided with Bayer in a Supreme Court case that will determine legal immunity from health-related lawsuits for pesticide manufacturers.
Voters of both parties are hungry for a new path forward.
America’s food and agriculture industries have never been as consolidated as they are now. This dominance means that just a few corporations, driven by profit margins and shareholder dividends, are calling all the shots about what makes its way onto our plates. And it’s making us sick.
America’s food and agriculture industries have never been as consolidated as they are now.
Several of the products farmers and gardeners use today are known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects, Parksinsons’ disease, and more. Many have been banned or restricted in other countries. In some rural communities, just living near pesticide-treated fields has been linked to cancer risk on par with smoking.
The vast majority of pesticides are used on crops grown for ethanol and factory farm animal feed. This meat from factory farms is not the “real food” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Super Bowl ad wants you to believe.
Factory-farmed animals are raised in cruel conditions, spending their lives on top of each other, covered in their own waste. Animals raised in these conditions are fed pesticide-ridden feed and antibiotics. And like any factory, these operations discharge dangerous pollution, driving a cancer-linked drinking water crisis in several states.
It’s no surprise that more than 70 percent of American adults are concerned about toxic chemical exposure in their food and drinking water. But to truly make America healthy again, we need to break up Big Ag once and for all.
President Trump once criticized America’s food monopolies. In November 2024, he called out the “industrial food complex” and pledged “that everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides… and food additives that have contributed to [an] overwhelming health crisis.”
But a year into his second term, Trump and Kennedy Jr. have done more to solidify those monopolies than to challenge them.
Corporate profits are at the heart of America’s pesticide and factory farm crises. A select few companies dominate the agrichemical sector, locking farmers into a treadmill of dependence on toxic pesticides and the seeds bred to withstand them.
The Trump administration’s unscientific dietary guidelines are a gift to these corporations. By promoting animal protein consumption at rates far above the recommendation of most doctors, Trump is pushing for more factory farming — and thus more power for the monopolies. And Americans’ health will pay the price.
Trump has the power to restrict pesticides and transition meat production out of the factory farm model. Instead he’s doubling down, backing pesticide manufacturers’ quest to evade culpability for terrible health impacts.
Trump’s disingenuous pledges to “make America healthy again” are nothing but lies, designed to distract from his real goal of bolstering Big Ag, not taking it on.
A French court has rejected Tunisia’s request to extradite the sanctioned daughter of late President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali over alleged financial crimes, the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed to OCCRP Thursday.
Tunisian authorities accuse Halima Ben Ali, the youngest daughter of the late dictator, of several financial crimes. The charges include laundering funds allegedly acquired while her father held power from 1987 to 2011.
“The investigating chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal issued a ruling on April 1, 2026, rejecting the extradition request from the Tunisian authorities for Halima Ben Ali, and lifted the judicial supervision to which she was subject in connection with this procedure,” a court communications officer told OCCRP.
The 33 year old was arrested at Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport in fall 2025 at Tunisia’s request. She was preparing to board a flight to Dubai, where she currently resides.
Italian authorities also briefly detained her in 2018 under an Interpol arrest warrant requested by Tunisia. She has faced European Union sanctions since 2011.
Ben Ali ruled Tunisia for 23 years before fleeing during the 2011 revolution that toppled his regime and sparked the Arab Spring. While he lived in exile in Saudi Arabia, a Tunisian court sentenced him to life in prison in 2012 for the deaths of 338 protesters. In 2017, he and his wife, Leila Trabelsi, received an additional 10-year sentence. Ben Ali died in exile in 2019 at age 83.
“This decision is an immense relief; justice has been served, and we can only be satisfied that the court has made a decision in accordance with the law,” Samia Maktouf, Halima Ben Ali’s lawyer, said following the ruling, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported.
During the extradition hearings, Maktouf argued that sending her client back to Tunisia would amount to “a death sentence.”
In late 2024, we urged Google and Amazon to honor their human rights commitments, to be more transparent with the public, and to take meaningful action to address the risks posed by Project Nimbus, their cloud computing contract that includes Israel’s Ministry of Defense and the Israeli Security Agency. Since then, a stream of additionalreportinghas reinforced that our concerns were well-founded. Yet despite mounting evidence of serious risk, both companies have refused to take action.
Amazon has completely ignored our original and follow-up letters. Google, meanwhile, has repeatedly promised to respond to our questions. Yet more than a year and a half later, we have seen no meaningful action by either company. Neither approach is acceptable given the human rightscommitments these companies have made.
Additionally, Microsoft required a public leak before it felt compelled enough to look into and find that its client, the Israeli government, was indeed misusing its services in ways that violated Microsoft’s public commitments to human rights. This should have given both Google and Amazon an additional reason to take a close look and let the public know what they find, but nothing of the sort materialized.
In such circumstances, waiting for definitive proof is not responsible risk management, it is willful blindness.
Google: Known Risks, No Meaningful Action
Google’s own internal assessments warned of the risks associated with Project Nimbus even before the contract was signed. Majornewsoutlets have reported that Google provides the Israeli government with advanced cloud and AI services under Project Nimbus, including large-scale data storage, image and video analysis, and AI model development tools. These capabilities are exceptionally powerful, highly adaptable, and well suited for surveillance and military applications.
Despite those warnings, and the multiple reports since then about human rights abuses by the very portions of the Israeli government that uses Google’s and Amazon’s services, the companies continue to operate business as usual. It seems that they have taken the position that they do not need to change course or even publicly explain themselves unless the media or other external organizations present definitive proof that their tools have been used in specific violations of international human rights or humanitarian law. While that conclusive public evidence has not yet emerged for all the companies, the risks are obvious, and they are aware of them. Instead of conducting robust, transparent human rights due diligence, Amazon and Google are continually choosing to look the other way.
Google’s own internal assessments undermine its public posture. According to reporting, Google’s lawyers and policy staff warned that Google Cloud services could be linked to the facilitation of human rights abuses. In the same report, Google employees also raised concerns that the company’s cloud and AI tools could be used for surveillance or other militarized purposes, which seems very likely given the Israeli government’s long-standing reliance on advanced data-driven systems to control and monitor Palestinians.
Google has publiclyclaimed that Project Nimbus is “not directed at highly sensitive, classified, or military workloads” and is governed by its standard Acceptable Use Policies. Yet reporting has revealed conflicting representations about the contract’s terms, including indications that the Israeli government may be permitted to use any services offered in Google’s cloud catalog for any purpose. Google has declined to publicly resolve these contradictions, and its lack of transparency is problematic. The gap between what Google says publicly and what it knows internally should alarm anyone who hopes to take the company’s human rights commitments seriously.
Google’s and Amazon’s AI Principles Require Proactive Action
Even after being revised last year, Google’s AI Principles continue to commit the company to responsible development and deployment of its technologies, including implementing appropriate human oversight, due diligence, and safeguards to mitigate harmful outcomes and align with widely accepted principles of international law and human rights. While the updated principles no longer explicitly commit Google to avoiding entire categories of harmful use, they still require the company to assess foreseeable risks, employ rigorous monitoring and mitigation measures, and act responsibly throughout the full lifecycle of AI development and deployment.
Amazon has similarly committed to responsible AI practices through its Responsible AI framework for AWS services. The company states that it aims to integrate responsible AI considerations across the full lifecycle of AI design, development and operation, emphasizing safeguards such as fairness, explainability, privacy and security, safety, transparency, and governance. Amazon also says its AI services are designed with mechanisms for monitoring, and risk mitigation to help prevent harmful outputs or misuse and to enable responsible deployment across a range of use cases.
Google and Amazon have the knowledge, the leverage, and the responsibility to act now. Choosing not to is still a choice.
Here, the risks are neither speculative nor remote. They are foreseeable, well-documented, and exacerbated by the context in which Project Nimbus operates, which is an ongoing military campaign marked by widespread civilian harm and credibleallegations of grave human rights violations including genocide. In such circumstances, waiting for definitive proof is not responsible risk management, it is willful blindness.
Modern cloud and AI systems are designed to be flexible, customizable, and deployable at scale, often beyond the vendor’s direct visibility. That reality is precisely why human rights due diligence must be proactive. Waiting for a leaked document or whistleblower account demonstrating direct misuse, as occurred in Microsoft’s case, means waiting until harm has already been done.
Microsoft’s Experience Should Have Been Warning Enough
As noted above, the recent revelations about Microsoft’s technologies being misused in violation of Microsoft’s commitments by the Israeli military illustrate the dangers of this wait-and-see approach. Google and Amazon should not need a similar incident to recognize what is at stake. The demonstrated misuse of comparable technologies, combined with Google’s and Amazon’s own knowledge of the risks associated with Project Nimbus, should already be sufficient to trigger action.
The appropriate response is to act responsibly and proactively.
Google and Amazon should immediately:
Conduct and publish an independent human rights impact assessment of Project Nimbus.
Disclose how they evaluate, monitor, and enforce compliance with their AI Principles in high-risk government contracts, including and especially in Project Nimbus.
Commit to suspending or restricting services where there is a credible risk of serious human rights harm, even if definitive proof of misuse has not yet emerged.
Waiting Is a Choice, and Not One That Protects Human Rights
Google and Amazon publicly emphasize their commitment to responsibleAI and respect for humanrights. Those commitments are meaningless if they apply only once harm is undeniable and irreversible. In conflict settings, especially where secrecy and information asymmetry are the norm, companies must act on credible risk, not perfect evidence.
Google and Amazon have the knowledge, the leverage, and the responsibility to act now. Choosing not to is still a choice, and one that carries real consequences for people whose lives are already at risk.
