The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) has fined Google €403 million ($459 million) for violating European privacy law. The penalty follows a six-year inquiry into Google’s management of user location data between May 2018 and February 2020.

During that time, Google collected users’ location data without making clear that it could be used to infer their interests and shape the ads they saw.

Google’s location history keeps track of users’ locations when using their devices. It’s an opt-in service that includes a Timeline feature to display a private map of the places they’ve visited. A separate Android feature, Location Accuracy, helps devices determine their location more accurately than GPS alone.

Google had told users that they could stop Location History tracking by turning off that setting. But a report by the Associated Press in 2018 found that doing so wasn’t enough to stop Google from saving some of that location data. Researchers at Princeton University later confirmed the AP’s findings.

One reason was Web & App Activity, a separate Google account setting that can save information about what Google account holders have been browsing on the web and doing with their apps. That service was also collecting location data. Turning off Location History did not turn off Web & App Activity.

This issue led to payouts in multiple US jurisdictions. Google agreed to pay $85 million to Arizona in October 2022, $392 million to 40 states that November, and $9.5 million to the District of Columbia the following month. It also agreed to pay $39.9 million to Washington State in 2023, $1.38 billion to Texas in May 2025 as part of a two-suit settlement. Last September, a jury awarded $425 million in a separate class action case.

The DPC first looked into the issue in 2018 after the AP investigation and launched an official statutory inquiry in February 2020. Along with the fine, it has ordered Google to bring its location data processing into compliance within six months. The DPC says it will publish the full text of its decision in due course.

Google told Bloomberg that it had revised its practices since 2019 and launched tools to make location data easier to manage. In December 2023, Google announced that it would change its Timeline feature to keep its data on users’ devices. It also said that, for people turning on Location History for the first time, the default period before data is automatically deleted would fall from 18 months to 3 months.

This isn’t the only Google-related investigation that the DPC has launched. It launched one on Google’s processing of EU residents’ data for its AI model two years ago, and another related to the processing of personal data for its online Ad Exchange in 2019.

Check your Google location settings

Turning off Timeline doesn’t stop Google from saving location information through other settings. Check Web & App Activity and, if you see it, Search Services History too.

You can turn these settings off and delete activity already saved to your account.

---

Browse like no one’s watching. 

Malwarebytes Privacy VPN encrypts your connection and never logs what you do, so the next story you read doesn’t have to feel personal. Try it free → 

Apart from the privacy concerns around smart glasses, researchers have found that some cheap brands come with barely any security at all.

ABC Australia reports that researchers from NSB Cyber and Abstract Shield tested two inexpensive pairs, costing A$60 and A$110 (around US$42 and US$78), and found more than a dozen flaws across the smart glasses themselves, their app, and an associated website.

The main problem they uncovered was insecure Bluetooth pairing: If the glasses were powered on and not connected to their owner’s phone, an attacker could connect first, with no password or meaningful pairing confirmation.

After connecting, an attacker could reportedly control the glasses to capture photos or recordings, copy existing media, and intercept data moving between the glasses and the phone. An attacker could also make another device appear to be the victim’s glasses, allowing it to connect to the owner’s mobile app.

The testing also found that a Bluetooth-visible device identifier could allegedly be used with a weakness in the app’s website to retrieve a user’s email address and date of birth.

The research uncovered another privacy issue. ABC reports that voice or text submitted to the built-in AI, along with images sent to it, was first transmitted to a server in Shenzhen and could be forwarded elsewhere, depending on the function. The tests did not establish how the data was subsequently used.

The server locations, combined with some of the AI’s answers to specific questions, led researchers to conclude that the chatbot companion relied at least in part on Chinese sovereign AI models. Professor Kimberlee Weatherall, a technology regulation expert involved in the testing, said the failure to identify China in the privacy policy appeared to violate the Australian Privacy Principles,

The timing of the testing is also relevant because Australia’s smart-device security standards apply to most consumer smart devices manufactured on or after March 4, 2026. They require, among other measures, no universal default passwords, a way to report vulnerabilities, and information about the minimum security-update period. Devices made before that date are outside the requirements.

Experts quoted by ABC said the devices violated Australia’s privacy laws and were also likely to breach several sections of the Cyber Security Act. However, whether the new smart-device standards apply would depend partly on when the glasses were manufactured, and the rules have not yet been tested in a known enforcement action.

Professor Weatherall said:

“The rules say that the password must be unique. It doesn’t even seem like they were applying a password, which might mean that their standards are so low they don’t even technically breach that rule, which I find amazing.”

What to do

We’re not fans of smart glasses, expensive or cheap. But if you own a pair:

• Avoid pairing or using inexpensive camera glasses that lack a clear physical pairing step, account authentication, a published security-contact process, and a stated update-support period.
• Stop using their AI or cloud features for sensitive material, remove unnecessary permissions from the companion app, check for firmware and app updates, and consider returning the product if the vendor cannot document a fix.
• Ask permission before recording people, and check your local laws to understand what is and isn’t allowed.

---

From reporting threats to removing them.

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

VPN use is growing around the world, with the worldwide average holding steady at 20% growth per year. Users have come to appreciate everything a VPN offers: it encrypts your connection, shields you from relentless ISP tracking (and the targeted ads that often come with it), hides your IP address and location, and lets you keep using your favorite paid services while traveling. This matters most at big public events, like international football tournaments, the Olympics, or concerts by popular performers, where the odds of scammers intercepting an unprotected Wi-Fi connection go up sharply.

That said, VPNs come with their own frustrations. One of the biggest is that many smart devices – including TVs, game consoles, streaming boxes, and smart-home gadgets – can’t run a VPN at all. On top of that, you usually have to set up the VPN separately on every single device in your home. Installing the VPN directly on your home router solves both problems at once: it protects your entire home network, including newly added devices. Here’s a closer look at what benefits that setup gives you.

1. Every device gets VPN protection

Turn on a VPN on your router, and every device connected to your home Wi-Fi automatically sends its traffic through that protected, encrypted connection. There’s nothing extra to do: connect your phone, laptop, or TV to the Wi-Fi, and its traffic is already routed through the VPN.

Many paid VPN services cap the number of devices you can use under a single subscription. But your router only counts as one device on that list, even though it might be protecting a dozen or more gadgets in your home at once.

It’s worth noting that installing a VPN on a router is usually only possible with paid VPN services. Free plans typically don’t offer this option, or only allow it in a very limited way.

2. Set it up and forget it

Setting up a VPN on every phone and computer in the house can get tedious fast. And if your home devices run on a mix of operating systems, you’ve to start by locating the VPN settings on each one, since Android, Windows, iOS, and macOS all handle this differently.

With a router setup, you configure the VPN once, and it automatically covers any new device you connect later too.

3. Protection even for devices that don’t support VPN

Plenty of devices can’t run a VPN at all. That includes smart TVs, streaming boxes, game consoles, and nearly every piece of smart-home tech out there, from baby monitors to robot vacuums. A VPN on your router protects all of them, and you don’t have to tinker with your vacuum cleaner or smart bulb’s settings separately.

4. No need to worry about turning the VPN on and off

Many people want to make sure that not a single byte of their data leaves their device before the VPN kicks in. The problem is that there’s always a short gap between turning on a computer or phone and the VPN firing up, and during that window, data travels over the internet unencrypted.

The usual fixes are to turn on special features – such as Always On VPN or a VPN kill switch – in the operating system or VPN app. A more effective option though is running the VPN on the router itself. That way, “not a byte without the VPN” becomes true automatically for every device on your home network. But for complete peace of mind, you’ll still want to set up a kill switch on the router too, so that if the VPN ever disconnects (say, the VPN server becomes temporarily unavailable), your devices lose their internet connection entirely rather than falling back to an unprotected one.

5. Working remotely with two VPNs at once

Another common headache is needing to run two VPN services at the same time. This usually comes up with remote work: you need a corporate VPN to connect to your company’s network, while also wanting a personal VPN for everything else. On many devices, running two VPN connections at once for different purposes is either a real hassle to configure or not possible at all. Constantly switching between the two isn’t convenient either, and it opens up privacy and security gaps.

A VPN on your router solves this too. You simply turn on the corporate VPN on your work computer, and it runs on top of your Wi-Fi connection, which is already protected by your personal VPN on the router. In effect, you end up with one VPN nested inside the other (corporate VPN → Wi-Fi → VPN → internet), but this layered setup rarely causes any issues.

6. Getting around apps that block VPNs

Some banking and streaming apps can detect when a VPN app is running on your device and simply refuse to work. Usually, they can’t tell what kind of VPN it is or why you’re using it. They just object to any VPN connection being active at all. If the VPN runs on your router instead of on the device itself, this problem disappears.

7. Protecting guests on your home network

Any device belonging to friends or family that connects to your Wi-Fi automatically gets VPN protection too, with no setup required on their end.

8. Less strain on your devices

Since the router handles the encryption workload, your phones, tablets, and other lightweight devices can use less computing power and drain less battery than they would if running a VPN themselves.

9. Simplified VPN management

Need to switch VPN servers, change protocols, or tweak other settings? Just do it once, on the router. There’s no need to reconfigure every device separately.

Precautions and things to keep in mind

For all its advantages, running a VPN on your router does come with a few trade-offs worth knowing about.

• Encrypting traffic for an entire network takes real processing power, so on an underpowered router, your connection speed may end up limited.
• Some routers don’t support VPNs at all, or only work with older, less secure protocols like PPTP.
• If your router was issued by your ISP, you may not have enough permissions to install a VPN on it.

In any of these cases, you can buy a more capable router that supports VPNs, and use it either instead of, or alongside the ISP-issued box, setting up your home network and VPN on your own hardware.

With this setup, your devices connect as follows: device → Wi-Fi or Ethernet → personal VPN on router → internet. For computers that also connect to a corporate VPN, the path looks slightly different: corporate VPN on computer → Wi-Fi or Ethernet → personal VPN on router → internet.

If you can’t connect your own router directly to your ISP’s network because your model lacks the right port (for example, with a fiber connection), you can use an Ethernet cable to plug your personal router’s input into your provider’s box. In that case, you can either switch the ISP-issued router into bridge mode or simply turn off its Wi-Fi so it doesn’t add unnecessary wireless clutter, since its only job now is connecting to the provider’s network and passing that connection along to your own router.

It’s also worth noting that some online services – like banks, government sites, online stores, and streaming platforms – may restrict or block access entirely when they detect a foreign IP address through a VPN. To get around this, you can either turn off Wi-Fi on your phone and use your mobile data instead, or take a more sophisticated approach to your router setup, as described below.

Most modern routers let you create more than one Wi-Fi network, usually supporting at least a separate home and guest network, each with their own settings. You can use this to create two networks: one with the VPN always on, and one without. Then, for services that don’t play well with VPNs, you can simply switch to the unsecured Wi-Fi network instead.

If you’re willing to spend some more time on setup, there’s an even more convenient option, known as split tunneling: individually configuring certain services or websites to bypass the VPN while sending everything else through your secure VPN connection as usual. To do this, you’ll need to specify the addresses of the sites that should skip the VPN.

Many feature-rich routers also let you divide your home devices into groups and set different connection rules for each group. That way, you could set things up so your smart TV reaches streaming services without a VPN, while your smart home devices, computers, and phones only ever connect to the internet through the protected channel.

How to set up a VPN on your router

Setting up a VPN on your router might sound more complicated than installing it on individual devices, but it delivers far more comfort and protection for your whole home network.

To do this, you’ll need a router that supports VPNs, and a subscription to a VPN service that can generate configuration files for routers using modern VPN protocols. Kaspersky VPN supports the two most widely used VPN protocols – OpenVPN and WireGuard – for connecting routers to the service.

You can create a Kaspersky VPN configuration file for your router by following our detailed guide. For instructions specific to your router model, we recommend searching online or asking an AI assistant something like “how to set up a VPN on {your router model}“.

The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) has fined Google €403 million ($459 million) for violating European privacy law. The penalty follows a six-year inquiry into Google’s management of user location data between May 2018 and February 2020.

During that time, Google collected users’ location data without making clear that it could be used to infer their interests and shape the ads they saw.

Google’s location history keeps track of users’ locations when using their devices. It’s an opt-in service that includes a Timeline feature to display a private map of the places they’ve visited. A separate Android feature, Location Accuracy, helps devices determine their location more accurately than GPS alone.

Google had told users that they could stop Location History tracking by turning off that setting. But a report by the Associated Press in 2018 found that doing so wasn’t enough to stop Google from saving some of that location data. Researchers at Princeton University later confirmed the AP’s findings.

One reason was Web & App Activity, a separate Google account setting that can save information about what Google account holders have been browsing on the web and doing with their apps. That service was also collecting location data. Turning off Location History did not turn off Web & App Activity.

This issue led to payouts in multiple US jurisdictions. Google agreed to pay $85 million to Arizona in October 2022, $392 million to 40 states that November, and $9.5 million to the District of Columbia the following month. It also agreed to pay $39.9 million to Washington State in 2023, $1.38 billion to Texas in May 2025 as part of a two-suit settlement. Last September, a jury awarded $425 million in a separate class action case.

The DPC first looked into the issue in 2018 after the AP investigation and launched an official statutory inquiry in February 2020. Along with the fine, it has ordered Google to bring its location data processing into compliance within six months. The DPC says it will publish the full text of its decision in due course.

Google told Bloomberg that it had revised its practices since 2019 and launched tools to make location data easier to manage. In December 2023, Google announced that it would change its Timeline feature to keep its data on users’ devices. It also said that, for people turning on Location History for the first time, the default period before data is automatically deleted would fall from 18 months to 3 months.

This isn’t the only Google-related investigation that the DPC has launched. It launched one on Google’s processing of EU residents’ data for its AI model two years ago, and another related to the processing of personal data for its online Ad Exchange in 2019.

Check your Google location settings

Turning off Timeline doesn’t stop Google from saving location information through other settings. Check Web & App Activity and, if you see it, Search Services History too.

You can turn these settings off and delete activity already saved to your account.

---

Browse like no one’s watching. 

Malwarebytes Privacy VPN encrypts your connection and never logs what you do, so the next story you read doesn’t have to feel personal. Try it free → 

Apart from the privacy concerns around smart glasses, researchers have found that some cheap brands come with barely any security at all.

ABC Australia reports that researchers from NSB Cyber and Abstract Shield tested two inexpensive pairs, costing A$60 and A$110 (around US$42 and US$78), and found more than a dozen flaws across the smart glasses themselves, their app, and an associated website.

The main problem they uncovered was insecure Bluetooth pairing: If the glasses were powered on and not connected to their owner’s phone, an attacker could connect first, with no password or meaningful pairing confirmation.

After connecting, an attacker could reportedly control the glasses to capture photos or recordings, copy existing media, and intercept data moving between the glasses and the phone. An attacker could also make another device appear to be the victim’s glasses, allowing it to connect to the owner’s mobile app.

The testing also found that a Bluetooth-visible device identifier could allegedly be used with a weakness in the app’s website to retrieve a user’s email address and date of birth.

The research uncovered another privacy issue. ABC reports that voice or text submitted to the built-in AI, along with images sent to it, was first transmitted to a server in Shenzhen and could be forwarded elsewhere, depending on the function. The tests did not establish how the data was subsequently used.

The server locations, combined with some of the AI’s answers to specific questions, led researchers to conclude that the chatbot companion relied at least in part on Chinese sovereign AI models. Professor Kimberlee Weatherall, a technology regulation expert involved in the testing, said the failure to identify China in the privacy policy appeared to violate the Australian Privacy Principles,

The timing of the testing is also relevant because Australia’s smart-device security standards apply to most consumer smart devices manufactured on or after March 4, 2026. They require, among other measures, no universal default passwords, a way to report vulnerabilities, and information about the minimum security-update period. Devices made before that date are outside the requirements.

Experts quoted by ABC said the devices violated Australia’s privacy laws and were also likely to breach several sections of the Cyber Security Act. However, whether the new smart-device standards apply would depend partly on when the glasses were manufactured, and the rules have not yet been tested in a known enforcement action.

Professor Weatherall said:

“The rules say that the password must be unique. It doesn’t even seem like they were applying a password, which might mean that their standards are so low they don’t even technically breach that rule, which I find amazing.”

What to do

We’re not fans of smart glasses, expensive or cheap. But if you own a pair:

• Avoid pairing or using inexpensive camera glasses that lack a clear physical pairing step, account authentication, a published security-contact process, and a stated update-support period.
• Stop using their AI or cloud features for sensitive material, remove unnecessary permissions from the companion app, check for firmware and app updates, and consider returning the product if the vendor cannot document a fix.
• Ask permission before recording people, and check your local laws to understand what is and isn’t allowed.

---

From reporting threats to removing them.

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

The consumer data broker Radaris.com has long had a reputation for ignoring requests to remove personal information from its vast empire of people-search services online. That reputation caught up with the company recently in a lawsuit alleging Radaris violated a New Jersey privacy law that provides for hefty fines against data brokers that publish personal information on state law enforcement officials. In the face of repeated stonewalling and prevarication by attorneys for Radaris, the judge in the case ordered that radaris.com and more than a dozen other data broker domains be transferred to the plaintiffs.

In February 2024, Radaris was sued by Atlas Data Privacy Corp, a company that has been pursuing data brokers alleged to be violating a New Jersey statute called Daniel’s Law. The statute allows state law enforcement officials, government personnel, judges and their families to have their information completely removed from commercial data brokers and people-search services, and provides for fines of $1,000 per violation against companies that ignore removal requests.

Less than a month after Atlas sued Radaris, KrebsOnSecurity published a deep dive into the Radaris co-founders — Igor and Dmitry Lubarsky (also spelled Lybarsky) — Russian-born brothers living in Massachusetts who operate a dizzying array of people-search companies as well as a number of Russian language dating services and affiliate programs.

Attorneys for the Lubarsky brothers threatened to sue for defamation if the story wasn’t removed and an apology issued. Their attorney asserted that our reporting was wildly inaccurate, and that the true owners of the company were Ukrainians living in Ukraine.

KrebsOnSecurity doubled down and showed how the Lubarsky brothers built and operated Radaris and other data broker companies using a fictitious CEO’s name. Our follow-up story noted that Radaris’s attorney — a lawyer with the Boston Law Group named Val Gurvits — admitted his clients had invented the CEO pseudonym “Gary Norden,” and that Radaris also had issued multiple press releases over the years that quoted the fake CEO while seeking money from potential investors.

Attorneys for Radaris waited until the last minute to appear in court and contest what was all but certain to be a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and then told the court that Atlas had failed to serve the real owners and operators of Radaris and several of its sister data broker companies.

Atlas re-filed the lawsuit in June 2025, this time dramatically expanding the number of Radaris family data brokers accused of violating Daniel’s Law. Matt Adkisson, president and CEO of Atlas, said Radaris turned to a tried-and-true playbook: Delaying in court until the last possible minute, and playing shell games with Radaris’s true country of origin and the individuals listed as owners and operators of these sites.

“We refer to this period as their island-hopping phase. Privacy policies changed constantly, and new entities kept appearing from places like the Marshall Islands, the British Virgin Islands, and Seychelles,” Adkisson told KrebsOnSecurity. “Behind the scenes, it felt like a shell game. Defense lawyers told the court that certain entities merely operated the domains and were the proper parties to sue. But by the time a judgment neared, those entities would be discarded and new entities would appear. Meanwhile, the lawyers claimed the other entities that actually owned the domains should not be held responsible.”

Adkisson said when the defendants updated their terms of service to state that Radaris was suddenly managed by a company in the Marshall Islands, Atlas hired an investigator in that country and soon learned the brand new entity that Radaris claimed was managing the company didn’t even exist yet.

Mr. Gurvits stepped forward as Radaris’s attorney in a class action lawsuit the company temporarily lost in 2017 because it never contested the claim in court. When the plaintiffs told the judge they couldn’t collect on the $7.5 million default judgment, the court ordered the domain registry Verisign to transfer the radaris.com domain name to the plaintiffs.

Mr. Gurvits appealed that verdict, arguing the lawsuit hadn’t named the actual owners of the Radaris domain name — a Cyprus company called Bitseller Expert Limited — and thus taking the domain away would be a violation of their due process rights.

The judge in the 2017 case ruled in Radaris’ favor — halting the domain transfer — and told the plaintiffs they could refile their complaint. Soon after, the operator of Radaris changed from Bitseller to Andtop Company, an entity formed (PDF) in the Marshall Islands in Oct. 2020. The plaintiffs never re-filed their lawsuit.

“That seemed to be their modus operandi,” said Raj Parikh, a partner at PEM Law in New Jersey who handles most of the Daniel’s Law litigation for Atlas. “In the past, they won by attrition. Plaintiffs’ attorneys tired of the procedural games and just gave up. That strategy worked for a decade, and it probably would have worked in this case too, since any financial recovery from foreign actors will be difficult. But we were acutely aware of the threat this website posed to law enforcement officers and other public officials in New Jersey, and decided early on to commit whatever time and resources were necessary to remove that threat.”

On August 26, the judge in the New Jersey case found the defendants were given multiple chances to appear and defend the claims against them but had failed to do so. Mr. Gurvits declined to comment on the case, saying it had been assigned to another attorney, a Mr. Victor Worms. In response to questions, Mr. Worms asserted the New Jersey court transferred Radaris.com to Atlas as part of a default judgment against Radaris.com, which is not a legal entity.

“We have made a motion to vacate that default judgment on the grounds that it is void since a non-entity has no legal capacity to sue or be sued,” Worms replied. “We also intend to pursue all appropriate appeals because we believe the transfer of Radaris.com amounts to a forfeiture in violation of various constitutional principles.”

While radaris.com still comes up prominently in results when searching online for U.S. residents by name, the domain no longer sells detailed personal dossiers on millions of Americans. Its homepage now displays a notice from Atlas, as well as links to our previous reporting on Radaris.

EMAIL CONFIRMATIONS

Atlas told KrebsOnSecurity that it has obtained more than 10,000 emails and documents in the course of litigation, and that those messages confirm our previous reporting on the owners and operators of Radaris and its myriad companies.

Atlas said the emails clearly establish that the nominal legal vehicles — Radaris America, Inc.; Bitseller Expert Limited; Digital Orbit Corp; Core Solutions Group Inc; Lucky Solutions Inc; Virtura Corp; Veripages Inc.; Nuform Solutions Inc.; Growth Data Advisors Inc.; Property Experts, Inc — are all administered by the same three or four people from the same mailboxes, share one bank or payment card set, and are all managed from one virtual office address.

“The corpus establishes, with documentary evidence generated independently by banks, payment processors, hosting providers, registrars, software-as-a-service vendors and the operators’ own systems, that radaris.com and at least twenty-five other people-search websites are one operation run by a small Boston-area group whose administrative, financial and technical functions sit on the difive.com mail domain and its successors (centerex.com, scienteco.com, eprofit.com, realmo.com, pub360.com),” reads a summary shared by Atlas.

Atlas said the emails show Radaris.com earns approximately $42,000 a month, while Veripages.com earns around $45,000 monthly via its partnership with the Lifetime Value Company, a marketing and advertising firm whose brands include PeopleLooker, PeopleSmart, NumberGuru, and Bumper, a car history site.

According to Atlas, the emails also showed the Radaris family of websites earns as much as $25,000 each month from their partnership with Onerep, a company that claims to help people remove their information from people-search sites. In March 2024, KrebsOnSecurity revealed how the Belarusian founder of Onerep had launched and operated dozens of people-search sites over the years and was continuing to operate one of them (Nuwber), effectively spreading the disease and selling the cure.

All told, the New Jersey court has so far transferred 14 domain names from the Radaris family of companies to Atlas. Radaris.com now redirects to a notice of the court-ordered domain transfer.

THE ROAD AHEAD

The Radaris family of companies is still potentially facing fines of $1,000 per alleged violation of Daniel’s Law. For the time being, however, Daniel’s Law is facing a constitutional challenge from virtually all of the 150 other consumer data broker firms being sued by Atlas.

The data broker industry responded by having at least 70 of the Atlas lawsuits moved to federal court, challenging the New Jersey statute as overly broad and a violation of the First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not yet issued a decision on the constitutional challenge, but either way the case is widely expected to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, at least 14 other states have now passed laws modeled after the New Jersey statute, with more states considering similar measures. However, West Virginia’s Daniel’s Law was ruled facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment by a federal district court in August 2025.

Justin Sherman is a privacy expert and author of the forthcoming book “The Middlemen,” which examines how the data broker industry powers modern surveillance. Sherman said federal lawmakers have long faced intense lobbying by the technology industry against more restrictive U.S. data privacy laws, but that many powerful industries are now working against passing comprehensive data privacy legislation.

“These days at the federal level, add in the intense amount of lobbying against these laws from social media companies, big tech, cryptocurrency firms, and now AI proponents in the mix who claim that limiting their data scraping is somehow going to collapse the whole U.S. economy under Chinese rule,” he said.

Sherman said people-search companies will continue to thrive unless and until Congress enacts meaningful consumer privacy and data protection laws that are relevant to life in the 21st century. That’s because virtually all state privacy laws exempt records that might be considered “public” or “government” documents, including voting registries, property filings, marriage certificates, motor vehicle records, criminal records, court documents, death records, professional licenses, bankruptcy filings, and more.

At least 25 states have passed or implemented laws requiring age verification for residents seeking to access adult content online, but there is no federal law that limits how the companies that are scanning everyone’s drivers license can use, share or keep the data provided. Had such restrictions been enshrined in law, we may have avoided the recent breach at IDScan.net, which exposed the drivers license information on more than 153 million Americans when the records were briefly turned into a point-and-click identity theft service on the dark web.

“The average person can look at Daniel’s Law and have a perfectly normal reaction, which is that everyone should be covered, not just police and judges,” Sherman said. “But we don’t need more wake-up calls. We’ve had eight million wake-up calls already on the need for better privacy laws. The lack of comprehensive federal privacy law is not for a lack of knowledge, and anyone claiming otherwise is either not reading the news or kidding themselves.”

Why LinkedIn is challenging an overbroad government demand—and why Congress must make secrecy the exception

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oral argument in LinkedIn’s (a Microsoft subsidiary) appeal challenging a government demand for user records and a related secrecy order that is preventing LinkedIn from notifying those users that the government is seeking their data. The appeal asks important, constitutional questions about whether service providers may challenge demands that sweep in records unrelated to an investigation, and when the government may prevent a provider from notifying the user of a request.  

This appeal continues Microsoft’s longstanding work to ensure that secrecy orders remain the exception, not the rule. LinkedIn’s appeal asks courts to enforce meaningful limits on both the scope of government demands and the secrecy that can accompany them. 

We recognize law enforcement’s important role in protecting public safety and investigating crime, and sometimes that does need to be done covertly. We respond to lawful legal requests. At the same time, customers and users deserve meaningful limits and independent oversight through an adversarial process. And, customers deserve to be notified when the government seeks their data, unless the government clearly establishes the need for secrecy under statutory and constitutional standards. 

Those safeguards fulfill basic constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment protects the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. That right applies to papers kept in a desk, and it also applies when personal and business records are stored online. Online service providers, like LinkedIn and Microsoft, also have a First Amendment right to speak to their customers when the government obtains an order to search their private information. Secrecy may sometimes be justified—but it should be tailored to demonstrated needs and subject to meaningful review.  

This particular case arose after LinkedIn received a court order seeking user records together with a secrecy order preventing LinkedIn from informing anyone about the order. The details remain under seal, including the nature of the information the government seeks and the people who own that information. But the Fourth Circuit partially unsealed LinkedIn’s opening brief in July, allowing the public to understand some of the core issues. LinkedIn argues that the demand is overbroad, the secrecy order is unconstitutional, and the government has violated LinkedIn’s due process by withholding evidence from LinkedIn. 

Three amicus briefs from a broad coalition support LinkedIn’s position. The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Virginia argue that users’ privacy interests must inform whether a demand is reasonable and that providers may be the only practical means of challenging unlawful process because users often receive no notice. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press warns that overbroad demands, delayed notice, and secret evidence can expose confidential sources and chill newsgathering. Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and X emphasize that cloud providers are uniquely positioned to identify irrelevant requests and that secrecy orders require case-specific evidence rather than boilerplate assertions. Together, these briefs show why cloud providers must be able to test both the scope of government demands and the need for secrecy. 

Microsoft has a long record of standing up for these principles. In 2014, Microsoft successfully challenged a secrecy order connected to a National Security Letter that prevented notice to an enterprise customer. In 2016, we filed a landmark challenge to the widespread use of indefinite secrecy orders. We’ve successfully challenged individual secrecy orders time and again over the years. Our efforts contributed to updated Justice Department policies, but executive-branch practices can change. Durable protections require the development of case law and legislation. 

The U.S. House of Representatives recently took an important step in that direction. On August 31, the House passed legislation to rein in secret surveillance and strengthen notice protections when the government seeks data held by technology providers. As we explained when the bill passed, the reforms would place clearer limits on secrecy orders, require greater accountability, and help ensure that secrecy is the exception – not the rule. The Senate should act promptly to send these historic reforms to the President. 

The House –passed legislation recognizes that privacy and public safety are not opposing values. Clear standards can give investigators the confidentiality they genuinely need while providing courts, providers, and customers with predictable rules. The pending legislation and LinkedIn’s appeal are the latest, complementary chapters in this broader effort. Legislation can establish durable, system-wide rules for notice and accountability. Courts must meanwhile enforce the limits already contained in existing statutes and the Constitution. Neither task requires obstructing legitimate investigations. Rather, both mean the government must seek only relevant information, justify secrecy with specific evidence, and infringe on speech to the least extent possible. 

That is why today’s argument matters beyond a single sealed investigation. People and organizations increasingly entrust their most sensitive information to online services. If providers cannot challenge demands they know are overbroad—or if courts may silence them without a rigorous, adversarial review—the safeguards the law requires will be weakened precisely when they are most needed.

Microsoft and LinkedIn will continue to support lawful investigations while standing up for customer privacy, transparency, and the rule of law. We have appealed to the Fourth Circuit to preserve providers’ ability to challenge overbroad demands and to require the government to meet its constitutional burden before imposing secrecy. And we urge the Senate to complete the work the House began by enacting durable non-disclosure order reform.

Further reading 

• House passes historic reforms to rein in secret surveillance 

• New success in protecting customer rights unsealed today 

• Keeping secrecy the exception, not the rule 

• DOJ acts to curb the overuse of secrecy orders. Now it’s Congress’ turn. 

• DOJ’s newly released recommended practices are a win for cloud and enterprise customers 

• Ensuring secrecy orders are the exception not the rule when the government seeks data owned by our customers 

• The need for legislative reform on secrecy orders 

• Freedom is built on the protection of privacy | Episode 2 

The post Protecting customer privacy means standing up for transparency appeared first on Microsoft On the Issues.

A New Mexico jury has found Facebook liable for deceiving users about privacy protections on the platform.

The post New Mexico Jury Finds Facebook Liable for Deceiving Users About Privacy Protections appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Picture your computer keeping a diary — the kind kids used to keep logging their daily activities, or the kind travelers, merchants, and nobles kept centuries before that. Here’s what it might look like.

Thursday, September 10.

• 8:00 AM. User read the news on cnn.com and bbc.co.uk (Safari).
• 8:10 AM. User replied to John Kaufman’s email about delivery dates, then sent the same question to the logistics team (Gmail).
• 8:20 AM. User checked his to-do list, reviewed recent updates, and planned out the day’s priorities (Todo).

We’re not exaggerating. This is exactly what your Mac’s new diary looks like. It’s a set of text files that any app on your computer can read — as can anyone sitting at the keyboard. The feature responsible is called Computer History, and it was released by OpenAI in mid-August. At the moment, it only works in the ChatGPT app for Mac, requires a Pro subscription or higher, and is disabled by default. According to its developers, the idea behind History is to let the AI assistant quickly get up to speed on your work context, so it can answer even vague requests, like “send a reminder to whoever I was emailing about last week’s deliveries”. Of course, that convenience comes at a price, ranging from your data being processed on OpenAI’s servers, to the risk of it leaking off your Mac — whether to a nosy family member or straight into the hands of cybercriminals.

How ChatGPT Computer History works

If this sounds a lot like Microsoft’s similar Recall feature, or Chronicle, which OpenAI itself announced earlier, that’s no coincidence. Both were built with the same goal in mind, just using different methods. Having watched Recall turn into the PR disaster it was, the team behind Computer History decided against constantly taking and analyzing screenshots. Instead, ChatGPT relies on macOS’s Accessibility features to read the text on your screen and track your actions: mouse clicks, text typed into fields, switching between apps, and the like. All of this gets stored as a stream of raw activity data inside the ChatGPT container (app group), which only the ChatGPT app itself, or other apps you’ve specifically given permission, can access. In tests run by digital forensics researchers, just two hours of normal computer use generated around 3500 of these logged events.

That raw data remains on your computer for up to 48 hours. During this time, the ChatGPT app periodically runs hidden chat sessions behind the scenes, where it asks the AI to summarize related events into a single recap. Essentially diary entries, these summaries get saved as plain text files in a folder that any app on your Mac can open: ~/.codex/memories/extensions/skysight/.

When you chat with the assistant, or when certain automated features kick in, these notes can be pulled into the conversation for more context-aware responses. OpenAI is especially keen on pointing out that the assistant can spot patterns in your workflows and offer to automate them, creating what it calls “skills” that replicate your actions for you.

Once a summary is ready, the raw activity data behind it is deleted. OpenAI says it won’t keep those hidden background chats or use them to train its AI, except where required by law. The diary-style summaries that get pulled into your conversations, though, are stored on OpenAI’s servers under the exact same rules as your regular chats and the assistant’s memory, so your preexisting privacy settings will apply to them too.

What Computer History can see, and what you can turn off

Since the whole feature runs on accessibility tools, ChatGPT only picks up what your operating system is already willing to share with those tools. That includes window titles, blocks of text, image captions in your browser, text you’re typing into a field as you type it, and the names of interface elements you click on. Watching a video? The AI can’t see the video itself, but it can read the window title, the site name, and the video description. Browsing photos? It sees file and folder names, not the actual images. Audio is never recorded or saved in any situation. All that gets logged from a video call is the meeting window title, unless the call itself has live captions turned on. Password fields that are masked (shown as dots) aren’t read at all and, according to OpenAI, private browsing windows are never scanned.

One thing that sets this apart from Microsoft Recall is the clearly spelled out step-by-step procedure the user needs to go through to turn it on. Computer History never activates itself. You have to navigate to the settings menu, then Integrations → Computer History and turn it on manually after reading through the warnings and explanations. You’ll also need access to the agent’s memory enabled for the feature to work. From there, you choose which apps and websites you want it to track, and confirm a series of macOS permission prompts.

For companies using a business subscription, this requires approval at two levels: an administrator first has to enable Computer History for the whole organization, and then each employee has to turn it on individually.

At any point, you can go to Computer History → Permissions and either list specific apps and sites to exclude from tracking, or, conversely, set ChatGPT to only watch a limited list you choose (Include only these apps, Include only these websites).

To see what your own computer’s diary looks like, check Computer History → History. From there, you can delete individual entries or disable the tracking of specific apps directly from the list.

The risks of using ChatGPT Computer History

We covered the risks of centralized storage of someone’s entire activity in our earlier piece on Microsoft Recall, and most of what we said there applies to ChatGPT Computer History.

• You might assume your chats and emails are private, protected by passwords and encryption. But a copy of the most important parts of those conversations is sitting in plain text files that anyone with access to your computer, and plenty of other apps, can open.
• The people you’re messaging have no idea this extra copy exists. If they’ve turned on, say, a self-destructing chat feature, but the messaging app’s window itself isn’t marked as private, that precaution does nothing to protect them.
• Even if you trust OpenAI completely and take its privacy promises at face value, your data can still be stolen directly off your computer by an infostealer. Mac-targeting infostealers have exploded over the past two years, so this isn’t a hypothetical risk. And the people who write this type of malware move fast, quickly updating it to grab whatever new type of data looks promising. OpenAI’s files are a boon for them: everything you’ve done, already summarized by AI into something easy to read. While there are no passwords or credit card numbers in there, the available details are likely enough to craft a convincing targeted urgent email from the boss.
• And if a nosy coworker or family member gets their hands on your computer, reading through the diary of your work and life would take them all of five minutes.

Computer History: turn it off, or just configure it?

We’d recommend limiting or fully disabling Computer History if your work involves sensitive information. This especially applies to doctors, lawyers, and anyone else bound by professional confidentiality, or handling personal or medical data. The same goes for anyone living with an overly controlling family member, or working in an office with nosy coworkers.

If none of that applies to you and you’d like to try out how useful the AI’s search and auto-generated skills actually are, here’s how to set things up safely.

• Lock down your Mac’s login. Turn off auto-login, and set your Mac to require a password immediately after the screensaver kicks in or it wakes from sleep. Use a strong password along with Touch ID, and make sure FileVault disk encryption is turned on.
• Set up your exclusions. Manually add every messaging app you use for private conversations, along with any finance apps or sites, and anywhere else you keep sensitive information, to Computer History’s exclusion list.
• Check in regularly. At least a couple of times a week, visit Computer History settings to see which apps and sites it’s been tracking. This helps you catch and remove any sources of private information you forgot to exclude earlier.

No matter how you configure Computer History, the two most common ways your data could end up in the wrong hands — on any Mac — are a macOS infostealer snatching it directly from your computer, and typing your information into a fake website. To guard against both, make sure you’re running full-featured security software on your Mac, such as Kaspersky Premium for macOS.

AI can create privacy risks you might never think to look for. You can read about more of them in our other posts:

• Attacks on Gemini: the possibilities are endless
• Why AI agents need an iron curtain
• Knives, kinks, and shooters: what AI toys are really saying to kids
• AI and the new reality of sextortion

And if you’d like to know how to turn off AI features that activate on your computer or smartphone without your knowledge, check out our guide, Unplugged: how to disable AI on your computer and smartphone.

Flock Safety’s cameras are automated license plate readers (ALPRs) designed to help police find stolen cars or wanted suspects.

A joint investigation by 404 Media and WIRED, based on data recovered from a physically removed Flock camera, found that its on-device software explicitly detects people as well as vehicles, bicycles, and license plates.

Separately, Washington DC’s police union says the Metropolitan Police Department used Flock data to track officers under Internal Affairs investigation without their knowledge.

Together, these reports illustrate a privacy problem: A network built to record the movements of vehicles can readily be used to follow almost anyone.

The latest reporting adds an important technical detail to that debate.

What Flock cameras collect

A group of hackers reportedly removed a Flock camera from a roadway, copied its storage, and recovered an encryption key stored on the device. That allowed them to unlock videos of thousands of vehicle detections despite Flock’s claim that its devices are protected by on-device encryption. Flock said it could not assess the claims without more detail.

The recovered camera files reportedly contained software models that detect people, even though public discussion of Flock has usually focused on cars and license plates. The researchers found no evidence that face-recognition features were actively used. Reassuring, but it should not be mistaken for a clean privacy bill of health.

Even without facial recognition, a system that records repeated sightings can potentially reveal sensitive patterns of movement, including where someone lives, works, worships, seeks healthcare, attends protests, visits family, or spends time with other people. When a person is matched to a vehicle, vehicle-based tracking can become person-based tracking in practice.

As an example of how widely the data can be shared, WIRED found that records from the city of Alpharetta, Georgia:

“were accessible to more than 2,000 agencies, including police departments, colleges, airports, and, inexplicably, the Office of Inspector General for the federal General Services Administration.”

Targeted tracking of people

The Washington DC dispute shows what happens when the power to follow people is turned inward.

The DC Police Union says it learned in July that MPD’s Internal Affairs investigators had used Flock license-plate-reader data to track sworn officers under investigation without their knowledge. The union filed a complaint and asked the department to stop, arguing that MPD lacked adequate controls for a system with such extensive surveillance capabilities.

MPD defended the use, saying its position is that the use of license-plate-reader data in the misconduct investigation was appropriate. It said the labor dispute is headed to arbitration.

If police officers themselves are concerned that the system can be used to monitor them without transparent rules, the public should ask an obvious follow-up question: What prevents the same tools from being used to follow residents, employees, journalists, activists, former partners, or other people with no meaningful ability to challenge the search?

Even when Flock wants privacy to meet surveillance halfway, its measures do not eliminate the underlying civil-liberties issue.

The recovered camera software and the DC dispute make the same point from different directions. Flock’s network is not merely a collection of roadside plate readers. It is a distributed system for recording movement, identifying patterns, and making those records available for search.

Meaningful safeguards should include:

• Public approval before cameras are deployed, with clear maps showing their locations and stated purposes.
• Strict limits on collection, retention, searches, and cross-jurisdictional sharing.
• A requirement for documented investigative justification before a search, with elevated approval for sensitive investigations.
• Independently reviewable audit logs, regular public transparency reports, and meaningful penalties for misuse.
• Clear bans on searches related to protected activity, immigration enforcement where local law forbids cooperation, abortion-related investigations, political surveillance, and personal purposes.
• Independent security assessments covering the cameras, cloud services, identity controls, key management, and third-party integrations.
• Automatic deletion that cannot be overridden merely because data could someday be useful.

Privacy cannot depend on authorized users always following rules, vendors configuring every setting correctly, or abuses being discovered the hard way. The first safeguard should be limiting the system’s ability to build a searchable record of ordinary people’s lives at all.

---

Browse like no one’s watching. 

Malwarebytes Privacy VPN encrypts your connection and never logs what you do, so the next story you read doesn’t have to feel personal. Try it free → 

Flock Safety’s cameras are automated license plate readers (ALPRs) designed to help police find stolen cars or wanted suspects.

A joint investigation by 404 Media and WIRED, based on data recovered from a physically removed Flock camera, found that its on-device software explicitly detects people as well as vehicles, bicycles, and license plates.

Separately, Washington DC’s police union says the Metropolitan Police Department used Flock data to track officers under Internal Affairs investigation without their knowledge.

Together, these reports illustrate a privacy problem: A network built to record the movements of vehicles can readily be used to follow almost anyone.

The latest reporting adds an important technical detail to that debate.

What Flock cameras collect

A group of hackers reportedly removed a Flock camera from a roadway, copied its storage, and recovered an encryption key stored on the device. That allowed them to unlock videos of thousands of vehicle detections despite Flock’s claim that its devices are protected by on-device encryption. Flock said it could not assess the claims without more detail.

The recovered camera files reportedly contained software models that detect people, even though public discussion of Flock has usually focused on cars and license plates. The researchers found no evidence that face-recognition features were actively used. Reassuring, but it should not be mistaken for a clean privacy bill of health.

Even without facial recognition, a system that records repeated sightings can potentially reveal sensitive patterns of movement, including where someone lives, works, worships, seeks healthcare, attends protests, visits family, or spends time with other people. When a person is matched to a vehicle, vehicle-based tracking can become person-based tracking in practice.

As an example of how widely the data can be shared, WIRED found that records from the city of Alpharetta, Georgia:

“were accessible to more than 2,000 agencies, including police departments, colleges, airports, and, inexplicably, the Office of Inspector General for the federal General Services Administration.”

Targeted tracking of people

The Washington DC dispute shows what happens when the power to follow people is turned inward.

The DC Police Union says it learned in July that MPD’s Internal Affairs investigators had used Flock license-plate-reader data to track sworn officers under investigation without their knowledge. The union filed a complaint and asked the department to stop, arguing that MPD lacked adequate controls for a system with such extensive surveillance capabilities.

MPD defended the use, saying its position is that the use of license-plate-reader data in the misconduct investigation was appropriate. It said the labor dispute is headed to arbitration.

If police officers themselves are concerned that the system can be used to monitor them without transparent rules, the public should ask an obvious follow-up question: What prevents the same tools from being used to follow residents, employees, journalists, activists, former partners, or other people with no meaningful ability to challenge the search?

Even when Flock wants privacy to meet surveillance halfway, its measures do not eliminate the underlying civil-liberties issue.

The recovered camera software and the DC dispute make the same point from different directions. Flock’s network is not merely a collection of roadside plate readers. It is a distributed system for recording movement, identifying patterns, and making those records available for search.

Meaningful safeguards should include:

• Public approval before cameras are deployed, with clear maps showing their locations and stated purposes.
• Strict limits on collection, retention, searches, and cross-jurisdictional sharing.
• A requirement for documented investigative justification before a search, with elevated approval for sensitive investigations.
• Independently reviewable audit logs, regular public transparency reports, and meaningful penalties for misuse.
• Clear bans on searches related to protected activity, immigration enforcement where local law forbids cooperation, abortion-related investigations, political surveillance, and personal purposes.
• Independent security assessments covering the cameras, cloud services, identity controls, key management, and third-party integrations.
• Automatic deletion that cannot be overridden merely because data could someday be useful.

Privacy cannot depend on authorized users always following rules, vendors configuring every setting correctly, or abuses being discovered the hard way. The first safeguard should be limiting the system’s ability to build a searchable record of ordinary people’s lives at all.

---

Browse like no one’s watching. 

Malwarebytes Privacy VPN encrypts your connection and never logs what you do, so the next story you read doesn’t have to feel personal. Try it free → 

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has seized the domains of 12 deepfake websites in what it called the largest known seizure of celebrity deepfake sites in history.

The sites, which marketed themselves as deepfake pornography platforms, hosted AI-generated videos of over 1,200 people, including those in the public eye, ranging from politicians to actors, musicians, and social justice advocates. At least one allowed users to create their own deepfakes by grafting real faces and bodies onto sexual imagery.

The term non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) is increasingly used instead of pornography when the person depicted has not given permission. Deepfake NCII is growing, due in part to the ease with which it can be created. It only takes one photo to generate it, as we discussed on the Lock and Code podcast in June.

MrDeepFakes was previously the largest site for this kind of content. Its operators shut it down in May 2025, citing data loss. An Australian man who posted explicit deepfakes to the site was arrested, fined for contempt of court, and charged with publishing obscene material.

But other deepfake NCII sites continue to compete for attention online.

Deepfake technology can cause real harm when misused, and its effects continue to spread. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg warned that domestic abusers are threatening to release deepfake NCII depicting their victims. The FBI has also warned that sextortion attackers are using AI to turn social media photos of minors into sexually explicit images.

Legal action is growing

Law enforcement has been working hard to stem the flood of deepfake NCII sites. In June, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security seized two domains hosting hundreds of thousands of forged images and videos. San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu’s office also sued 16 deepfake sites in August 2024, managing to get ten of them taken offline or made inaccessible in California. New York state also passed legislation prohibiting the distribution of intimate deepfake images and videos in 2023.

At the federal level, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, enacted in May 2025, made certain intentional publication of NCII, including sexual deepfakes, a federal crime.

Seizing a deepfake site stops the immediate distribution of its content, but operators can migrate quickly to other infrastructure. A report from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) found that the deepfake ecosystem is made of many parts, from AI tool providers through to hosting companies and cryptocurrency payment processors. It called for a multi-sector collaboration to stop the production and spread of this material.

Bragg’s office said it will continue monitoring the seized websites to stop them reappearing under different domains.

What can you do?

If someone creates or threatens to share intimate deepfakes of you, save the evidence and report it to the police. Do not pay someone who threatens to publish the images, as payment does not guarantee that the threats will stop.

Bragg’s office said many of the victims it approached did not realize that action could be taken. It urged anyone affected by the seized websites to contact its Cyber Crime Bureau at 212-335-9600.

You can learn more in the Malwarebytes guide to deepfakes. UN Women also provides useful resources for people affected by AI-powered abuse.

---

Scammers don’t need to hack you. They just need you to click once. 

Malwarebytes Identity Theft Protection catches suspicious activity before it becomes a problem.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has seized the domains of 12 deepfake websites in what it called the largest known seizure of celebrity deepfake sites in history.

The sites, which marketed themselves as deepfake pornography platforms, hosted AI-generated videos of over 1,200 people, including those in the public eye, ranging from politicians to actors, musicians, and social justice advocates. At least one allowed users to create their own deepfakes by grafting real faces and bodies onto sexual imagery.

The term non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) is increasingly used instead of pornography when the person depicted has not given permission. Deepfake NCII is growing, due in part to the ease with which it can be created. It only takes one photo to generate it, as we discussed on the Lock and Code podcast in June.

MrDeepFakes was previously the largest site for this kind of content. Its operators shut it down in May 2025, citing data loss. An Australian man who posted explicit deepfakes to the site was arrested, fined for contempt of court, and charged with publishing obscene material.

But other deepfake NCII sites continue to compete for attention online.

Deepfake technology can cause real harm when misused, and its effects continue to spread. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg warned that domestic abusers are threatening to release deepfake NCII depicting their victims. The FBI has also warned that sextortion attackers are using AI to turn social media photos of minors into sexually explicit images.

Legal action is growing

Law enforcement has been working hard to stem the flood of deepfake NCII sites. In June, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security seized two domains hosting hundreds of thousands of forged images and videos. San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu’s office also sued 16 deepfake sites in August 2024, managing to get ten of them taken offline or made inaccessible in California. New York state also passed legislation prohibiting the distribution of intimate deepfake images and videos in 2023.

At the federal level, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, enacted in May 2025, made certain intentional publication of NCII, including sexual deepfakes, a federal crime.

Seizing a deepfake site stops the immediate distribution of its content, but operators can migrate quickly to other infrastructure. A report from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) found that the deepfake ecosystem is made of many parts, from AI tool providers through to hosting companies and cryptocurrency payment processors. It called for a multi-sector collaboration to stop the production and spread of this material.

Bragg’s office said it will continue monitoring the seized websites to stop them reappearing under different domains.

What can you do?

If someone creates or threatens to share intimate deepfakes of you, save the evidence and report it to the police. Do not pay someone who threatens to publish the images, as payment does not guarantee that the threats will stop.

Bragg’s office said many of the victims it approached did not realize that action could be taken. It urged anyone affected by the seized websites to contact its Cyber Crime Bureau at 212-335-9600.

You can learn more in the Malwarebytes guide to deepfakes. UN Women also provides useful resources for people affected by AI-powered abuse.

---

Scammers don’t need to hack you. They just need you to click once. 

Malwarebytes Identity Theft Protection catches suspicious activity before it becomes a problem.

If you’re still OK with posting pictures of your kids on social media, take a minute to hear from mother of two Kalie Robins. At the start of September, she did something that hundreds of thousands of parents do every day. She posted a video of her young daughter on Facebook.

Under the video of Robins and her daughter singing in a car, Facebook’s Meta AI system displayed a suggested question: “Who is the child passenger?”

Robins was shocked that Facebook would ask this question about a minor, so curiosity prompted her to click it. That’s when a flood of automated stalker-type behavior began.

In Instagram post, an enraged Robins described what happened:

“It starts pulling completely separate information for each of my kids.”

That included names, birth dates, and videos of them.

The site also pulled up a picture of her newborn daughter that Robins’ mother had posted on Facebook years ago, along with a long-deleted picture that Robins said had once been in her own account.

Things got weirder. The site then presented another question: “Where does Kalie Robins live?”

An increasingly outraged Robins clicked that question. She described the results:

“[Facebook] started digging through completely unrelated sh*t from years of my life.”

It dug through old posts that hinted at where she had lived in the past and newer posts that connected her to her current home. It finished by attempting to pinpoint her location.

Robins complained:

“I didn’t ask Facebook to build a profile of my family.”

She expressed shock that Facebook would piece together snippets of personal information from historical posts and package them into a detailed profile for other users.

You can watch Kalie Robins’ Instagram video here:

.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col{display:flex;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f{max-width:558px;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;}.wp-block-kadence-column.kb-section-dir-horizontal:not(.kb-section-md-dir-vertical)>.kt-inside-inner-col>.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f{-webkit-flex:0 1 558px;flex:0 1 558px;max-width:unset;margin-left:unset;margin-right:unset;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(--global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;align-items:center;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col > .kb-image-is-ratio-size{align-self:stretch;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col > .wp-block-kadence-advancedgallery{align-self:stretch;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f{position:relative;}@media all and (min-width: 1025px){.wp-block-kadence-column.kb-section-dir-horizontal>.kt-inside-inner-col>.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f{-webkit-flex:0 1 558px;flex:0 1 558px;max-width:unset;margin-left:unset;margin-right:unset;}}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;justify-content:center;align-items:center;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.wp-block-kadence-column.kb-section-sm-dir-vertical:not(.kb-section-sm-dir-horizontal):not(.kb-section-sm-dir-specificity)>.kt-inside-inner-col>.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f{max-width:558px;-webkit-flex:1;flex:1;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;justify-content:center;align-items:center;}}

Meta’s response

Meta launched Meta AI in April 2024 and has since built it into Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger. It operates across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The assistant can answer questions, generate images, and help users create or retrieve information.

Meta admitted in a statement to the Verge:

“The feature never should have prompted the individual with questions like that.”

The company said the feature had “missed the mark” and that it had fixed the issue that caused Meta AI to suggest questions about personal topics.

In a classic “yes, but” non-apology, a Meta spokesperson also pointed out that the AI only surfaced information drawn from posts the person asking could already access. Although that doesn’t seem to explain why it reportedly surfaced a photo she had deleted years ago.

A pattern of Meta AI failures

Meta AI hasn’t always respected privacy. In June last year, we reported that users were publicly sharing conversations, often without realizing it. A separate bug we reported the following month could have allowed people to view other users’ private Meta AI chats by simply guessing their IDs. Late last year, Meta also started targeting people with ads based on their Meta AI conversations.

What can users do?

Parents get understandably irate when they discover just how much sites like Facebook can learn about their kids. While Robins regularly posted pictures and videos of her children, she had no idea that the service could aggregate information from years of posts to profile them. She’s not alone.

So what can people do about it? Perhaps the better question is: What should people not do? The clearest answer is not to post identifiable pictures of your kids (or other people’s) on social media. Not just to stop them being tracked in a privacy hellscape, but also to reduce the risk of even darker outcomes.

Robins described what she planned to do next:

“I’m done. I’m removing any identifiable pictures and videos of our kids.”

She added that she’ll ask her friends to do the same because, if they don’t, Facebook would still be able to harvest her children’s pictures from their accounts and use them in the profiles it builds.

---

From reporting threats to removing them.

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.

If you’re still OK with posting pictures of your kids on social media, take a minute to hear from mother of two Kalie Robins. At the start of September, she did something that hundreds of thousands of parents do every day. She posted a video of her young daughter on Facebook.

Under the video of Robins and her daughter singing in a car, Facebook’s Meta AI system displayed a suggested question: “Who is the child passenger?”

Robins was shocked that Facebook would ask this question about a minor, so curiosity prompted her to click it. That’s when a flood of automated stalker-type behavior began.

In Instagram post, an enraged Robins described what happened:

“It starts pulling completely separate information for each of my kids.”

That included names, birth dates, and videos of them.

The site also pulled up a picture of her newborn daughter that Robins’ mother had posted on Facebook years ago, along with a long-deleted picture that Robins said had once been in her own account.

Things got weirder. The site then presented another question: “Where does Kalie Robins live?”

An increasingly outraged Robins clicked that question. She described the results:

“[Facebook] started digging through completely unrelated sh*t from years of my life.”

It dug through old posts that hinted at where she had lived in the past and newer posts that connected her to her current home. It finished by attempting to pinpoint her location.

Robins complained:

“I didn’t ask Facebook to build a profile of my family.”

She expressed shock that Facebook would piece together snippets of personal information from historical posts and package them into a detailed profile for other users.

You can watch Kalie Robins’ Instagram video here:

.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col{display:flex;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f{max-width:558px;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;}.wp-block-kadence-column.kb-section-dir-horizontal:not(.kb-section-md-dir-vertical)>.kt-inside-inner-col>.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f{-webkit-flex:0 1 558px;flex:0 1 558px;max-width:unset;margin-left:unset;margin-right:unset;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(--global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;align-items:center;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col > .kb-image-is-ratio-size{align-self:stretch;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col > .wp-block-kadence-advancedgallery{align-self:stretch;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f{position:relative;}@media all and (min-width: 1025px){.wp-block-kadence-column.kb-section-dir-horizontal>.kt-inside-inner-col>.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f{-webkit-flex:0 1 558px;flex:0 1 558px;max-width:unset;margin-left:unset;margin-right:unset;}}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;justify-content:center;align-items:center;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.wp-block-kadence-column.kb-section-sm-dir-vertical:not(.kb-section-sm-dir-horizontal):not(.kb-section-sm-dir-specificity)>.kt-inside-inner-col>.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f{max-width:558px;-webkit-flex:1;flex:1;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;}.kadence-column465357_a378ee-2f > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;justify-content:center;align-items:center;}}

Meta’s response

Meta launched Meta AI in April 2024 and has since built it into Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger. It operates across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The assistant can answer questions, generate images, and help users create or retrieve information.

Meta admitted in a statement to the Verge:

“The feature never should have prompted the individual with questions like that.”

The company said the feature had “missed the mark” and that it had fixed the issue that caused Meta AI to suggest questions about personal topics.

In a classic “yes, but” non-apology, a Meta spokesperson also pointed out that the AI only surfaced information drawn from posts the person asking could already access. Although that doesn’t seem to explain why it reportedly surfaced a photo she had deleted years ago.

A pattern of Meta AI failures

Meta AI hasn’t always respected privacy. In June last year, we reported that users were publicly sharing conversations, often without realizing it. A separate bug we reported the following month could have allowed people to view other users’ private Meta AI chats by simply guessing their IDs. Late last year, Meta also started targeting people with ads based on their Meta AI conversations.

What can users do?

Parents get understandably irate when they discover just how much sites like Facebook can learn about their kids. While Robins regularly posted pictures and videos of her children, she had no idea that the service could aggregate information from years of posts to profile them. She’s not alone.

So what can people do about it? Perhaps the better question is: What should people not do? The clearest answer is not to post identifiable pictures of your kids (or other people’s) on social media. Not just to stop them being tracked in a privacy hellscape, but also to reduce the risk of even darker outcomes.

Robins described what she planned to do next:

“I’m done. I’m removing any identifiable pictures and videos of our kids.”

She added that she’ll ask her friends to do the same because, if they don’t, Facebook would still be able to harvest her children’s pictures from their accounts and use them in the profiles it builds.

---

From reporting threats to removing them.

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your devices by downloading Malwarebytes today.