New York City lawmakers are pushing to ban private businesses from using biometric tools like voice and facial recognition software to track the public.
While the desire to use surveillance technology in stores to fight shoplifting is understandable, lawmakers and privacy advocates are worried that the data could be repurposed to profile customers.
The New York City Council has held a hearing over two bills that would ban city landlords and businesses from using facial recognition technology.
One proposal would make it illegal for any public place to use biometric recognition technology to identify or verify a customer.
The other would prohibit landlords from installing, activating, or using any biometric recognition technology that identifies tenants or their guests.
In this article we want to focus on some of the reasons behind these proposals.
For context, it’s good to know that in New York City, businesses that collect biometric data are already required to post standardized signs letting people know.
Let’s look at what happens when your face becomes your ID, and every movement in a store can be turned into another data point.
Why gathering biometric data is considered bad
Collecting biometric data raises several objections. The most pressing ones are:
Unique but hard-to-erase identifiers. While you can reset a password, your face is harder to change. This means data leaks or abuse of facial templates, gait, or voiceprints can create permanent risks and be linked across databases.
Accuracy and bias concerns. Studies and civil liberties groups have found that facial recognition system can be error-prone and biased across different groups.
Lack of meaningful consent. In practice, supermarkets and landlords using facial recognition are giving people a mere theoretical choice. People can submit their biometrics or forego basic services. Critics argue that this undermines genuine consent.
Chilling effect. The feeling of constantly being watched everywhere you go is an uncomfortable one, and can discourage people from engaging in everyday, legitimate activities.
Surveillance pricing. This deserves some more explanation, which we’ll cover next.
What is surveillance pricing?
It’s essentially how your face becomes an unerasable loyalty card.
Imagine you go into a local supermarket and notice that different people pay different prices for the same item. Would that feel fair?
Surveillance pricing refers to the use of detailed consumer data and behavioral signals to dynamically adjust prices.
Some characterize it as retailers using big‑data profiles to segment customers into increasingly narrow groups, down to the level of potentially charging each person the maximum the model thinks they are willing to pay.
We already see versions of this online. When you’re looking for airline tickets, for example, prices can change based on various signals. But it can be hard to notice, and companies tell us it’s not personal. But imagine that same logic quietly following you into the supermarket.
How this works online is relatively straightforward: websites track clicks, time on page, cart activity, and past spending to estimate how sensitive you are to price changes.
In physical stores it’s more complex, but not impossible. Data from in-store security systems that also collect biometrics and facial recognition can be combined with loyalty programs, apps, and in‑store Wi‑Fi analytics could, in theory, be combined to build similar profiles.
Electronic shelf labels (ESL) can already allow retailers to change shelf prices instantly across a store or specific sections.
This could lead to situations where wealthier or more brand-loyal customers are quietly charged more. Or vulnerable groups could be targeted with manipulative discounts for higher‑margin or even less healthy products.
What to do?
Unfortunately, there’s no simple way to privacy‑hack your way out of a system that can turn your body into a tracking ID. The most effective fix is boring but powerful: laws with teeth, regulators that actually enforce them, and stores that don’t hide what they’re doing.
You could:
Avoid stores that openly advertise biometric scanning when there are alternatives.
Support local and national efforts to regulate biometric tracking and related practices, such as the proposals from the New York City Council.
We shouldn’t have to trade access to food, housing, or basic services for the ability to move through a city without our bodies being mined for data. If we don’t draw that line now, practices like surveillance pricing could quietly bake inequality and discrimination into something as mundane as buying groceries.
We don’t just report on privacy—we offer you the option to use it.
Privacy risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep your online privacy yours by using Malwarebytes Privacy VPN.
Tax season is also peak season for identity theft. Criminals use stolen personal data to file fake tax returns and claim refunds before the real taxpayer does. Here’s how the fraud works, and how to protect yourself.
What is Stolen Identity Refund Fraud (SIRF)?
Stolen Identity Refund Fraud (SIRF) is a type of tax fraud where criminals steal someone’s personal information—such as a Social Security number and date of birth—and use it to file a fake tax return in that person’s name in order to claim a tax refund.
The fraudsters usually submit the false return early in the tax season before the real taxpayer files, so the refund is issued to them instead of the legitimate person.
The money is often sent to bank accounts, debit cards, or addresses controlled by the criminals. Victims usually discover the fraud only when their real tax return is rejected or when the tax authority, like the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), reports that a refund has already been issued in their name.
How is it even possible?
As Americans scramble to meet the annual tax filing deadline, a hidden ecosystem on the Dark Web kicks into overdrive, transforming tax season into a lucrative period of the year for international cybercriminals. Shahak Shalev, Global Head of Scam and AI Research at Malwarebytes, said:
“People are expecting messages about taxes, refunds, and filings, which makes phishing emails and fake IRS alerts much easier to believe. At the same time, the personal data needed to commit tax fraud is shockingly cheap on the dark web. It’s no surprise scammers treat tax season like an annual opportunity.”
Behind the sudden influx of fraudulent refund claims lies a highly organized criminal supply chain deeply rooted in Russian-language underground forums. These specialized platforms act as the primary enablers of tax fraud.
Rather than harvesting data from scratch, fraudsters can simply purchase massive datasets of stolen Personally Identifiable Information (PII), complete with ready-to-use W-2 and 1040 forms. For more sophisticated operations, Initial Access Brokers (IABs) auction off direct network access to compromised Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) and accounting firms.
Beyond raw data and access, this underground economy provides a full suite of “fraud-as-a-service” tools—including on-demand services to forge supporting financial documents and dedicated instructional hubs featuring step-by-step tutorials.
A threat actor looking for partners for US tax refund fraud (based on data from accounting software)
The threat actor is selling access to a CPA company with accounting software databases
A threat actor looking for partners for US tax refund fraud
The black market of PII
At the epicenter of this illicit commerce is one of the premier Russian-language underground forums, which serves as the definitive marketplace for fraudsters to buy and offload tax-related PII. The commoditization of this data is staggering in its efficiency, operating much like a traditional e-commerce platform.
Our research team has captured several compelling samples of this trading activity, highlighting a clear pricing tier based on the freshness of the data and the target demographic. In one recently observed listing, a threat actor advertised a bulk package of 100 complete tax forms for $2,000—effectively pricing a fully documented stolen identity at just $20.
A threat actor offering US tax forms and W-2s for sale
A threat actor offering discounted 1040 forms, PII, and bank data for sale
Conversely, older data dumps from the 2024 tax year are heavily discounted to clear inventory; highly sensitive records specifically belonging to wealthy retirees and pensioners from that period are currently being traded for less than $4 per identity.
Access for sale
This staggering volume of tax-related data must originate from somewhere, and threat actors have identified the ultimate jackpot: US companies that handle tax preparation and accounting procedures.
From an attacker’s perspective, it is infinitely more efficient to breach a dedicated business that serves as a centralized vault for this sensitive information than to cast a wide net trying to trick individual citizens into handing over their personal details.
Our research team recently intercepted a prime example of this strategy in action, identifying a Dark Web listing for compromised network access to a US-based tax service firm. The victimized organization is a small business; a typical target of criminals looking for easy access for exploitable information.
Exploiting these systemic weaknesses, the threat actor was able to quietly infiltrate the company’s internal infrastructure and is now auctioning off direct access to a database containing the complete, highly sensitive PII of over 1,600 clients.
A threat actor auctioning off access to a database of PII of more than 1,600 customers
Additional data for sale
Even when threat actors encounter roadblocks during the fraud process—such as a missing piece of PII or a highly specific financial document required for verification—the cybercrime underground offers a comprehensive suite of on-demand services to seamlessly solve these issues.
Our research team has tracked a dedicated black market known as “Cypher – Fullz and Docs,” which specializes in selling complete, ready-to-use sets of stolen US identities (commonly referred to in the underground as “fullz”) for as little as $0.75 per set.
Advertising stolen data on the dark web
Another ad for “fullz” – full identities
However, having the basic data is sometimes not enough to bypass required checks.
When additional paperwork is required to legitimize a fraudulent claim, threat actors simply turn to specialized forgery services like “Fakelab.” For a nominal fee ranging between $20 and $40, Fakelab operates as an illicit digital design studio, meticulously forging any tax-related document an attacker might need, from customized W-2s to realistic bank statement, ensuring the scam can proceed without a hitch.
Advert for documents, including medical and tax forms
Price list for data
Tutorials and guidance
The culmination of the tax fraud lifecycle—and often the most precarious phase for the attacker—is the cashout. To successfully finalize the scam and extract the stolen funds, fraudsters require a robust financial infrastructure, typically relying on compromised “drop” bank accounts and supplementary financial tools designed to launder the money and obscure their tracks.
Unsurprisingly, the Dark Web ecosystem provides not just the tools but the detailed education necessary to execute this critical phase. Our research team identified a dedicated underground resource known as “Flava,” which serves as a centralized instructional hub. This platform is brimming with comprehensive, step-by-step tutorials specifically detailing how to orchestrate these complex cashout schemes targeting US citizens and residents.
A Russian-language marketplace related to financial fraud techniques.
How to stay safe
Stolen Identity Refund Fraud is a reminder that identity theft doesn’t just lead fraudulent purchases. It can impact something as fundamental as filing your taxes.
Cybercriminals take advantage of underground marketplaces that sell stolen personal data, compromised business access, and tools designed to support fraud. It makes it easier for criminals to file fake tax returns quickly and at scale.
For taxpayers, the best defense is limiting the amount of personal data available to criminals, filing your taxes early, and paying attention to any warning signs that someone may be trying to use your identity.
Tax fraud often depends on criminals getting access to your personal information first. The less data they have, the harder it is for them to impersonate you. Here are some steps that can help reduce your risk:
File your taxes early. Submitting your legitimate tax return early makes it much harder for criminals to file one in your name first.
Protect your Social Security number. Avoid sharing your Social Security number unless it’s absolutely necessary.
Watch out for phishing emails and texts. Scammers often pose as the IRS, banks, or tax services to trick people into revealing personal data.
Use strong, unique passwords. If criminals gain access to your email or financial accounts, they may be able to collect the information needed to impersonate you.
Monitor your accounts and credit reports. Unexpected tax notices, rejected returns, or unfamiliar financial activity can all be warning signs of identity theft.
Consider an IRS Identity Protection PIN (IP PIN). An IP PIN adds an extra verification step when filing your tax return, helping prevent criminals from filing in your name.
Note: These dark web screenshots have been roughly translated from Russian.
What do cybercriminals know about you?
Use Malwarebytes’ free Digital Footprint scan to see whether your personal information has been exposed online.
AI didn’t sneak into our lives. It burst through the door, took a seat at the table, and started finishing our sentences.
Instead of a helpful list of links, Google now tries to answer your question. Microsoft’s Copilot drafts replies to your boss before you’ve had coffee. Your phone summarizes conversations you don’t even remember having.
Every major tech company is racing to add AI to its products because no one wants to be left behind. And the public is often forced to accommodate such corporate whims because of the increasing effects of “enshittification,” as explained by Cory Doctorow on the Lock and Code podcast.
People are using AI. But they don’t trust it.
In our latest privacy pulse survey, in which we gathered 1,200 responses from readers of the Malwarebytes newsletter earlier this year, 90% of respondents said they’re worried about AI using their data without consent.
Ninety per cent.
That’s not a few skeptics. That’s nearly everyone we asked. We admit, our sample is probably skewed towards the privacy conscious. But 90% of people who follow Malwarebytes are worried about how much personal data AI is slurping up, and what it’s going to do with it, so that’s a good barometer for how much everyone should care.
That concern is changing the way people are using the internet:
88% do not “freely share personal information with AI tools like ChatGPT and Gemini”
84% have not “shared personal health information with AI tools”
But people have been concerned about holding onto their personal information for a long time.
From the survey:
92% are concerned about their “personal data being used inappropriately by corporations,” which is up slightly from last year (89% in 2025)
74% are concerned about their “personal data being accessed and used inappropriately by the government” (up from 72%)
Years of data breaches, shady tracking practices, and dangerous misuse by data brokers have chipped away at our confidence in organizations to protect our data. Over the past year, healthcare organizations have continued to report major security lapses affecting sensitive patient data. The FTC warned about “staggering” commercial surveillance practices that most consumers never agreed to, and, according to our survey, 49% of people reported that their personal info has been used in scams that target them or their family.
Is AI really any different to, say, social media?
When people use social media, they generally understand their clicks and likes are being tracked. When they shop online, they expect the shop to store their purchase histories or track the items they were interested in. They understand the concept of advertising and see how it slots into social or commercial websites.
AI tools are different because we use them differently.
When we share ideas, client meeting notes, personal dilemmas, and health questions with an AI assistant, we are treating them as a confidant. Maybe we’ve paid for an access level that promises not to train its models on our data. Even when we’re chatting about flat-packs and missing screws with a site’s AI chatbot, we behave as if we’re talking to another person, and not broadcasting that conversation to the world.
The interaction with AI feels intimate and conversational, even though we’re all aware we’re talking with a bot. That makes the uncertainty around how that AI handles the data we’ve fed it more personal, more immediate.
We know that AI assistants from a company are often plugged into other tools. We know GPTs can be created by any developer or scammer. (Check out Malwarebytes in ChatGPT—we’re one of the good guys). We know nearly every business or personal platform now has some form of AI-based data-gathering element. What the average person doesn’t know about AI feels scary.
Where are our prompts stored?
Are those prompts are used to train the AI?
How long are they kept?
Can anyone inside the company read them?
Can they be bought? Used for advertising? Leaked?…
Yes, companies publish policies, but who in the real and busy world reads all those before we use the tool? Fewer than half, but a growing number, with 48% said they now read privacy policies and reports—up from 43% in 2025.
Besides, we know from recent headlines that companies are rushing out AI features before they’ve had time to properly security-check them.
A glimmer of hope: People are taking action
This result from the survey caught our eye.
63% of respondents agreed with the statement: “I feel resigned that my personal data is already out there, and I can’t get it back.”
Last year, that number was 74%.
So, while concern about data misuse is still high, fewer people feel entirely helpless.
Respondents reported taking practical steps to limit their data exposure.
Some have reduced or stopped their use of certain platforms entirely because of privacy concerns, including social media (44% have stopped using Instagram, 37% have stopped using Facebook, and 49% have stopped using Tiktok) and AI tools (43% have stopped using ChatGPT, 42% have stopped using Gemini).
Others reported sharing less personal information online or avoiding sensitive topics in digital conversations (88% said they do not freely share personal information with AI tools).
There is also increased use of privacy-protective tools for their data, devices, and identities.
46% use a VPN (up from 42% in 2025)
40% have an identity theft protection solution (down from 43%)
25% use a personal data removal service or solution (up from 23%)
71% use an ad blocker for online browsing (up from 69%)
48% read privacy policies and reports (up from 43%)
76% use MFA (up from 69%)
82% opt-out of data collection, as possible (up from 75%)
38% use fake/dummy data online whenever possible (up from 33%)
None of these actions erase historical data trails, but they do limit new exposure. David Ruiz, senior privacy advocate at Malwarebytes, said:
“Twenty years of online innovation have pointed too many companies in the same direction—against everyday people.
For most people today, the corporations that are pressing AI tools into their daily lives are the same corporations that have monetized their attention spans, invaded their privacy, and lost their data to breaches. But a counterforce is emerging.
The small changes in user behavior should encourage others to understand that, even now, privacy remains possible and worthwhile.”
Privacy protection can feel binary: either everything is exposed or everything is secure. But it’s incremental, and the survey responses reflect how people are starting to take back control of their data.
What this means for companies
Organizations adding AI into their products face a more complex audience than they might have first assumed.
For years, product teams have assumed users would trade more data for more convenience. But when nearly nine in ten people said they’re concerned about AI using their data without consent, trust becomes part of the product itself. Mozilla jumped on this and added a simple “turn off AI” button to Firefox.
It’s no longer enough to highlight what AI can do. Users want to understand what happens after they press “submit.”
We the People… want strong privacy laws
When concern reaches the sort of level we’ve seen in our survey, it inevitably raises the thorny question of regulation.
91% of respondents said they “support national laws regulating how companies can collect, store, share, or use our personal data.”
The issue is less about one tool and more about a sense that the guardrails are unclear. Generative AI systems can draft legal documents, write emails, and process sensitive data at speed. Much of the existing privacy frameworks in the US, EU, and other regions were written before AI was commonplace.
Regulators are trying to catch up. The European Union’s AI Act, passed in 2024, introduced a risk-based approach to governing certain AI systems. In the US, federal agencies including the FTC have issued guidance and warnings around commercial surveillance and automated decision-making, but it does not yet have a comprehensive AI-specific privacy statute.
Desire for national laws and regulation is at an all-time high. Consumers want boundaries that are understandable and enforceable.
What you can do
We’re clearly not going to abandon all technology. AI isn’t going to eat itself out of existence. It can be pretty useful. We use AI to find threats and scams no one’s seen before, which leads to far better protection. We also use generative AI in Scam Guard to provide 24/7 chat assistance (paired with our deep threat research expertise, of course). Many people use them to save time, draft documents, or explore ideas. Also, sadly, to create little caricatures of themselves.
The key here is thoughtful use.
Limit what information you give to public AI tools, especially health details, financial data, and client-sensitive information.
Review the privacy and data retention policies of AI tools you use regularly.
Delete accounts and apps you no longer need.
Audit app permissions at least twice a year.
Use a VPN to reduce tracking by your internet service provider.
Remove your information from major data broker sites. Check whether your personal info is exposed with a Digital Footprint scan.
Use a reputable password manager and avoid reusing passwords across services.
At Malwarebytes, we believe privacy is a human right. Protecting personal data is inseparable from protecting personal security. The more information that circulates without oversight, the greater the opportunity for misuse, fraud, and harm.
AI will continue to develop. That trajectory is unlikely to slow. The question is whether trust will grow alongside it.
In recent years, ClickFix and fake CAPTCHA techniques have become a popular way for cybercriminals to distribute malware. Instead of exploiting a technical vulnerability, these attacks rely on convincing people to run malicious commands themselves.
Our researchers have recently detected a campaign that ultimately delivers the Vidar infostealer, using several different infection chains.
One of the methods used in this campaign involves installing a malicious installer delivered through fake CAPTCHA pages hosted on compromised WordPress websites. We detected a number of compromised websites involved in the campaign, located in countries including Italy, France, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Brazil.
What is Vidar?
Vidar is a well-known infostealer malware family designed to harvest sensitive data from infected systems. It typically targets:
Browser-stored usernames and passwords
Cryptocurrency wallet information
Session cookies and authentication tokens
Autofill data and saved payment information
Files that may contain sensitive data
Because Vidar loads in memory and communicates with remote command servers, it can quietly collect and exfiltrate data without obvious signs of infection.
Fake CAPTCHA: the never-ending story
When a user visits a compromised website, they may see a screen mimicking Cloudflare’s familiar “Verifying you are human” page.
This technique has been widely used since 2024 and has evolved through numerous variations over time, both in its visual appearance and in the malicious commands that start the infection chain.
The fake CAPTCHA message shown to the user.
The page instructs the visitor to copy and run a malicious command that starts the infection chain, in this case:
mshta https://{compromised website}/challenge/cf
Mshta is a legitimate Windows binary designed to execute Microsoft HTML Application (HTA). Because it is built into Windows, attackers have abused it since the early days of the ClickFix campaigns.
In this case, the command launches a simple obfuscated HTA script, which eventually downloads and installs malware associated with the Vidar infostealer.
HTA-based MSI dropper
The HTA script is the intermediate stage that downloads and runs a malicious MSI installer. An MSI is a Windows installation package normally used to install software, but attackers frequently abuse it to deliver malware.
The script performs several operations:
The window is resized to 0x0 and moved off-screen, making the application invisible to the user.
The script terminates if the document.location.href doesn’t start with http.
The strings are decoded using XOR and a random key.
Through WMI queries, the script checks for installed antivirus products.
It creates hidden working folders in a random folder under \AppData\Local to drop the MSI file.
In the end, the script downloads the malicious MSI from a compromised website. The downloaded file must be larger than 100 KB to be considered valid. Finally, it removes the :Zone.Identifier alternate data stream.
The malicious HTA script.
In this case, the malicious MSI was downloaded using the following command:
The MSI defines a CustomAction ConfigureNetFx, and it executes a GoLang loader.
Malware loaders (also known as droppers or downloaders) are common tools in the cybercrime ecosystem. Their main job is to stealthily compromise a system and then deliver one or more additional malware payloads.
In this campaign, the loader ultimately decrypts and executes the Vidar infostealer. The executable has different names in the different MSI samples analyzed.
The custom action defined in the MSI.
The Golang loader decodes a shellcode that performs different anti-analysis checks, including:
CheckRemoteDebuggerPresent
IsDebuggerPresent
QueryPerformanceCounter
GetTickCount
After several intermediate steps, the loader decrypts and loads Vidar infostealer directly into memory.
Analysis of compromised websites
The malicious iframe injected into the compromised websites was generated by the domains cdnwoopress[.]com or woopresscdn[.]com in the analyzed cases.
The malicious iframe injected into the compromised website.
The injected code has several functions, and the command used in the fake CAPTCHA attack is obtained from the /api/get_payload endpoint.
Code injected into the compromised websites.
Because the malicious website was misconfigured, we were able to view the backend code injected into the compromised WordPress sites.
The injected script performs several actions:
Creates the file wp-cache-manager.php if it doesn’t already exist, obtaining its contents from the endpoint /api/plugin.
Sends a heartbeat request every hour containing the domain name, site URL, WordPress version, and status.
During page loads (template_redirect), the script filters visitors based on User-Agent and targets Windows desktop visitors.
Requests /api/inject?domain=domain from the remote command server. The response HTML is then displayed, replacing the normal WordPress page.
The malicious code injected in the compromised WordPress site.
How to stay safe
Attacks like this rely on tricking people into running commands themselves, so a few simple precautions can make a big difference.
Slow down. If a webpage asks you to run commands on your device or copy and paste code, pause and think before following the instructions. Cybercriminals often create a sense of urgency with fake security checks, countdown timers, or warnings designed to make you act without thinking.
Never run commands from untrusted sources. A legitimate website should never require you to press Win+R, open Terminal, or paste commands into PowerShell just to verify you are human. If a page asks you to do this, treat it as suspicious.
Verify instructions independently. If a website tells you to execute a command or perform a technical action, check official documentation or contact support through trusted channels before doing anything.
Be cautious with copy and paste. Some attacks hide malicious commands in copied text. If you ever need to run a command from documentation, typing it manually can help reduce the risk of running hidden code.
Protect your device. Keep your operating system and browser updated and use security software that can block malicious websites and detect infostealer malware.
Stay informed. Techniques like fake CAPTCHA pages and ClickFix attacks continue to evolve. Knowing that attackers may try to trick you into running commands yourself can help you spot these scams before they succeed.
Pro tip: The free Malwarebytes Browser Guard extension can warn you if a website attempts to copy content to your clipboard, which may help prevent this type of attack.
Your Google Search history provides one of the most detailed windows into your private life, and I know this because when I looked at my own search history last year, I was overwhelmed by the information buried within.
Across just 18 months, Google tracked the 8,079 searches I made and the 3,050 websites I visited because of those searches. That included my late-night perusal of WebMD because of medical symptoms I’d looked up just seconds before, my tour of Goodwill donation sites as I searched for where to drop off clothes ahead of an upcoming move, and my ironically tracked visit to a Reddit thread titled “How do I delete most, if not all, of my info off of the Internet?” (One answer I learned: Don’t use Google Search.)
Google tracked my every question, concern, and flight of fancy—almost literally. On just one day in August 2025, Google recorded the seven flight searches I made on Google Flights and the six hotel searches I made on Google Travel.
Google also recorded the many questions and requests I made when researching topics for the Lock and Code podcast, which I host. And while all of that Google data made for an interesting investigation into what Google knows about me (which you can listen to below), it also made it clear that more people should know how to access this same information.
For most Google users, if Web & App Activity is turned on, Google is saving what they look up, what time they looked it up, and what websites they clicked on as a result. There are ways to turn that data tracking off, but the first step is to know where to look.
Here’s how to do that.
How to find your Google Search history
You can start by opening your web browser and signing into Google’s centralized hub for your data online at myactivity.google.com.
The My Google Activity home page
Once logged in, you’ll see the above welcome screen with quick settings that you can change, if you want to. Those settings are different for some users, but may include:
Web & App Activity
Timeline
Play History
YouTube History
Further down on the page, you can browse through your Google Search history. (Our screenshot gallery below can help walk you through the steps.)
First, look for the search bar in the welcome screen that says Search your activity.
Right below, you will find the words Filter by date & product. These words are clickable. Click them.
Once you’ve clicked Filter by date & product, you’ll see a pop-up menu where you can look through your Google activity by date or product. Instead of focusing on the date, scroll down through the list of Google products and check the box for Google Search.
Press Apply.
Find the search bar in the My Google Activity homepage
Click on the words “Filter by date & product”
Scroll down through the list of items until you find Google Search
Click on the Google Search checkbox and click “Apply”
After you press Apply, you’ll be taken to a webpage that lists your Google Search history in reverse chronological order, showing you your most recent activity first. As you scroll down, you can find older activity. You can also use the search bar at the top of the page to look for individual pieces of activity, like a search or series of searches that you previously made.
From here, you can also delete individual Google Search entries so that Google no longer stores that data. This will only apply to the individual search you made.
You can delete individual searches by clicking the “X” button in the top right corner of each search record
Confirm your deletion by pressing “Delete”
Your search is now no longer tied to your overall Google activity
If you want to better protect your privacy, making targeted deletions from your Google Search history is a difficult, lengthy, and imperfect method. Instead, you can simply tell Google to stop recording any of your searches from now on.
How to turn off Google Search history
There’s a simple way to instruct Google to stop saving your online searches to your Google Account, and it takes just a few clicks. Follow the instructions below, along with the image gallery, for guidance.
Go to your My Google Activity homepage (this is the same page you saw when first signing into myactivity.google.com)
Click on that quick control button we saw earlier: Web & App Activity
From here, you will see a new screen with the title Activity Controls
Find the button that says Turn off and click it
Choose between Turn off and Turn off and delete activity
Find the “Turn off” button from the Activity Controls webpage
You can choose one of two options for turning off your data
With one click, you can stop Google from recording your activity
If you selected Turn off, you’re done. Google will no longer save your Google Searches as part of your overall Google profile activity. This option means that Google still has your prior searches recorded, though. So, if you want, you can choose the second option, Turn off and delete activity.
When you select that option, Google will walk you through additional steps to choose what types of data you want erased, such as past activity tied to Google Search, Maps, Ads, Image Search, Google Play Store, Help and other services. All of these options reveal just how many products and pipelines Google has built to vacuum up your data.
Don’t be overwhelmed, though. Go through the list at your own pace and start making decisions about your data that are right for you.
We don’t just report on data privacy—we help you remove your personal information
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. With Malwarebytes Personal Data Remover, you can scan to find out which sites are exposing your personal information, and then delete that sensitive data from the internet.
On February 8, during the Super Bowl in the United States, countless owners of one of the most popular smart products today got a bit of a wakeup call: Their Ring doorbells could be used to see a whole lot more than they knew.
In a commercial that was broadcast to one of most reliably enormous audiences in the country, Amazon, which owns the company Ring, promoted a new feature for its smart doorbells called “Search Party.” By scouring the footage of individual Ring cameras across a specific region, “Search Party” can implement AI-powered image recognition technology to find, as the commercial portrayed it, a lost dog. But immediately after the commercial aired, people began wondering what else their Ring cameras could be used to find.
“Ring’s Super Bowl ad exposed a scary truth: the technology in its doorbell cameras could be used to hunt down a lost pet…or a person. Amazon must discontinue its dystopian monitoring features.”
These “dystopian monitoring features” aren’t entirely new, but that’s not to say that most Ring owners knew what they were allowing when they originally bought their devices.
Bought by Amazon in 2018, Ring is the most popular manufacturer of a product that, as of 15 years ago, didn’t really exist. And while other “smart” innovations failed, smart doorbells have become a fixture of American neighborhoods, providing a mixture of convenience and security. For instance, a Ring owner away from home can verify and buzz in their mailman dropping off a package behind a gated entrance. Or, a Ring owner can see on their phone that the person knocking at their door is a salesman and choose to avoid talking to them. Or, a Ring owner can help police who are investigating a crime in their area by handing over relevant footage. Even the presence of a Ring doorbell, and its variety of motion-detecting alerts, could possibly serve as a deterrent to crime.
What has seemingly upset so many of those same owners, then, is learning exactly how their personal devices might be used for a company’s gains.
Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Matthew Guariglia, senior policy analyst at Electronic Frontier Foundation, about Ring’s long history of partnering with—and sometimes even speaking directly for—police, who can access Ring doorbell footage both inside the company and outside it, and what people really open themselves up to when purchasing a Ring device.
”There’s this impression, a myth practically, that ‘I buy a ring doorbell to put on my house, I control the footage… But there is [an] entire secondary use of this device, which is by police that you don’t really get a lot of say in.”
Google has weighed in on a court case that will decide the future of a powerful but contentious tool for law enforcement. The company submitted an opinion to the US Supreme Court arguing that geofence warrants are unconstitutional.
A geofence warrant is a form of “reverse warrant” that turns a regular warrant on its head. Police get a regular warrant when they want to target a particular person. With a reverse warrant, police don’t know exactly who they’re looking for. Instead, they ask someone (typically a technology company) for a broad data set about a group of unknown people based on some common behavior. Then they analyze that data set for potential suspects.
With a geofence warrant, that data set is defined by a location and a time window. Law enforcement officials obtain a list of phones that were in that area during that period. Every device that was inside the circle comes back in the results, even if nobody on that list has been suspected of anything. Proximity is the only criterion.
That’s how Okello Chatrie was charged with armed bank robbery in Virginia in 2019: His phone showed up in a geofence warrant covering 17.5 acres (larger than three football fields). He argued that this kind of search isn’t constitutional and shouldn’t have been used as evidence.
In 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with him, overturning a Fourth Circuit ruling. Now prosecutors have taken the case to the Supreme Court, with parties due to make oral arguments on April 27.
The case has seen a flurry of amicus curiae briefs, which are opinions from interested expert parties that have no direct involvement in the case. One of these is from Google, which on Monday urged the justices to consider the geofence warrants unconstitutional because of their broad scope. It has objected to more than 3,000 of them on constitutional grounds in recent months.
Google’s brief stated:
“Many of these overbroad warrants swept in hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of innocent people. State and federal courts have repeatedly granted Google’s motions to quash these overbroad warrants.”
How the database gets built
Although Google is just one of many organizations that filed amicus briefs, its position is especially notable because it has historically collected so much location data. Its Timeline feature (formerly Location History) logs device position via GPS, Wi-Fi networks, Bluetooth, and mobile signals, including when Google apps aren’t being used, according to its policy page.
At the time of the Chatrie warrant, it was recording position as frequently as every two minutes. All of that fed a centralised internal database which held 592 million individual accounts. So responding to any geofence request required Google to search essentially the entire store before producing a single name, according to an analysis by privacy advocacy group EPIC, which also regularly submits amicus briefs on privacy cases.
Google moved Timeline storage from its own servers onto users’ devices in July 2025, closing the door to fresh cloud-based requests against its own systems. But the constitutional question survives for historical data and for any company that has not followed suit.
The warrant that grew and grew
A geofence warrant does not stay fenced, according to a separate brief that the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) filed in the case last week. It said Google’s standard response to warrants had three steps. First it would deliver an anonymized list of devices inside the geofence. Then, police could ask for movement data on chosen “devices of interest,” which could track them outside the geographic boundary and beyond the original time window. Finally, again without any further judicial approval, police could ask for subscriber-identifying information for whichever devices police chose to unmask.
In the Chatrie case, positioning data was imprecise enough that, as the district court found, the warrant may have included devices outside the intended area. According to the CDT brief:
“The Geofence Warrant could have captured the location of someone who was hundreds of feet outside the geofence.”
The CDT argues in its brief that this can expose the privacy of people going about their everyday lives, engaging in legal activities that they might not want others to know about. The warrant that scooped up Chatrie included a hotel and a restaurant.
Some of these requests are far broader. Google successfully challenged a warrant asking for the location history of anyone in large portions of San Francisco for two and a half days, it said. Google complained in its brief:
“No court would authorize a physical search of hundreds of people or places, yet geofence warrants sometimes do so by design.”
What can you do to stop yourself getting swept up in a geofencing search?
If your phone stores detailed location history with Google, that data may be included in geofence warrant responses. Limiting what gets saved can reduce how much location information exists in the first place.
There are two Google settings that matter: Timeline (Location History) and Web & App Activity. Turning off one does not automatically disable the other.
Timeline stores a detailed record of where your device has been, although it’s off by default. Web & App Activity can also log location signals when you use Google services like Search, Maps, or other apps.
Google provides instructions on how to review and disable these settings in its support documentation:
Google has previously settled lawsuits accusing it of misleading users about how location data is stored across these settings, so reviewing both controls is important.
Reverse warrants may not stop at location data
The implications of the case extend well past maps, though. The CDT brief warns that if courts endorse the logic behind geofence warrants, then law enforcement may try to apply the same approach to other large datasets held by technology companies, such as AI chatbot data. That’s a step the DHS has already taken, issuing what has been reported as the first known warrant for ChatGPT user data.
We don’t just report on privacy—we offer you the option to use it.
Privacy risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep your online privacy yours by using Malwarebytes Privacy VPN.
The idea of a “Great British Firewall” makes for a catchy headline, but it would be riddled with holes and cause huge problems.
The Guardian reports that the GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), a UK intelligence, security, and cyber agency, is exploring the idea of a British firewall offering protection against malicious hackers. It falls within its remit, but one of the measures reportedly discussed—banning VPN software—raises practical and technical questions.
Here’s what you actually need to know, and why you shouldn’t panic about your VPN just yet.
There are no current plans on the statute books to ban VPNs for everyone. Ministers and regulators explicitly acknowledge VPNs as lawful services with legitimate uses.
The current political focus is on “online safety”, especially kids accessing porn and harmful content, and how VPNs can undermine the Online Safety Act’s age‑assurance and filtering regime.
The latest move is an online‑safety consultation that explicitly mentions “options to age-restrict or limit children’s VPN use where it undermines safety protections”, not an outright nationwide ban.
So what may happen is tighter controls around minors, and perhaps pressure on app stores and platforms, rather than a blanket prohibition for adults.
Options
Technically speaking, these are some of the measures available to address VPNs bypassing geo-blocking and local legislation.
App‑store and download pressure: Require Apple/Google to hide or age‑gate VPN apps for UK accounts, or block listing of some consumer VPNs. This raises friction for non‑technical users but is trivial to route around (sideloading where possible, non‑UK stores, manual configs).
Commercial provider lists: Buy accounts at popular VPNs, enumerate exit IP ranges, and require ISPs or certain sites (e.g. porn sites) to block those IPs. This can catch a large chunk of mainstream VPN traffic but is high‑maintenance and easy to evade with IP rotation, residential proxies, self‑hosted VPNs, and lesser‑known services.
Targeted site‑level blocking of VPNs: Require certain categories of sites (e.g. adult sites) to reject traffic that appears to come from VPN IPs, an idea already floated by some experts as more likely than an outright technology ban. That still leaves VPNs usable for everything else, including general browsing and work.
Age‑based device/network controls: Mandate school networks, child‑oriented devices, or parental control routers to block known VPN endpoints and app traffic, as media regulator Ofcom and others have suggested may be possible at the home‑router level. Again, this targets minors rather than adults and is only as strong as the weakest network they connect to (a friend’s Wi‑Fi, mobile hotspot, etc.).
All of these are “making it harder” tactics rather than a hard technical kill switch.
Why a watertight VPN ban is essentially impossible
To comprehensively block VPNs, the government would need to require internet providers to inspect traffic, restrict apps from app stores, and attempt to cut off access to thousands of VPN servers worldwide. That would be a massive, expensive, and deeply complicated undertaking—and it still wouldn’t work.
Problem 1: VPNs are basically invisible
Modern VPNs are designed to look very similar to normal web browsing. When you load a website over HTTPS (the padlock in your browser) and when you connect to a VPN, the traffic flowing through your internet connection looks almost identical. Reliably telling them apart is a bit like trying to spot which cars on a motorway are taxis versus private vehicles based solely on their tire tread patterns at motorway speed, for every car, in real time. You’d end up accidentally blocking huge amounts of perfectly ordinary internet traffic in the attempt.
Problem 2: Too many legitimate users depend on VPNs
VPNs aren’t just for privacy-conscious consumers. They’re how millions of people securely connect to their workplace from home. The NHS (the UK’s National Health Service) uses them for remote access. Journalists use them to protect sources. Researchers use them to access academic resources. Any serious enforcement effort would have to grapple with the risk of collateral damage to businesses and public services.
Problem 3: The ban would be trivially easy to bypass
Even if the government successfully blocked every major commercial VPN app and service, technically skilled users could simply rent a cheap server anywhere in the world and set up their own private tunnel in under ten minutes. There are also tools designed to evade exactly this kind of blocking, disguising encrypted traffic as ordinary web activity.
We know this because Russia has been trying to block VPNs for years, using the full weight of state enforcement behind it. But VPN usage in Russia has surged, not declined. Blocked services pop up under new names and addresses and new tools emerge overnight. This track record suggests that long-term, comprehensive suppression is difficult, even with aggressive powers of enforcement.
What does this actually mean for UK citizens?
The government can probably make consumer VPN use slightly more inconvenient, removing apps from UK app stores, for instance, or creating legal grey areas for certain uses. But a genuine, technical ban on VPN software and encrypted connections is not realistically achievable without causing serious collateral damage to the UK’s digital economy and the millions of people who depend on this technology for entirely legitimate reasons.
Don’t ditch your VPN. The Great Firewall of Great Britain isn’t coming. And if it tried, it would have more holes than a fishing net.
Tenga confirmed reports published by several outlets that the company notified customers of a data breach.
The Japanese manufacturer of adult products appears to have fallen victim to a phishing attack targeting one of its employees. Tenga reportedly wrote in the data breach notification:
“An unauthorized party gained access to the professional email account of one of our employees.”
This unauthorized access exposed the contents of said account’s inbox, potentially including customer names, email addresses, past correspondence, order details, and customer service inquiries.
In its official statement, Tenga said a “limited segment” of US customers who interacted with the company were impacted by the incident. Regarding the scope of the stolen data, it stated:
“The information involved was limited to customer email addresses and related correspondence history. No sensitive personal data, such as Social Security numbers, billing/credit card information, or TENGA/iroha Store passwords were jeopardized in this incident.”
From the wording of Tenga’s online statement, it seems the compromised account was used to send spam emails that included an attachment.
“Attachment Safety: We want to state clearly that there is no risk to your device or data if the suspicious attachment was not opened. The risk was limited to the potential execution of the attachment within the specific ‘spam’ window (February 12, 2026, between 12am and 1am PT).”
We reached out to Tenga about this “suspicious attachment” but have not heard back at the time of writing. We’ll keep you posted.
Tenga proactively contacted potentially affected customers. It advises them to change passwords and remain vigilant about any unusual activity. We would add that affected customers should be on the lookout for sextortion-themed phishing attempts.
What to do if your data was in a breach
If you think you have been affected by a data breach, here are steps you can take to protect yourself:
Check the company’s advice. Every breach is different, so check with the company to find out what’s happened and follow any specific advice it offers.
Change your password. You can make a stolen password useless to thieves by changing it. Choose a strong password that you don’t use for anything else. Better yet, let a password manager choose one for you.
Enable two-factor authentication (2FA). If you can, use a FIDO2-compliant hardware key, laptop, or phone as your second factor. Some forms of 2FA can be phished just as easily as a password, but 2FA that relies on a FIDO2 device can’t be phished.
Watch out for impersonators. The thieves may contact you posing as the breached platform. Check the official website to see if it’s contacting victims and verify the identity of anyone who contacts you using a different communication channel.
Take your time. Phishing attacks often impersonate people or brands you know, and use themes that require urgent attention, such as missed deliveries, account suspensions, and security alerts.
Consider not storing your card details. It’s definitely more convenient to let sites remember your card details, but it increases risk if a retailer suffers a breach.
Researchers found a malicious Microsoft Outlook add-in which was able to steal 4,000 stolen Microsoft account credentials, credit card numbers, and banking security answers.
How is it possible that the Microsoft Office Add-in Store ended listing an add-in that silently loaded a phishing kit inside Outlook’s sidebar?
A developer launched an add-in called AgreeTo, an open-source meeting scheduling tool with a Chrome extension. It was a popular tool, but at some point, it was abandoned by its developer, its backend URL on Vercel expired, and an attacker later claimed that same URL.
That requires some explanation. Office add-ins are essentially XML manifests that tell Outlook to load a specific URL in an iframe. Microsoft reviews and signs the manifest once but does not continuously monitor what that URL serves later.
So, when the outlook-one.vercel.app subdomain became free to claim, a cybercriminal jumped at the opportunity to scoop it up and abuse the powerful ReadWriteItem permissions requested and approved in 2022. These permissions meant the add-in could read and modify a user’s email when loaded. The permissions were appropriate for a meeting scheduler, but they served a different purpose for the criminal.
While Google removed the dead Chrome extension in February 2025, the Outlook add-in stayed listed in Microsoft’s Office Store, still pointing to a Vercel URL that no longer belonged to the original developer.
An attacker registered that Vercel subdomain and deployed a simple four-page phishing kit consisting of fake Microsoft login, password collection, Telegram-based data exfiltration, and a redirect to the real login.microsoftonline.com.
What make this work was simple and effective. When users opened the add-in, they saw what looked like a normal Microsoft sign-in inside Outlook. They entered credentials, which were sent via a JavaScript function to the attacker’s Telegram bot along with IP data, then were bounced to the real Microsoft login so nothing seemed suspicious.
The researchers were able to access the attacker’s poorly secured Telegram-based exfiltration channel and recovered more than 4,000 sets of stolen Microsoft account credentials, plus payment and banking data, indicating the campaign was active and part of a larger multi-brand phishing operation.
“The same attacker operates at least 12 distinct phishing kits, each impersonating a different brand – Canadian ISPs, banks, webmail providers. The stolen data included not just email credentials but credit card numbers, CVVs, PINs, and banking security answers used to intercept Interac e-Transfer payments. This is a professional, multi-brand phishing operation. The Outlook add-in was just one of its distribution channels.”
What to do
If you are or ever have used the AgreeTo add-in after May 2023:
Make sure it’s removed. If not, uninstall the add-in.
Change the password for your Microsoft account.
If that password (or close variants) was reused on other services (email, banking, SaaS, social), change those as well and make each one unique.
Review recent sign‑ins and security activity on your Microsoft account, looking for logins from unknown locations or devices, or unusual times.
Review other sensitive information you may have shared via email.
Scan your mailbox for signs of abuse: messages you did not send, auto‑forwarding rules you did not create, or password‑reset emails for other services you did not request.
Watch payment statements closely for at least the next few months, especially small “test” charges and unexpected e‑transfer or card‑not‑present transactions, and dispute anything suspicious immediately.
We don’t just report on threats—we help safeguard your entire digital identity
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your, and your family’s, personal information by using identity protection.
Discord announced it will put all existing and new profiles in teen-appropriate mode by default in early March.
The teen-appropriate profile mode will remain in place until users prove they are adults. To change a profile to “full access” will require verification by Discord’s age inference model—a new system that runs in the background to help determine whether an account belongs to an adult, without always requiring users to verify their age.
Savannah Badalich, Head of Product Policy at Discord, explained the reasoning:
“Rolling out teen-by-default settings globally builds on Discord’s existing safety architecture, giving teens strong protections while allowing verified adults flexibility. We design our products with teen safety principles at the core and will continue working with safety experts, policymakers, and Discord users to support meaningful, long term wellbeing for teens on the platform.”
Platforms have been facing growing regulatory pressure—particularly in the UK, EU, and parts of the US—to introduce stronger age-verification measures. The announcement also comes as concerns about children’s safety on social media continue to surface. In research we published today, parents highlighted issues such as exposure to inappropriate content, unwanted contact, and safeguards that are easy to bypass. Discord was one of the platforms we researched.
The problem in Discord’s case lies in the age-verification methods it’s made available, which require either a facial scan or a government-issued ID. Discord says that video selfies used for facial age estimation never leave a user’s device, but this method is known not to work reliably for everyone.
Identity documents submitted to Discord’s vendor partners are also deleted quickly—often immediately after age confirmation, according to Discord. But, as we all know, computers are very bad at “forgetting” things and criminals are very good at finding things that were supposed to be gone.
Besides all that, the effectiveness of this kind of measure remains an issue. Minors often find ways around systems—using borrowed IDs, VPNs, or false information—so strict verification can create a sense of safety without fully eliminating risk. In some cases, it may even push activity into less regulated or more opaque spaces.
As someone who isn’t an avid Discord user, I can’t help but wonder why keeping my profile teen-appropriate would be a bad thing. Let us know in the comments what your objections to this scenario would be.
I wouldn’t have to provide identification and what I’d “miss” doesn’t sound terrible at all:
Mature and graphic images would be permanently blocked.
Age-restricted channels and servers would be inaccessible.
DMs from unknown users would be rerouted to a separate inbox.
Friend requests from unknown users would always trigger a warning pop-up.
No speaking on server stages.
Given the amount of backlash this news received, I’m probably missing something—and I don’t mind being corrected. So let’s hear it.
Note: All comments are moderated. Those including links and inappropriate language will be deleted. The rest must be approved by a moderator.
We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media
Fresh off a breathless Super Bowl Sunday, we’re less thrilled to bring you this week’s Weirdo Wednesday. Two stories caught our eye, both involving men who crossed clear lines and invaded women’s privacy online.
Last week, 27-year-old Kyle Svara of Oswego, Illinois admitted to hacking women’s Snapchat accounts across the US. Between May 2020 and February 2021, Svara harvested account security codes from 571 victims, leading to confirmed unauthorized access to at least 59 accounts.
Rather than attempting to break Snapchat’s robust encryption protocols, Svara targeted the account owners themselves with social engineering.
After gathering phone numbers and email addresses, he triggered Snapchat’s legitimate login process, which sent six-digit security codes directly to victims’ devices. Posing as Snapchat support, he then sent more than 4,500 anonymous messages via a VoIP texting service, claiming the codes were needed to “verify” or “secure” the account.
Svara showed particular interest in Snapchat’s My Eyes Only feature—a secondary four-digit PIN meant to protect a user’s most sensitive content. By persuading victims to share both codes, he bypassed two layers of security without touching a single line of code. He walked away with private material, including nude images.
Svara didn’t do this solely for his own kicks. He marketed himself as a hacker-for-hire, advertising on platforms like Reddit and offering access to specific accounts in exchange for money or trades.
Selling his services to others was how he got found out. Although Svara stopped hacking in early 2021, his legal day of reckoning followed the 2024 sentencing of one of his customers: Steve Waithe, a former track and field coach who worked at several high-profile universities including Northeastern. Waithe paid Svara to target student athletes he was supposed to mentor.
Svara also went after women in his home area of Plainfield, Illinois, and as far away as Colby College in Maine.
He now faces charges including identity theft, wire fraud, computer fraud, and making false statements to law enforcement about child sex abuse material. Sentencing is scheduled for May 18.
How to protect your Snapchat account
Never send someone your login details or secret codes, even if you think you know them.
Passkeys let you sign in without a password, but unlike multi-factor authentication, passkeys are cryptographically tied to your device, and can’t be phished or forwarded like one-time codes. Snapchat supports them, and they offer stronger protection than traditional multi-factor authentication, which is increasingly susceptible to smart phishing attacks.
Bad guys with smart glasses
Unfortunately, hacking women’s social media accounts to steal private content isn’t new. But predators will always find a way to use smart tech in nefarious ways. Such is the case with new generations of ‘smart glasses’ powered by AI.
This week, CNN published stories from women who believed they were having private, flirtatious interactions with strangers—only to later discover the men were recording them using camera-equipped smart glasses and posting the footage online.
These clips are often packaged as “rizz” videos—short for “charisma”—where so-called manfluencers film themselves chatting up women in public, without consent, to build followings and sell “coaching” services.
The glasses, sold by companies like Meta, are supposed to be used for recording only with consent, and often display a light to show that they’re recording. In practice, that indicator is easy to hide.
When combined with AI-powered services to identify people, as researchers did in 2024, the possibilities become even more chilling. We’re unaware of any related cases coming to court, but suspect it’s only a matter of time.
We don’t just report on scams—we help detect them
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. If something looks dodgy to you, check if it’s a scam using Malwarebytes Scam Guard, a feature of our mobile protection products. Submit a screenshot, paste suspicious content, or share a text or phone number, and we’ll tell you if it’s a scam or legit. Download Malwarebytes Mobile Security for iOS or Android and try it today!
In January, Google settled a lawsuit that pricked up a few ears: It agreed to pay $68 million to a wide array of people who sued the company together, alleging that Google’s voice-activated smart assistant had secretly recorded their conversations, which were then sent to advertisers to target them with promotions.
Google denied any admission of wrongdoing in the settlement agreement, but the fact stands that one of the largest phone makers in the world decided to forego a trial against some potentially explosive surveillance allegations. It’s a decision that the public has already seen in the past, when Apple agreed to pay $95 million last year to settle similar legal claims against its smart assistant, Siri.
Back-to-back, the stories raise a question that just seems to never go away: Are our phones listening to us?
This week, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we revisit an episode from last year in which we tried to find the answer. In speaking to Electronic Frontier Foundation Staff Technologist Lena Cohen about mobile tracking overall, it becomes clear that, even if our phones aren’t literally listening to our conversations, the devices are stuffed with so many novel forms of surveillance that we need not say something out loud to be predictably targeted with ads for it.
“Companies are collecting so much information about us and in such covert ways that it really feels like they’re listening to us.”
Mountain View, California, pulled the plug on its entire license plate reader camera network this week. It discovered that Flock Safety, which ran the system, had been sharing city data with hundreds of law enforcement agencies, including federal ones, without permission.
Two incidents of unauthorized sharing came to light. The first was a “national lookup” setting that was toggled on for one camera at the intersection of the city’s Charleston and San Antonio roads. Flock allegedly switched it on without telling the city.
That setting could violate California’s 2015 statute SB 34, which bars state and local agencies from sharing license plate reader data with out-of-state or federal entities. The law states:
“A public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.”
The statute defines a public agency as the state, or any city or county within it, covering state and local law enforcement agencies.
Last October, the state Attorney General sued the Californian city of El Cajon for knowingly violating that law by sharing license place data with agencies in more than two dozen states.
However, MVPD said that Flock kept no records from the national lookup period, so nobody can determine what information actually left the system.
Mountain View says it never chose to share, which makes the violation different in kind. For the people whose plates were scanned, the distinction is academic.
A separate “statewide lookup” feature had also been active on 29 of the city’s 30 cameras since the initial installation, running for 17 straight months until Mountain View found and disabled it on January 5. Through that tool, more than 250 agencies that had never signed any data agreement with Mountain View ran an estimated 600,000 searches over a single year, according to local paper the Mountain View Voice, which first uncovered the issue after filing a public records request.
Over the past year, more than two dozen municipalities across the country have ended contracts with Flock, many citing the same worry that data collected for local crime-fighting could be used for federal immigration enforcement. Santa Cruz became the first in California to terminate its contract last month.
Flock’s own CEO reportedly acknowledged last August that the company had been running previously undisclosed pilot programs with Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations.
The cameras will remain offline until the City Council meets on February 24. Canfield says that he still supports license plate reader technology, just not this vendor.
This goes beyond one city’s vendor dispute. If strict internal policies weren’t enough to prevent unauthorized sharing, it raises a harder question: whether policy alone is an adequate safeguard when surveillance systems are operated by third parties.
We don’t just report on data privacy—we help you remove your personal information
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. With Malwarebytes Personal Data Remover, you can scan to find out which sites are exposing your personal information, and then delete that sensitive data from the internet.
Bondu’s AI plush toy exposed a web console that let anyone with a Gmail account read about 50,000 private chats between children and their cuddly toys.
Bondu’s toy is marketed as:
“A soft, cuddly toy powered by AI that can chat, teach, and play with your child.”
“Bondu’s safety and behavior systems were built over 18 months of beta testing with thousands of families. Thanks to rigorous review processes and continuous monitoring, we did not receive a single report of unsafe or inappropriate behavior from Bondu throughout the entire beta period.”
Bondu’s emphasis on successful beta testing is understandable. Remember the AI teddy bear marketed by FoloToy that quickly veered from friendly chat into sexual topics and unsafe household advice?
The researchers were stunned to find the company’s public-facing web console allowed anyone to log in with their Google account. The chat logs between children and their plushies revealed names, birth dates, family details, and intimate conversations. The only conversations not available were those manually deleted by parents or company staff.
Potentially, these chat logs could been a burglar’s or kidnapper’s dream, offering insight into household routines and upcoming events.
Bondu took the console offline within minutes of disclosure, then relaunched it with authentication. The CEO said fixes were completed within hours, they saw “no evidence” of other access, and they brought in a security firm and added monitoring.
In the past, we’ve pointed out that AI-powered stuffed animals may not be a good alternative for screen time. Critics warn that when a toy uses personalized, human‑like dialogue, it risks replacing aspects of the caregiver–child relationship. One Curio founder even described their plushie as a stimulating sidekick so parents, “don’t feel like you have to be sitting them in front of a TV.”
So, whether it’s a foul-mouth, a blabbermouth, or just a feeble replacement for real friends, we don’t encourage using Artificial Intelligence in children’s toys—unless we ever make it to a point where they can be used safely, privately, securely, and even then, sparingly.
How to stay safe
AI-powered toys are coming, like it or not. But being the first or the cutest doesn’t mean they’re safe. The lesson history keeps teaching us is this: oversight, privacy, and a healthy dose of skepticism are the best defenses parents have.
Turn off what you can. If the toy has a removable AI component, consider disabling it when you’re not able to supervise directly.
Read the privacy policy. Yes, I know, all of it. Look for what will be recorded, stored, and potentially shared. Pay particular attention to sensitive data, like voice recordings, video recordings (if the toy has a camera), and location data.
Limit connectivity. Avoid toys that require constant Wi-Fi or cloud interaction if possible.
Monitor conversations. Regularly check in with your kids about what the toy says and supervise play where practical.
Keep personal info private. Teach kids to never share their names, addresses, or family details, even with their plush friend.
Trust your instincts. If a toy seems to cross boundaries or interfere with natural play, don’t be afraid to step in or simply say no.
We don’t just report on privacy—we offer you the option to use it.
Privacy risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep your online privacy yours by using Malwarebytes Privacy VPN.
Most iPhone owners have hopefully learned to manage app permissions by now, including allowing location access. But there’s another layer of location tracking that operates outside these controls. Your cellular carrier has been collecting your location data all along, and until now, there was nothing you could do about it.
Cellular networks track your phone’s location based on the cell towers it connects to, in a process known as triangulation. In cities where towers are densely packed, triangulation is precise enough to track you down to a street address.
This tracking is different from app-based location monitoring, because your phone’s privacy settings have historically been powerless to stop it. Toggle Location Services off entirely, and your carrier still knows where you are.
The new setting reduces the precision of location data shared with carriers. Rather than a street address, carriers would see only the neighborhood where a device is located. It doesn’t affect emergency calls, though, which still transmit precise coordinates to first responders. Apps like Apple’s “Find My” service, which locates your devices, or its navigation services, aren’t affected because they work using the phone’s location sharing feature.
Why is Apple doing this? Apple hasn’t said, but the move comes after years of carriers mishandling location data.
Unfortunately, cellular network operators have played fast and free with this data. In April 2024, the FCC fined Sprint and T-Mobile (which have since merged), along with AT&T and Verizon nearly $200 million combined for illegally sharing this location data. They sold access to customers’ location information to third party aggregators, who then sold it on to third parties without customer consent.
This turned into a privacy horror story for customers. One aggregator, LocationSmart, had a free demo on its website that reportedly allowed anyone to pinpoint the location of most mobile phones in North America.
Limited rollout
The feature only works with devices equipped with Apple’s custom C1 or C1X modems. That means just three devices: the iPhone Air, iPhone 16e, and the cellular iPad Pro with M5 chip. The iPhone 17, which uses Qualcomm silicon, is excluded. Apple can only control what its own modems transmit.
Carrier support is equally narrow. In the US, only Boost Mobile is participating in the feature at launch, while Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile are notable absences from the list given their past record. In Germany, Telekom is on the participant list, while both EE and BT are involved in the UK. In Thailand, AIS and True are on the list. There are no other carriers taking part as of today though.
Android also offers some support
Google also introduced a similar capability with Android 15’s Location Privacy hardware abstraction layer (HAL) last year. It faces the same constraint, though: modem vendors must cooperate, and most have not. Apple and Google don’t get to control the modems in most phones. This kind of privacy protection requires vertical integration that few manufacturers possess and few carriers seem eager to enable.
Most people think controlling app permissions means they’re in control of their location. This feature highlights something many users didn’t know existed: a separate layer of tracking handled by cellular networks, and one that still offers users very limited control.
We don’t just report on phone security—we provide it
In 2026, could any five words be more chilling than “We’re changing our privacy terms?”
The timing could not have been worse for TikTok US when it sent millions of US users a mandatory privacy pop-up on January 22. The message forced users to accept updated terms if they wanted to keep using the app. Buried in that update was language about collecting “citizenship or immigration status.”
Specifically, TikTok said:
“Information You Provide may include sensitive personal information, as defined under applicable state privacy laws, such as information from users under the relevant age threshold, information you disclose in survey responses or in your user content about your racial or ethnic origin, national origin, religious beliefs, mental or physical health diagnosis, sexual life or sexual orientation, status as transgender or nonbinary, citizenship or immigration status, or financial information.”
The internet reacted badly. TikTok users took to social media, with some suggesting that TikTok was building a database of immigration status, and others pledging to delete their accounts. It didn’t help that TikTok’s US operation became a US-owned company on the same day, with Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) criticizing what he sees as a lack of transparency around the deal.
A legal requirement
In this case, things are may be less sinister than you’d think. The language is not new—it first appeared around August 2024. And TikTok is not asking users to provide their immigration status directly.
Instead, the disclosure covers sensitive information that users might voluntarily share in videos, surveys, or interactions with AI features.
The change appears to be driven largely by California’s AB-947, signed in October 2023. The law added immigration status to the state’s definition of sensitive personal information, placing it under stricter protections. Companies are required to disclose how they process sensitive personal information, even if they do not actively seek it out.
Other social media companies, including Meta, do not explicitly mention immigration status in their privacy policies. According to TechCrunch, that difference likely reflects how specific their disclosure language is—not a meaningful difference in what data is actually collected.
One meaningful change in TikTok’s updated policy does concern location tracking. Previous versions stated that TikTok did not collect GPS data from US users. The new policy says it may collect precise location data, depending on user settings. Users can reportedly opt out of this tracking.
Read the whole board, not just one square
So, does this mean TikTok—or any social media company—deserves our trust? That’s a harder question.
There are still red flags. In April, TikTok quietly removed a commitment to notify users before sharing data with law enforcement. According to Forbes, the company has also declined to say whether it shares, or would share, user data with agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
That uncertainty is the real issue. Social media companies are notorious for collecting vast amounts of user data, and for being vague about how it may be used later. Outrage over a particularly explicit disclosure is understandable, but the privacy problem runs much deeper than a single policy update from one company.
People have reason to worry unless platforms explicitly commit to not collecting or inferring sensitive data—and explicitly commit to not sharing it with government agencies. And even then, skepticism is healthy. These companies have a long history of changing policies quietly when it suits them.
We don’t just report on data privacy—we help you remove your personal information
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. With Malwarebytes Personal Data Remover, you can scan to find out which sites are exposing your personal information, and then delete that sensitive data from the internet.
Meta plans to test exclusive features that will be incorporated in paid versions of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. It confirmed these plans to TechCrunch.
But these plans are not to be confused with the ad-free subscription options that Meta introduced for Facebook and Instagram in the EU, the European Economic Area, and Switzerland in late 2023 and framed as a way to comply with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Digital Markets Act requirements.
From November 2023, users in those regions could either keep using the services for free with personalized ads or pay a monthly fee for an ad‑free experience. European rules require Meta to get users’ consent in order to show them targeted ads, so this was an obvious attempt to recoup advertising revenue when users declined to give that consent.
This year, users in the UK were given the same choice: use Meta’s products for free or subscribe to use them without ads. But only grudgingly, judging by the tone in the offer… “As part of laws in your region, you have a choice.”
The ad-free option that has been rolling out coincides with the announcement of Meta’s premium subscriptions.
That ad-free option, however, is not what Meta is talking about now.
The newly announced plans are not about ads, and they are also separate from Meta Verified, which starts at around $15 a month and focuses on creators and businesses, offering a verification badge, better support, and anti‑impersonation protection.
Instead, these new subscriptions are likely to focus on additional features—more control over how users share and connect, and possibly tools such as expanded AI capabilities, unlimited audience lists, seeing who you follow that doesn’t follow you back, or viewing stories without the poster knowing it was you.
These examples are unconfirmed. All we know for sure is that Meta plans to test new paid features to see which ones users are willing to pay for and how much they can charge.
Meta has said these features will focus on productivity, creativity, and expanded AI.
My opinion
Unfortunately, this feels like another refusal to listen.
Most of us aren’t asking for more AI in our feeds. We’re asking for a basic sense of control: control over who sees us, what’s tracked about us, and how our data is used to feed an algorithm designed to keep us scrolling.
Users shouldn’t have to choose between being mined for behavioral data or paying a monthly fee just to be left alone. The message baked into “pay or be profiled” is that privacy is now a luxury good, not a default right. But while regulators keep saying the model is unlawful, the experience on the ground still nudges people toward the path of least resistance: accept the tracking and move on.
Even then, this level of choice is only available to users in Europe.
Why not offer the same option to users in the US? Or will it take stronger US privacy regulation to make that happen?
We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media
Researchers discovered 16 malicious browser extensions for Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge that steal ChatGPT session tokens, giving attackers access to accounts, including conversation history and metadata.
The 16 malicious extensions (15 for Chrome and 1 for Edge) claim to improve and optimize ChatGPT, but instead siphon users’ session tokens to attackers. Together, they have been downloaded around 900 times, a relatively small number compared to other malicious extensions.
Despite benign descriptions and, in some cases, a “featured” badge, the real goal of these extensions is to hijack ChatGPT identities by stealing session authentication tokens and sending them to attacker-controlled backends.
Possession of these tokens gives attackers the same level of access as the user, including conversation history and metadata.
In addition to your ChatGPT session token, the extensions also send extra details about themselves (such as their version and language settings), along with information about how they’re used, and special keys they get from their own online service.
Taken together, this allows the attackers to build a picture of who you are and how you work online. They can use it to keep recognizing you over time, build a profile of your behavior, and maintain access to your ChatGPT-connected services for much longer. This increases the privacy impact and means a single compromised extension can cause broader harm if its servers are abused or breached.
According to the researchers, this campaign coincides with a broader trend:
“The rapid growth in adoption of AI-powered browser extensions, aimed at helping users with their everyday productivity needs. While most of them are completely benign, many of these extensions mimic known brands to gain users’ trust, particularly those designed to enhance interaction with large language models.”
How to stay safe
Although we always advise people to install extensions only from official web stores, this case proves once again that not all extensions available there are safe. That said, installing extensions from outside official web stores carries an even higher risk.
Extensions listed in official stores undergo a review process before being approved. This process, which combines automated and manual checks, assesses the extension’s safety, policy compliance, and overall user experience. The goal is to protect users from scams, malware, and other malicious activity. However, this review process is not foolproof.
Microsoft and Google have been notified about the abuse. However, extensions that are already installed may remain active in Chrome and Edge until users manually remove them.
Malicious extensions
These are the browser extensions you should remove. They are listed by Name — Publisher — Extension ID:
TikTok may have found a way to stay online in the US. The company announced late last week that it has set up a joint venture backed largely by US investors. TikTok announced TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC on Friday in a deal valued at about $14 billion, allowing it to continue operating in the country.
This is the culmination of a long-running fight between TikTok and US authorities. In 2019, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) flagged ByteDance’s 2017 acquisition of Musical.ly as a national security risk, on the basis that state links between the app’s Chinese owner would make put US users’ data at risk.
In his first term, President Trump issued an executive order demanding that ByteDance sell the business or face a ban. That was order was blocked by courts, and President Biden later replaced it with a broader review process in 2021.
In April 2024, Congress passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), which Biden signed into law. That set a January 19, 2025 deadline for ByteDance to divest its business or face a nationwide ban. With no deal finalized, TikTok voluntarily went dark for about 12 hours on January 18, 2025. Trump later issued executive orders extending the deadline, culminating in a September 2025 agreement that led to the joint venture.
Three managing investors each hold 15% of the new business: database giant Oracle (which previously vied to acquire TikTok when ByteDance was first told to divest), technology-focused investment group Silver Lake, and the United Arab Emirates-backed AI (Artificial Intelligence) investment company MGX.
Other investors include the family office of tech entrepreneur Michael Dell, as well as Vastmere Strategic Investments, Alpha Wave Partners, Revolution, Merritt Way, and Via Nova.
Original owner ByteDance retains 19.9% of the business, and according to an internal memo released before the deal was officially announced, 30% of the company will be owned by affiliates of existing ByteDance investors. That’s in spite of the fact that PAFACA mandated a complete severance of TikTok in the US from its Chinese ownership.
A focus on security
The company is eager to promote data security for its users. With that in mind, Oracle takes the role of “trusted security partner” for data protection and compliance auditing under the deal.
Oracle is also expected to store US user data in its cloud environment. The program will reportedly align with security frameworks including the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework. Other TikTok-owned apps such as CapCut and Lemon8 will also fall under the joint venture’s security umbrella.
Canada’s TikTok tension
It’s been a busy month for ByteDance, with other developments north of the border. Last week, Canada’s Federal Court overturned a November 2024 governmental order to shut down TikTok’s Canadian business on national security grounds. The decision gives Industry Minister Mélanie Joly time to review the case.
Why this matters
TikTok’s new US joint venture lowers the risk of direct foreign access to American user data, but it doesn’t erase all of the concerns that put the app in regulators’ crosshairs in the first place. ByteDance still retains an economic stake, the recommendation algorithm remains largely opaque, and oversight depends on audits and enforcement rather than hard technical separation.
In other words, this deal reduces exposure, but it doesn’t make TikTok a risk-free platform. For users, that means the same common-sense rules still apply: be thoughtful about what you share and remember that regulatory approval isn’t the same as total data safety.
We don’t just report on data privacy—we help you remove your personal information
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. With Malwarebytes Personal Data Remover, you can scan to find out which sites are exposing your personal information, and then delete that sensitive data from the internet.
Login
