EFF last summer asked a federal judge to block the federal government from using Medicaid data to identify and deport immigrants.
We also warned about the danger of the Trump administration consolidating all of the government’s information into a single searchable, AI-driven interface with help from Palantir, a company that has a shaky-at-best record on privacy and human rights.
Now we have the first evidence that our concerns have become reality.
“Palantir is working on a tool for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that populates a map with potential deportation targets, brings up a dossier on each person, and provides a “confidence score” on the person’s current address,” 404 Media reports today. “ICE is using it to find locations where lots of people it might detain could be based.”
The tool – dubbed Enhanced Leads Identification & Targeting for Enforcement (ELITE) – receives peoples’ addresses from the Department of Health and Human Services (which includes Medicaid) and other sources, 404 Media reports based on court testimony in Oregon by law enforcement agents, among other sources.
This revelation comes as ICE – which has gone on a surveillance technology shopping spree – floods Minneapolis with agents, violently running roughshod over the civil rights of immigrants and U.S. citizens alike; President Trump has threatened to use the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy military troops against protestors there. Other localities are preparing for the possibility of similar surges.
Different government agencies necessarily collect information to provide essential services or collect taxes, but the danger comes when the government begins pooling that data and using it for reasons unrelated to the purpose it was collected.
This kind of consolidation of government records provides enormous government power that can be abused. Different government agencies necessarily collect information to provide essential services or collect taxes, but the danger comes when the government begins pooling that data and using it for reasons unrelated to the purpose it was collected.
As EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn wrote in a Mercury News op-ed last August, “While couched in the benign language of eliminating government ‘data silos,’ this plan runs roughshod over your privacy and security. It’s a throwback to the rightly mocked ‘Total Information Awareness’ plans of the early 2000s that were, at least publicly, stopped after massive outcry from the public and from key members of Congress. It’s time to cry out again.”
In addition to the amicus brief we co-authored challenging ICE’s grab for Medicaid data, EFF has successfully sued over DOGE agents grabbing personal data from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, filed an amicus brief in a suit challenging ICE’s grab for taxpayer data, and sued the departments of State and Homeland Security to halt a mass surveillance program to monitor constitutionally protected speech by noncitizens lawfully present in the U.S.
But litigation isn’t enough. People need to keep raising concerns via public discourse and Congress should act immediately to put brakes on this runaway train that threatens to crush the privacy and security of each and every person in America.
Researchers found a method to steal data which bypasses Microsoft Copilot’s built-in safety mechanisms.
The attack flow, called Reprompt, abuses how Microsoft Copilot handled URL parameters in order to hijack a user’s existing Copilot Personal session.
Copilot is an AI assistant which connects to a personal account and is integrated into Windows, the Edge browser, and various consumer applications.
The issue was fixed in Microsoft’s January Patch Tuesday update, and there is no evidence of in‑the‑wild exploitation so far. Still, it once again shows how risky it can be to trust AI assistants at this point in time.
Reprompt hides a malicious prompt in the q parameter of an otherwise legitimate Copilot URL. When the page loads, Copilot auto‑executes that prompt, allowing an attacker to run actions in the victim’s authenticated session after just a single click on a phishing link.
In other words, attackers can hide secret instructions inside the web address of a Copilot link, in a place most users never look. Copilot then runs those hidden instructions as if the users had typed them themselves.
Because Copilot accepts prompts via a q URL parameter and executes them automatically, a phishing email can lure a user into clicking a legitimate-looking Copilot link while silently injecting attacker-controlled instructions into a live Copilot session.
What makes Reprompt stand out from other, similar prompt injection attacks is that it requires no user-entered prompts, no installed plugins, and no enabled connectors.
The basis of the Reprompt attack is amazingly simple. Although Copilot enforces safeguards to prevent direct data leaks, these protections only apply to the initial request. The attackers were able to bypass these guardrails by simply instructing Copilot to repeat each action twice.
Working from there, the researchers noted:
“Once the first prompt is executed, the attacker’s server issues follow‑up instructions based on prior responses and forms an ongoing chain of requests. This approach hides the real intent from both the user and client-side monitoring tools, making detection extremely difficult.”
You can stay safe from the Reprompt attack specifically by installing the January 2026 Patch Tuesday updates.
If available, use Microsoft 365 Copilot for work data, as it benefits from Purview auditing, tenant‑level data loss prevention (DLP), and admin restrictions that were not available to Copilot Personal in the research case. DLP rules look for sensitive data such as credit card numbers, ID numbers, health data, and can block, warn, or log when someone tries to send or store it in risky ways (email, OneDrive, Teams, Power Platform connectors, and more).
Don’t click on unsolicited links before verifying with the (trusted) source whether they are safe.
Reportedly, Microsoft is testing a new policy that allows IT administrators to uninstall the AI-powered Copilot digital assistant on managed devices.
Malwarebytes users can disable Copilot for their personal machines under Tools > Privacy, where you can toggle Disable Windows Copilot to on (blue).
In general, be aware that using AI assistants still pose privacy risks. As long as there are ways for assistants to automatically ingest untrusted input—such as URL parameters, page text, metadata, and comments—and merge it into hidden system prompts or instructions without strong separation or filtering, users remain at risk of leaking private information.
So when using any AI assistant that can be driven via links, browser automation, or external content, it is reasonable to assume “Reprompt‑style” issues are at least possible and should be taken into consideration.
We don’t just report on threats—we remove them
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.
Researchers found a method to steal data which bypasses Microsoft Copilot’s built-in safety mechanisms.
The attack flow, called Reprompt, abuses how Microsoft Copilot handled URL parameters in order to hijack a user’s existing Copilot Personal session.
Copilot is an AI assistant which connects to a personal account and is integrated into Windows, the Edge browser, and various consumer applications.
The issue was fixed in Microsoft’s January Patch Tuesday update, and there is no evidence of in‑the‑wild exploitation so far. Still, it once again shows how risky it can be to trust AI assistants at this point in time.
Reprompt hides a malicious prompt in the q parameter of an otherwise legitimate Copilot URL. When the page loads, Copilot auto‑executes that prompt, allowing an attacker to run actions in the victim’s authenticated session after just a single click on a phishing link.
In other words, attackers can hide secret instructions inside the web address of a Copilot link, in a place most users never look. Copilot then runs those hidden instructions as if the users had typed them themselves.
Because Copilot accepts prompts via a q URL parameter and executes them automatically, a phishing email can lure a user into clicking a legitimate-looking Copilot link while silently injecting attacker-controlled instructions into a live Copilot session.
What makes Reprompt stand out from other, similar prompt injection attacks is that it requires no user-entered prompts, no installed plugins, and no enabled connectors.
The basis of the Reprompt attack is amazingly simple. Although Copilot enforces safeguards to prevent direct data leaks, these protections only apply to the initial request. The attackers were able to bypass these guardrails by simply instructing Copilot to repeat each action twice.
Working from there, the researchers noted:
“Once the first prompt is executed, the attacker’s server issues follow‑up instructions based on prior responses and forms an ongoing chain of requests. This approach hides the real intent from both the user and client-side monitoring tools, making detection extremely difficult.”
You can stay safe from the Reprompt attack specifically by installing the January 2026 Patch Tuesday updates.
If available, use Microsoft 365 Copilot for work data, as it benefits from Purview auditing, tenant‑level data loss prevention (DLP), and admin restrictions that were not available to Copilot Personal in the research case. DLP rules look for sensitive data such as credit card numbers, ID numbers, health data, and can block, warn, or log when someone tries to send or store it in risky ways (email, OneDrive, Teams, Power Platform connectors, and more).
Don’t click on unsolicited links before verifying with the (trusted) source whether they are safe.
Reportedly, Microsoft is testing a new policy that allows IT administrators to uninstall the AI-powered Copilot digital assistant on managed devices.
Malwarebytes users can disable Copilot for their personal machines under Tools > Privacy, where you can toggle Disable Windows Copilot to on (blue).
In general, be aware that using AI assistants still pose privacy risks. As long as there are ways for assistants to automatically ingest untrusted input—such as URL parameters, page text, metadata, and comments—and merge it into hidden system prompts or instructions without strong separation or filtering, users remain at risk of leaking private information.
So when using any AI assistant that can be driven via links, browser automation, or external content, it is reasonable to assume “Reprompt‑style” issues are at least possible and should be taken into consideration.
We don’t just report on threats—we remove them
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.
In 2025, cybersecurity researchers discovered several open databases belonging to various AI image-generation tools. This fact alone makes you wonder just how much AI startups care about the privacy and security of their users’ data. But the nature of the content in these databases is far more alarming.
A large number of generated pictures in these databases were images of women in lingerie or fully nude. Some were clearly created from children’s photos, or intended to make adult women appear younger (and undressed). Finally, the most disturbing part: some pornographic images were generated from completely innocent photos of real people — likely taken from social media.
In this post, we’re talking about what sextortion is, and why AI tools mean anyone can become a victim. We detail the contents of these open databases, and give you advice on how to avoid becoming a victim of AI-era sextortion.
Online sexual extortion has become so common it’s earned its own global name: sextortion (a portmanteau of sex and extortion). We’ve already detailed its various types in our post, Fifty shades of sextortion. To recap, this form of blackmail involves threatening to publish intimate images or videos to coerce the victim into taking certain actions, or to extort money from them.
Previously, victims of sextortion were typically adult industry workers, or individuals who’d shared intimate content with an untrustworthy person.
However, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, particularly text-to-image technology, has fundamentally changed the game. Now, literally anyone who’s posted their most innocent photos publicly can become a victim of sextortion. This is because generative AI makes it possible to quickly, easily, and convincingly undress people in any digital image, or add a generated nude body to someone’s head in a matter of seconds.
Of course, this kind of fakery was possible before AI, but it required long hours of meticulous Photoshop work. Now, all you need is to describe the desired result in words.
To make matters worse, many generative AI services don’t bother much with protecting the content they’ve been used to create. As mentioned earlier, last year saw researchers discover at least three publicly accessible databases belonging to these services. This means the generated nudes within them were available not just to the user who’d created them, but to anyone on the internet.
In October 2025, cybersecurity researcher Jeremiah Fowler uncovered an open database containing over a million AI-generated images and videos. According to the researcher, the overwhelming majority of this content was pornographic in nature. The database wasn’t encrypted or password-protected — meaning any internet user could access it.
The database’s name and watermarks on some images led Fowler to believe its source was the U.S.-based company SocialBook, which offers services for influencers and digital marketing services. The company’s website also provides access to tools for generating images and content using AI.
However, further analysis revealed that SocialBook itself wasn’t directly generating this content. Links within the service’s interface led to third-party products — the AI services MagicEdit and DreamPal — which were the tools used to create the images. These tools allowed users to generate pictures from text descriptions, edit uploaded photos, and perform various visual manipulations, including creating explicit content and face-swapping.
The leak was linked to these specific tools, and the database contained the product of their work, including AI-generated and AI-edited images. A portion of the images led the researcher to suspect they’d been uploaded to the AI as references for creating provocative imagery.
Fowler states that roughly 10,000 photos were being added to the database every single day. SocialBook denies any connection to the database. After the researcher informed the company of the leak, several pages on the SocialBook website that had previously mentioned MagicEdit and DreamPal became inaccessible and began returning errors.
Both services — MagicEdit and DreamPal — were initially marketed as tools for interactive, user-driven visual experimentation with images and art characters. Unfortunately, a significant portion of these capabilities were directly linked to creating sexualized content.
For example, MagicEdit offered a tool for AI-powered virtual clothing changes, as well as a set of styles that made images of women more revealing after processing — such as replacing everyday clothes with swimwear or lingerie. Its promotional materials promised to turn an ordinary look into a sexy one in seconds.
DreamPal, for its part, was initially positioned as an AI-powered role-playing chat, and was even more explicit about its adult-oriented positioning. The site offered to create an ideal AI girlfriend, with certain pages directly referencing erotic content. The FAQ also noted that filters for explicit content in chats were disabled so as not to limit users’ most intimate fantasies.
Both services have suspended operations. At the time of writing, the DreamPal website returned an error, while MagicEdit seemed available again. Their apps were removed from both the App Store and Google Play.
Jeremiah Fowler says earlier in 2025, he discovered two more open databases containing AI-generated images. One belonged to the South Korean site GenNomis, and contained 95,000 entries — a substantial portion of which being images of “undressed” people. Among other things, the database included images with child versions of celebrities: American singers Ariana Grande and Beyoncé, and reality TV star Kim Kardashian.
In light of incidents like these, it’s clear that the risks associated with sextortion are no longer confined to private messaging or the exchange of intimate content. In the era of generative AI, even ordinary photos, when posted publicly, can be used to create compromising content.
This problem is especially relevant for women, but men shouldn’t get too comfortable either: the popular blackmail scheme of “I hacked your computer and used the webcam to make videos of you browsing adult sites” could reach a whole new level of persuasion thanks to AI tools for generating photos and videos.
Therefore, protecting your privacy on social media and controlling what data about you is publicly available become key measures for safeguarding both your reputation and peace of mind. To prevent your photos from being used to create questionable AI-generated content, we recommend making all your social media profiles as private as possible — after all, they could be the source of images for AI-generated nudes.
We’ve already published multiple detailed guides on how to reduce your digital footprint online or even remove your data from the internet, how to stop data brokers from compiling dossiers on you, and protect yourself from intimate image abuse.
Additionally, we have a dedicated service, Privacy Checker — perfect for anyone who wants a quick but systematic approach to privacy settings everywhere possible. It compiles step-by-step guides for securing accounts on social media and online services across all major platforms.
And to ensure the safety and privacy of your child’s data, Kaspersky Safe Kids can help: it allows parents to monitor which social media their child spends time on. From there, you can help them adjust privacy settings on their accounts so their posted photos aren’t used to create inappropriate content. Explore our guide to children’s online safety together, and if your child dreams of becoming a popular blogger, discuss our step-by-step cybersecurity guide for wannabe bloggers with them.
Recently, fake LinkedIn profiles have started posting comment replies claiming that a user has “engaged in activities that are not in compliance” with LinkedIn’s policies and that their account has been “temporarily restricted” until they submit an appeal through a specified link in the comment.
The comments come in different shapes and sizes, but here’s one example we found.
The accounts posting the comments all try to look like official LinkedIn bots and use various names. It’s likely they create new accounts when LinkedIn removes them. Either way, multiple accounts similar to the “Linked Very” one above were reported in a short period, suggesting automated creation and posting at scale.
The same pattern is true for the links. The shortened link used in the example above has already been disabled, while others point directly to phishing sites. Scammers often use shortened LinkedIn links to build trust, making targets believe the messages are legitimate. Because LinkedIn can quickly disable these links, attackers likely test different approaches to see which last the longest.
Here’s another example:
Malwarebytes blocks this last link based on the IP address:
If users follow these links, they are taken to a phishing page designed to steal their LinkedIn login details:
A LinkedIn spokesperson confirmed to BleepingComputer they are aware of the situation:
“I can confirm that we are aware of this activity and our teams are working to take action.”
In situations like this awareness is key—and now you know what to watch for. Some additional tips:
Pro tip: The free Malwarebytes Browser Guard extension blocks known malicious websites and scripts.
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!
Recently, fake LinkedIn profiles have started posting comment replies claiming that a user has “engaged in activities that are not in compliance” with LinkedIn’s policies and that their account has been “temporarily restricted” until they submit an appeal through a specified link in the comment.
The comments come in different shapes and sizes, but here’s one example we found.
The accounts posting the comments all try to look like official LinkedIn bots and use various names. It’s likely they create new accounts when LinkedIn removes them. Either way, multiple accounts similar to the “Linked Very” one above were reported in a short period, suggesting automated creation and posting at scale.
The same pattern is true for the links. The shortened link used in the example above has already been disabled, while others point directly to phishing sites. Scammers often use shortened LinkedIn links to build trust, making targets believe the messages are legitimate. Because LinkedIn can quickly disable these links, attackers likely test different approaches to see which last the longest.
Here’s another example:
Malwarebytes blocks this last link based on the IP address:
If users follow these links, they are taken to a phishing page designed to steal their LinkedIn login details:
A LinkedIn spokesperson confirmed to BleepingComputer they are aware of the situation:
“I can confirm that we are aware of this activity and our teams are working to take action.”
In situations like this awareness is key—and now you know what to watch for. Some additional tips:
Pro tip: The free Malwarebytes Browser Guard extension blocks known malicious websites and scripts.
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!
California’s privacy regulator has fined a Texas data broker $45,000 and banned it from selling Californians’ personal information after it sold Alzheimer patients’ data. Texan company Rickenbacher Data LLC, which does business as Datamasters, bought and resold the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of people that suffered from serious health conditions, according to the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA).
The CPPA’s final order against Datamasters says that the company maintained a database containing 435,245 postal addresses for Alzheimer’s patients. But it didn’t stop there. Also up for grabs were records for 2,317,141 blind or visually impaired people, and 133,142 addiction sufferers. It also sold records for 857,449 people with bladder control issues.
Health-related data wasn’t the only category Datamasters trafficked in. The company also sold information tied to ethnicity, including so-called “Hispanic lists” containing more than 20 million names, as well as age-based “senior lists” and indicators of financial vulnerability. For example, it sold records of people holding high-interest mortgages.
And if buyers wanted data on other likely customer characteristics and actions, such as who was likely a liberal vs a right-winger, it could give you that, too, thanks to 3,370 “Consumer Predictor Models” spanning automotive preferences, financial activity, media use, political affiliation, and nonprofit activity.
Datamasters offers outright purchase of records from its national consumer database, which it claims covers 114 million households and 231 million individuals. Customers can also buy subscription-based updates too.
California regulators began investigating Datamasters after discovering the company had failed to register as a data broker in the state, as required under California’s Delete Act. The law has required data brokers to register since January 31, 2025.
The company originally denied that it did business in California or had data on Californians. However, that claim collapsed when regulators found an Excel spreadsheet on the website listing 204,218 California student records.
Datamasters first said it had not screened its national database to remove Californians’ data. After getting a lawyer, it changed its story, asserting that it did in fact filter Californians out of the data set. That didn’t convince the CPPA though.
The regulator acknowledged that Datamasters did try to comply with Californian privacy laws, but that it
“lacked sufficient written policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Delete Act.”
The fine imposed on Datamasters also takes into account that it hadn’t registered on the state’s data broker registry. Data brokers that don’t register are liable for $200 per day in fines, and failing to delete consumer data will incur $200 per consumer per day in fines.
Starting January 1, 2028, data brokers registered in California will also be required to undergo independent third-party compliance audits every three years.
“History teaches us that certain types of lists can be dangerous,”
Michael Macko, the CPPA’s head of enforcement, pointed out.
Research has told us that Alzheimer’s patients are especially vulnerable to financial exploitation. If you think that scammers don’t seek out such lists, think again; criminals were found to have accessed data from at least three data brokers in the past. While there’s no suggestion that Datamasters knowingly sold data to scammers, it seems easy for people to buy data broker lists.
It also doesn’t take a PhD to see why many of these records (which, remember, the company holds about people nationwide) could be especially sensitive in the current US political climate.
There’s a broader privacy issue here, too. While many Americans might assume that the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects their health data, it only applies to healthcare providers. Amazingly, data brokers sit outside its purview.
Your first port of call should be your state’s data protection law. California introduced the Data Request and Opt-out Platform (DROP) system this year under the Delete Act. It’s an opt-out system for California residents to make all data brokers on the registry delete data held about them.
If you don’t live in a state that takes sensitive data seriously, your options are more limited. You could move—maybe to Europe, where privacy protections are considerably stronger.
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.
Grok’s failure to block sexualized images of minors has turned a single “isolated lapse” into a global regulatory stress test for xAI’s ambitions. The response from lawmakers and regulators suggests this will not be solved with a quick apology and a hotfix.
Last week we reported on Grok’s apology after it generated an image of young girls in “sexualized attire.”
The apology followed the introduction of Grok’s paid “Spicy Mode” in August 2025, which was marketed as edgy and less censored. In practice it enabled users to generate sexual deepfake images, including content that may cross into illegal child sexual abuse material (CSAM) under US and other jurisdictions’ laws.
A report from web-monitoring tool CopyLeaks highlighted “thousands” of incidents of Grok being used to create sexually suggestive images of non-consenting celebrities.
This is starting to backfire. Reportedly, three US senators are asking Google and Apple to remove Elon Musk’s Grok and X apps from their app stores, citing the spread of nonconsensual sexualized AI images of women and minors and arguing it violates the companies’ app store rules.
In their joint letter, the senators state:
“In recent days, X users have used the app’s Grok AI tool to generate nonconsensual sexual imagery of real, private citizens at scale. This trend has included Grok modifying images to depict women being sexually abused, humiliated, hurt, and even killed. In some cases, Grok has reportedly created sexualized images of children—the most heinous type of content imaginable.”
The UK government also threatens to take possible action against the platform. Government officials have said they would fully support any action taken by Ofcom, the independent media regulator, against X. Even if that meant UK regulators could block the platform.
Indonesia and Malaysia already blocked Grok after its “digital undressing” function flooded the internet with suggestive and obscene manipulated images of women and minors.
As it turns out, a user prompted Grok to generate its own “apology,” which it did. After backlash over sexualized images of women and minors, Grok/X announced limits on image generation and editing for paying subscribers only, effectively paywalling those capabilities on main X surfaces.
For lawmakers already worried about disinformation, election interference, deepfakes, and abuse imagery, Grok is fast becoming the textbook case for why “move fast and break things” doesn’t mix with AI that can sexualize real people on demand.
Hopefully, the next wave of rules, ranging from EU AI enforcement to platform-specific safety obligations, will treat this incident as the baseline risk that all large-scale visual models must withstand, not as an outlier.
If you ever wondered why parents post images of their children with a smiley across their face, this is the reason.
Don’t make it easy for strangers to copy, reuse, or manipulate your photos.
This incident is yet another compelling reason to reduce your digital footprint. Think carefully before posting photos of yourself, your children, or other sensitive information on public social media accounts.
And treat everything you see online—images, voices, text—as potentially AI-generated unless they can be independently verified. They’re not only used to sway opinions, but also to solicit money, extract personal information, or create abusive material.
We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your social media accounts by using Malwarebytes Identity Theft Protection.
Reportedly, pcTattletale founder Bryan Fleming has pleaded guilty in US federal court to computer hacking, unlawfully selling and advertising spyware, and conspiracy.
This is good news not just because we despise stalkerware like pcTattletale, but because it is only the second US federal stalkerware prosecution in a decade. It could could open the door to further cases against people who develop, sell, or promote similar tools.
In 2021, we reported that “employee and child-monitoring” software vendor pcTattletale had not been very careful about securing the screenshots it secretly captured from victims’ phones. A security researcher testing a trial version discovered that the app uploaded screenshots to an unsecured online database, meaning anyone could view them without authentication, such as a username and password.
In 2024, we revisited the app after researchers found it was once again leaking a database containing victim screenshots. One researcher discovered that pcTattletale’s Application Programming Interface (API) allowed anyone to access the most recent screen capture recorded from any device on which the spyware is installed. Another researcher uncovered a separate vulnerability that granted full access to the app’s backend infrastructure. That access allowed them to deface the website and steal AWS credentials, which turned out to be shared across all devices. As a result, the researcher obtained data about both victims and the customers who were doing the tracking.
This is no longer possible. Not because the developers fixed the problems, but because Amazon locked pcTattletale’s entire AWS infrastructure. Fleming later abandoned the product and deleted the contents of its servers.
However, Homeland Security Investigations had already started investigating pcTattletale in June 2021 and did not stop. A few things made Fleming stand out among other stalkerware operators. While many hide behind overseas shell companies, Fleming appeared to be proud of his work. And while others market their products as parental control or employee monitoring tools, pcTattletale explicitly promoted spying on romantic partners and spouses, using phrases such as “catch a cheater” and “surreptitiously spying on spouses and partners.” This made it clear the software was designed for non-consensual surveillance of adults.
Fleming is expected to be sentenced later this year.
Malwarebytes, as one of the founding members of the Coalition Against Stalkerware, makes it a priority to detect and remove stalkerware-type apps from your device.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that removing stalkerware may alert the person spying on you that the app has been discovered. The Coalition Against Stalkerware outlines additional steps and considerations to help you decide the safest next move.
Because the apps often install under different names and hide themselves from users, they can be difficult to find and remove. That is where Malwarebytes can help you.
To scan your device:
The scan may take a few minutes.
If malware is detected, you can choose one of the following actions:
Malwarebytes detects pcTattleTale as PUP.Optional.PCTattletale.
We don’t just report on threats—we remove them
Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.
How comfortable are you with sharing your medical history with an AI?
I’m certainly not.
OpenAI’s announcement about its new ChatGPT Health program prompted discussions about data privacy and how the company plans to keep the information users submit safe.
ChatGPT Health is a dedicated “health space” inside ChatGPT that lets users connect their medical records and wellness apps so the model can answer health and wellness questions in a more personalized way.
OpenAI promises additional, layered protections designed specifically for health, “to keep health conversations protected and compartmentalized.”
First off, it’s important to understand that this is not a diagnostic or treatment system. It’s framed as a support tool to help understand health information and prepare for care.
But this is the part that raised questions and concerns:
“You can securely connect medical records and wellness apps to ground conversations in your own health information, so responses are more relevant and useful to you.”
In other words, ChatGPT Health lets you link medical records and apps such as Apple Health, MyFitnessPal, and others so the system can explain lab results, track trends (e.g., cholesterol), and help you prepare questions for clinicians or compare insurance options based on your health data.
Given our reservations about the state of AI security in general and chatbots in particular, this is a line that I don’t dare cross. For now, however, I don’t even have the option, since only users with ChatGPT Free, Go, Plus, and Pro plans outside of the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom can sign up for the waitlist.
OpenAI only uses partners and apps in ChatGPT Health that meet OpenAI’s privacy and security requirements, which, by design, shifts a great deal of trust onto ChatGPT Health itself.
Users should realize that health information is very sensitive and as Sara Geoghegan, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center told The Record: by sharing their electronic medical records with ChatGPT Health, users in the US could effectively remove the HIPAA protection from those records, which is a serious consideration for anyone sharing medical data.
She added:
“ChatGPT is only bound by its own disclosures and promises, so without any meaningful limitation on that, like regulation or a law, ChatGPT can change the terms of its service at any time.”
Should you decide to try this new feature out, we would advise you to proceed with caution and take the advice to enable 2FA for ChatGPT to heart. OpenAI claims 230 million users already ask ChatGPT health and wellness questions each week. I’d encourage them to do the same.
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.
The New York City Wegman’s is collecting biometric information about customers.
Disney will pay a $10m settlement over allegations that it violated kids’ privacy rights, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said this week.
The agreement, first proposed in September 2025, resolves a dispute over Disney’s labeling of child-targeted content on YouTube. The thousands of YouTube videos it targets at kids makes it subject to a US law called the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Enacted in 1998, COPPA is designed to protect children under the age of 13 from having their data collected and used online.
That protection matters because children are far less able to understand data collection, advertising, or profiling, and cannot understandingfully consent to it. When COPPA safeguards fail, children may be tracked across videos, served targeted ads, or profiled based on viewing habits, all without parental knowledge or approval.
In 2019, YouTube introduced a policy to help creators comply with COPPA by labeling their content as made for kids (MFK) or not made for kids (NMFK). Content labeled MFK is automatically restricted. For example, it can’t autoplay into related content, appear in the miniplayer, or be added to playlists.
This policy came about after the YouTube’s own painful COPPA-related experience in 2019, when it settled for $170m with the FTC after failing to properly label content directed at children. That still ranks as the biggest ever COPPA settlement by far.
Perhaps the two most important restrictions for videos labeled MFK are these: MFK videos should only autoplay into other kid-appropriate content, preventing (at least in theory) kids from seeing inappropriate content. And advertisers are prohibited from collecting personal data from children watching those videos.
A chastened YouTube warned content creators, including Disney, that they could violate COPPA if they failed to label content correctly. They could do this in two ways: Creators could label entire channels (Disney has about 1,250 of these for its different content brands) or individual videos. So, a channel marked NMFK could still host MFK videos, but those individual videos needed to be labeled correctly.
According to the FTC, Disney’s efforts fell short and plenty of child-targeted videos were incorrectly labeled.
The court complaint stated that Disney applied blanket NMFK labels to entire YouTube channels instead of reviewing videos individually. As a result, some child-targeted videos were incorrectly labeled, allowing data collection and ad targeting that COPPA is meant to prevent. For example, the Pixar channel was labeled NMFK, but showed “very similar” videos from the Pixar Cars channel, which was labeled MFK.
The FTC said YouTube warned Disney in June 2020 that it had reclassified more than 300 of its videos as child-directed across channels including Pixar, Disney Movies, and Walt Disney Animation Studios.
Disney has a history of tussles with child privacy laws. In 2011, its Playdom subsidiary paid $3 million (at that point the largest COPPA penalty ever) for collecting data from more than 1.2 million children across 20 virtual world websites. In 2021, Disney also settled a lawsuit that accused it and others of collecting and selling kids’ information via child-focused mobile apps.
In the current case, the FTC voted 3-0 to refer this current case to the Department of Justice, with Commissioners Ferguson, Holyoak, and Meador citing what they described as,
“Disney’s abuse of parents’ trust.”
Under the settlement, Disney must do more than pay up. It also has to notify parents before collecting personal information from children under 13 and obtain parents’ consent to use it. Disney must also review whether individual videos should be labeled as made for kids. However, the FTC provides a get-out clause: Disney won’t have to do this if YouTube implements age assurance technologies that determine a viewer’s age (or age category).
Age assurance is clearly something the FTC is pursuing, saying:
“This forward-looking provision reflects and anticipates the growing use of age assurance technologies to protect kids online.”
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.
404 Media has the story:
Unlike many of Flock’s cameras, which are designed to capture license plates as people drive by, Flock’s Condor cameras are pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) cameras designed to record and track people, not vehicles. Condor cameras can be set to automatically zoom in on people’s faces as they walk through a parking lot, down a public street, or play on a playground, or they can be controlled manually, according to marketing material on Flock’s website. We watched Condor cameras zoom in on a woman walking her dog on a bike path in suburban Atlanta; a camera followed a man walking through a Macy’s parking lot in Bakersfield; surveil children swinging on a swingset at a playground; and film high-res video of people sitting at a stoplight in traffic. In one case, we were able to watch a man rollerblade down Brookhaven, Georgia’s Peachtree Creek Greenway bike path. The Flock camera zoomed in on him and tracked him as he rolled past. Minutes later, he showed up on another exposed camera livestream further down the bike path. The camera’s resolution was good enough that we were able to see that, when he stopped beneath one of the cameras, he was watching rollerblading videos on his phone.
If 2024 was the year lawmakers talked about online age verification, 2025 was the year they actually flipped the switch.
In 2025, across parts of Europe and the US, age checks for certain websites (especially pornography) turned long‑running child‑protection debates into real‑world access controls. Overnight, users found entire categories of sites locked behind ID checks, platforms geo‑blocking whole countries, and VPN traffic surging as people tried to get around the new walls.
From France’s hardline stance on adult sites to the UK’s Online Safety Act, to a patchwork of new rules across multiple US states, these “show me your ID before you browse” systems are reshaping the web. The stated goal is to “protect the children,” but in practice the outcome is frequently a blunt national block, followed by users voting with their VPN buttons.
The fundamental challenge for websites and services is not checking age in principle, but how to do it without turning everyday browsing into an identity check. Almost every viable method asks users to hand over sensitive data, raising the stakes if (or more likely when) that data leaks in a breach.
For ordinary users, the result is a confusing mess of blocks, prompts, and workarounds. On paper, countries want better protection for minors. In practice, adults discover that entire platforms are unavailable unless they are prepared to disclose personal information or disguise where they connect from. No website wants to be the one blamed after an age‑verification database is compromised, yet regulators continue to push for stronger identity links.
Regulators such as Ofcom publish lists of acceptable age‑verification methods, each with its own privacy and usability trade‑offs. None are perfect, and many shift risk from governments and platforms onto users’ most sensitive personal data.
My personal preference would be double‑blind verification: a third‑party provider verifies your age, then issues a simple token like “18+” to sites without revealing your identity or learning which site you visit, offering stronger privacy than most current approaches.
In almost every case, users must surrender personal information or documents to prove their age, increasing the risk that identity data ends up in the wrong hands. This turns age gates into long‑lived security liabilities rather than temporary access checks.
Right now, most platforms comply by detecting user location via IP address and then either demanding age checks or denying access entirely to users in specific regions. France’s enforcement actions, for example, led several major adult sites to geo-block the entire country in 2025, while the UK’s Online Safety Act coincided with a sharp rise in VPN use rather than widespread cross-border blocking.
European regulators generally focus on domestic ISPs, Digital Services Act reporting, and large platform fines rather than on filtering traffic from other countries, partly because broad traffic blocking raises net‑neutrality and technical complexity concerns. In the US, some state proposals have explicitly targeted VPN circumventions, signalling a willingness to attack the workarounds rather than the underlying incentives.
Meanwhile, network‑level filtering vendors advertise “cross‑border” controls and VPN detection for governments, hinting at future scenarios where unregulated inbound flows or anonymity tools are aggressively throttled. If enforcement pressure grows, these capabilities could evolve from niche offerings into standard state infrastructure.
A common argument is that eroding online anonymity will also curb toxic behavior and abuse on social media, since people act differently when their real‑world identity is at stake. But tying everyday browsing to identity checks risks chilling legitimate speech and exploration long before it delivers any proven civility benefits.
A world where every connection requires ID is unlikely to arrive overnight. Still, the direction of travel is clear: more countries are normalizing age gates that double as identity checks, and more users are learning to route around them. Unless privacy‑preserving systems like robust double‑blind verification become the norm, age‑verification policies intended to protect children may end up undermining both privacy and open access to information.
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.
Login
