Discord announced it will put all existing and new profiles in teen-appropriate mode by default in early March.

The teen-appropriate profile mode will remain in place until users prove they are adults. To change a profile to “full access” will require verification by Discord’s age inference model—a new system that runs in the background to help determine whether an account belongs to an adult, without always requiring users to verify their age.

Savannah Badalich, Head of Product Policy at Discord, explained the reasoning:

“Rolling out teen-by-default settings globally builds on Discord’s existing safety architecture, giving teens strong protections while allowing verified adults flexibility. We design our products with teen safety principles at the core and will continue working with safety experts, policymakers, and Discord users to support meaningful, long term wellbeing for teens on the platform.”

Platforms have been facing growing regulatory pressure—particularly in the UK, EU, and parts of the US—to introduce stronger age-verification measures. The announcement also comes as concerns about children’s safety on social media continue to surface. In research we published today, parents highlighted issues such as exposure to inappropriate content, unwanted contact, and safeguards that are easy to bypass. Discord was one of the platforms we researched.

The problem in Discord’s case lies in the age-verification methods it’s made available, which require either a facial scan or a government-issued ID. Discord says that video selfies used for facial age estimation never leave a user’s device, but this method is known not to work reliably for everyone.

Identity documents submitted to Discord’s vendor partners are also deleted quickly—often immediately after age confirmation, according to Discord. But, as we all know, computers are very bad at “forgetting” things and criminals are very good at finding things that were supposed to be gone.

Besides all that, the effectiveness of this kind of measure remains an issue. Minors often find ways around systems—using borrowed IDs, VPNs, or false information—so strict verification can create a sense of safety without fully eliminating risk. In some cases, it may even push activity into less regulated or more opaque spaces.

As someone who isn’t an avid Discord user, I can’t help but wonder why keeping my profile teen-appropriate would be a bad thing. Let us know in the comments what your objections to this scenario would be.

I wouldn’t have to provide identification and what I’d “miss” doesn’t sound terrible at all:

• Mature and graphic images would be permanently blocked.
• Age-restricted channels and servers would be inaccessible.
• DMs from unknown users would be rerouted to a separate inbox.
• Friend requests from unknown users would always trigger a warning pop-up.
• No speaking on server stages.

Given the amount of backlash this news received, I’m probably missing something—and I don’t mind being corrected. So let’s hear it.

Note: All comments are moderated. Those including links and inappropriate language will be deleted. The rest must be approved by a moderator.

---

We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your social media accounts by using Malwarebytes Identity Theft Protection.

Fresh off a breathless Super Bowl Sunday, we’re less thrilled to bring you this week’s Weirdo Wednesday. Two stories caught our eye, both involving men who crossed clear lines and invaded women’s privacy online.

Last week, 27-year-old Kyle Svara of Oswego, Illinois admitted to hacking women’s Snapchat accounts across the US. Between May 2020 and February 2021, Svara harvested account security codes from 571 victims, leading to confirmed unauthorized access to at least 59 accounts.

Rather than attempting to break Snapchat’s robust encryption protocols, Svara targeted the account owners themselves with social engineering.

After gathering phone numbers and email addresses, he triggered Snapchat’s legitimate login process, which sent six-digit security codes directly to victims’ devices. Posing as Snapchat support, he then sent more than 4,500 anonymous messages via a VoIP texting service, claiming the codes were needed to “verify” or “secure” the account.

Svara showed particular interest in Snapchat’s My Eyes Only feature—a secondary four-digit PIN meant to protect a user’s most sensitive content. By persuading victims to share both codes, he bypassed two layers of security without touching a single line of code. He walked away with private material, including nude images.

Svara didn’t do this solely for his own kicks. He marketed himself as a hacker-for-hire, advertising on platforms like Reddit and offering access to specific accounts in exchange for money or trades.

Selling his services to others was how he got found out. Although Svara stopped hacking in early 2021, his legal day of reckoning followed the 2024 sentencing of one of his customers: Steve Waithe, a former track and field coach who worked at several high-profile universities including Northeastern. Waithe paid Svara to target student athletes he was supposed to mentor.

Svara also went after women in his home area of Plainfield, Illinois, and as far away as Colby College in Maine.

He now faces charges including identity theft, wire fraud, computer fraud, and making false statements to law enforcement about child sex abuse material. Sentencing is scheduled for May 18.

How to protect your Snapchat account

Never send someone your login details or secret codes, even if you think you know them.

This is also a good time to talk about passkeys.

Passkeys let you sign in without a password, but unlike multi-factor authentication, passkeys are cryptographically tied to your device, and can’t be phished or forwarded like one-time codes. Snapchat supports them, and they offer stronger protection than traditional multi-factor authentication, which is increasingly susceptible to smart phishing attacks.

Bad guys with smart glasses

Unfortunately, hacking women’s social media accounts to steal private content isn’t new. But predators will always find a way to use smart tech in nefarious ways. Such is the case with new generations of ‘smart glasses’ powered by AI.

This week, CNN published stories from women who believed they were having private, flirtatious interactions with strangers—only to later discover the men were recording them using camera-equipped smart glasses and posting the footage online.

These clips are often packaged as “rizz” videos—short for “charisma”—where so-called manfluencers film themselves chatting up women in public, without consent, to build followings and sell “coaching” services.

The glasses, sold by companies like Meta, are supposed to be used for recording only with consent, and often display a light to show that they’re recording. In practice, that indicator is easy to hide.

When combined with AI-powered services to identify people, as researchers did in 2024, the possibilities become even more chilling. We’re unaware of any related cases coming to court, but suspect it’s only a matter of time.

---

We don’t just report on scams—we help detect them

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. If something looks dodgy to you, check if it’s a scam using Malwarebytes Scam Guard, a feature of our mobile protection products. Submit a screenshot, paste suspicious content, or share a text or phone number, and we’ll tell you if it’s a scam or legit. Download Malwarebytes Mobile Security for iOS or Android and try it today!

This week on the Lock and Code podcast…

In January, Google settled a lawsuit that pricked up a few ears: It agreed to pay $68 million to a wide array of people who sued the company together, alleging that Google’s voice-activated smart assistant had secretly recorded their conversations, which were then sent to advertisers to target them with promotions.

Google denied any admission of wrongdoing in the settlement agreement, but the fact stands that one of the largest phone makers in the world decided to forego a trial against some potentially explosive surveillance allegations. It’s a decision that the public has already seen in the past, when Apple agreed to pay $95 million last year to settle similar legal claims against its smart assistant, Siri.

Back-to-back, the stories raise a question that just seems to never go away: Are our phones listening to us?

This week, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we revisit an episode from last year in which we tried to find the answer. In speaking to Electronic Frontier Foundation Staff Technologist Lena Cohen about mobile tracking overall, it becomes clear that, even if our phones aren’t literally listening to our conversations, the devices are stuffed with so many novel forms of surveillance that we need not say something out loud to be predictably targeted with ads for it.

“Companies are collecting so much information about us and in such covert ways that it really feels like they’re listening to us.”

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 for Lock and Code listeners.

404Media is reporting that the FBI could not access a reporter’s iPhone because it had Lockdown Mode enabled:

The court record shows what devices and data the FBI was able to ultimately access, and which devices it could not, after raiding the home of the reporter, Hannah Natanson, in January as part of an investigation into leaks of classified information. It also provides rare insight into the apparent effectiveness of Lockdown Mode, or at least how effective it might be before the FBI may try other techniques to access the device.

“Because the iPhone was in Lockdown mode, CART could not extract that device,” the court record reads, referring to the FBI’s Computer Analysis Response Team, a unit focused on performing forensic analyses of seized devices. The document is written by the government, and is opposing the return of Natanson’s devices.

The FBI raided Natanson’s home as part of its investigation into government contractor Aurelio Perez-Lugones, who is charged with, among other things, retention of national defense information. The government believes Perez-Lugones was a source of Natanson’s, and provided her with various pieces of classified information. While executing a search warrant for his mobile phone, investigators reviewed Signal messages between Pere-Lugones and the reporter, the Department of Justice previously said.

Mountain View, California, pulled the plug on its entire license plate reader camera network this week. It discovered that Flock Safety, which ran the system, had been sharing city data with hundreds of law enforcement agencies, including federal ones, without permission.

Flock Safety runs an automated license plate recognition (ALPR) system that uses AI to identify vehicles’ number plates on the road. Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) policy chief Mike Canfield ordered all 30 of the city’s Flock cameras disabled on February 3.

Two incidents of unauthorized sharing came to light. The first was a “national lookup” setting that was toggled on for one camera at the intersection of the city’s Charleston and San Antonio roads. Flock allegedly switched it on without telling the city.

That setting could violate California’s 2015 statute SB 34, which bars state and local agencies from sharing license plate reader data with out-of-state or federal entities. The law states:

“A public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law.”

The statute defines a public agency as the state, or any city or county within it, covering state and local law enforcement agencies.

Last October, the state Attorney General sued the Californian city of El Cajon for knowingly violating that law by sharing license place data with agencies in more than two dozen states.

However, MVPD said that Flock kept no records from the national lookup period, so nobody can determine what information actually left the system.

Mountain View says it never chose to share, which makes the violation different in kind. For the people whose plates were scanned, the distinction is academic.

A separate “statewide lookup” feature had also been active on 29 of the city’s 30 cameras since the initial installation, running for 17 straight months until Mountain View found and disabled it on January 5. Through that tool, more than 250 agencies that had never signed any data agreement with Mountain View ran an estimated 600,000 searches over a single year, according to local paper the Mountain View Voice, which first uncovered the issue after filing a public records request.

Over the past year, more than two dozen municipalities across the country have ended contracts with Flock, many citing the same worry that data collected for local crime-fighting could be used for federal immigration enforcement. Santa Cruz became the first in California to terminate its contract last month.

Flock’s own CEO reportedly acknowledged last August that the company had been running previously undisclosed pilot programs with Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations.

The cameras will remain offline until the City Council meets on February 24. Canfield says that he still supports license plate reader technology, just not this vendor.

This goes beyond one city’s vendor dispute. If strict internal policies weren’t enough to prevent unauthorized sharing, it raises a harder question: whether policy alone is an adequate safeguard when surveillance systems are operated by third parties.

---

We don’t just report on data privacy—we help you remove your personal information

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. With Malwarebytes Personal Data Remover, you can scan to find out which sites are exposing your personal information, and then delete that sensitive data from the internet.

Bondu’s AI plush toy exposed a web console that let anyone with a Gmail account read about 50,000 private chats between children and their cuddly toys.

Bondu’s toy is marketed as:

“A soft, cuddly toy powered by AI that can chat, teach, and play with your child.”

What it doesn’t say is that anyone with a Gmail account could read the transcripts from virtually every child who used a Bondu toy. Without any actual hacking, simply by logging in with an arbitrary Google account, two researchers found themselves looking at children’s private conversations.

What Bondu has to say about safety does not mention security or privacy:

“Bondu’s safety and behavior systems were built over 18 months of beta testing with thousands of families. Thanks to rigorous review processes and continuous monitoring, we did not receive a single report of unsafe or inappropriate behavior from Bondu throughout the entire beta period.”

Bondu’s emphasis on successful beta testing is understandable. Remember the AI teddy bear marketed by FoloToy that quickly veered from friendly chat into sexual topics and unsafe household advice?

The researchers were stunned to find the company’s public-facing web console allowed anyone to log in with their Google account. The chat logs between children and their plushies revealed names, birth dates, family details, and intimate conversations. The only conversations not available were those manually deleted by parents or company staff.

Potentially, these chat logs could been a burglar’s or kidnapper’s dream, offering insight into household routines and upcoming events.

Bondu took the console offline within minutes of disclosure, then relaunched it with authentication. The CEO said fixes were completed within hours, they saw “no evidence” of other access, and they brought in a security firm and added monitoring.

In the past, we’ve pointed out that AI-powered stuffed animals may not be a good alternative for screen time. Critics warn that when a toy uses personalized, human‑like dialogue, it risks replacing aspects of the caregiver–child relationship. One Curio founder even described their plushie as a stimulating sidekick so parents, “don’t feel like you have to be sitting them in front of a TV.”

So, whether it’s a foul-mouth, a blabbermouth, or just a feeble replacement for real friends, we don’t encourage using Artificial Intelligence in children’s toys—unless we ever make it to a point where they can be used safely, privately, securely, and even then, sparingly.

How to stay safe

AI-powered toys are coming, like it or not. But being the first or the cutest doesn’t mean they’re safe. The lesson history keeps teaching us is this: oversight, privacy, and a healthy dose of skepticism are the best defenses parents have.

• Turn off what you can. If the toy has a removable AI component, consider disabling it when you’re not able to supervise directly.
• Read the privacy policy. Yes, I know, all of it. Look for what will be recorded, stored, and potentially shared. Pay particular attention to sensitive data, like voice recordings, video recordings (if the toy has a camera), and location data.
• Limit connectivity. Avoid toys that require constant Wi-Fi or cloud interaction if possible.
• Monitor conversations. Regularly check in with your kids about what the toy says and supervise play where practical.
• Keep personal info private. Teach kids to never share their names, addresses, or family details, even with their plush friend.
• Trust your instincts. If a toy seems to cross boundaries or interfere with natural play, don’t be afraid to step in or simply say no.

---

We don’t just report on privacy—we offer you the option to use it.

Privacy risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep your online privacy yours by using Malwarebytes Privacy VPN.

Microsoft gives the FBI the ability to decrypt BitLocker in response to court orders: about twenty times per year.

It’s possible for users to store those keys on a device they own, but Microsoft also recommends BitLocker users store their keys on its servers for convenience. While that means someone can access their data if they forget their password, or if repeated failed attempts to login lock the device, it also makes them vulnerable to law enforcement subpoenas and warrants.

Most iPhone owners have hopefully learned to manage app permissions by now, including allowing location access. But there’s another layer of location tracking that operates outside these controls. Your cellular carrier has been collecting your location data all along, and until now, there was nothing you could do about it.

Apple just changed this in iOS 26.3 with a new setting called “limit precise location.”

How Apple’s anti-carrier tracking system works

Cellular networks track your phone’s location based on the cell towers it connects to, in a process known as triangulation. In cities where towers are densely packed, triangulation is precise enough to track you down to a street address.

This tracking is different from app-based location monitoring, because your phone’s privacy settings have historically been powerless to stop it. Toggle Location Services off entirely, and your carrier still knows where you are.

The new setting reduces the precision of location data shared with carriers. Rather than a street address, carriers would see only the neighborhood where a device is located. It doesn’t affect emergency calls, though, which still transmit precise coordinates to first responders. Apps like Apple’s “Find My” service, which locates your devices, or its navigation services, aren’t affected because they work using the phone’s location sharing feature.

Why is Apple doing this? Apple hasn’t said, but the move comes after years of carriers mishandling location data.

Unfortunately, cellular network operators have played fast and free with this data. In April 2024, the FCC fined Sprint and T-Mobile (which have since merged), along with AT&T and Verizon nearly $200 million combined for illegally sharing this location data. They sold access to customers’ location information to third party aggregators, who then sold it on to third parties without customer consent.

This turned into a privacy horror story for customers. One aggregator, LocationSmart, had a free demo on its website that reportedly allowed anyone to pinpoint the location of most mobile phones in North America.

Limited rollout

The feature only works with devices equipped with Apple’s custom C1 or C1X modems. That means just three devices: the iPhone Air, iPhone 16e, and the cellular iPad Pro with M5 chip. The iPhone 17, which uses Qualcomm silicon, is excluded. Apple can only control what its own modems transmit.

Carrier support is equally narrow. In the US, only Boost Mobile is participating in the feature at launch, while Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile are notable absences from the list given their past record. In Germany, Telekom is on the participant list, while both EE and BT are involved in the UK. In Thailand, AIS and True are on the list. There are no other carriers taking part as of today though.

Android also offers some support

Google also introduced a similar capability with Android 15’s Location Privacy hardware abstraction layer (HAL) last year. It faces the same constraint, though: modem vendors must cooperate, and most have not. Apple and Google don’t get to control the modems in most phones. This kind of privacy protection requires vertical integration that few manufacturers possess and few carriers seem eager to enable.

Most people think controlling app permissions means they’re in control of their location. This feature highlights something many users didn’t know existed: a separate layer of tracking handled by cellular networks, and one that still offers users very limited control.

---

We don’t just report on phone security—we provide it

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep threats off your mobile devices by downloading Malwarebytes for iOS, and Malwarebytes for Android today.

In 2026, could any five words be more chilling than “We’re changing our privacy terms?”

The timing could not have been worse for TikTok US when it sent millions of US users a mandatory privacy pop-up on January 22. The message forced users to accept updated terms if they wanted to keep using the app. Buried in that update was language about collecting “citizenship or immigration status.”

Specifically, TikTok said:

“Information You Provide may include sensitive personal information, as defined under applicable state privacy laws, such as information from users under the relevant age threshold, information you disclose in survey responses or in your user content about your racial or ethnic origin, national origin, religious beliefs, mental or physical health diagnosis, sexual life or sexual orientation, status as transgender or nonbinary, citizenship or immigration status, or financial information.”

The internet reacted badly. TikTok users took to social media, with some suggesting that TikTok was building a database of immigration status, and others pledging to delete their accounts. It didn’t help that TikTok’s US operation became a US-owned company on the same day, with Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) criticizing what he sees as a lack of transparency around the deal.

A legal requirement

In this case, things are may be less sinister than you’d think. The language is not new—it first appeared around August 2024. And TikTok is not asking users to provide their immigration status directly.

Instead, the disclosure covers sensitive information that users might voluntarily share in videos, surveys, or interactions with AI features.

The change appears to be driven largely by California’s AB-947, signed in October 2023. The law added immigration status to the state’s definition of sensitive personal information, placing it under stricter protections. Companies are required to disclose how they process sensitive personal information, even if they do not actively seek it out.

Other social media companies, including Meta, do not explicitly mention immigration status in their privacy policies. According to TechCrunch, that difference likely reflects how specific their disclosure language is—not a meaningful difference in what data is actually collected.

One meaningful change in TikTok’s updated policy does concern location tracking. Previous versions stated that TikTok did not collect GPS data from US users. The new policy says it may collect precise location data, depending on user settings. Users can reportedly opt out of this tracking.

Read the whole board, not just one square

So, does this mean TikTok—or any social media company—deserves our trust? That’s a harder question.

There are still red flags. In April, TikTok quietly removed a commitment to notify users before sharing data with law enforcement. According to Forbes, the company has also declined to say whether it shares, or would share, user data with agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

That uncertainty is the real issue. Social media companies are notorious for collecting vast amounts of user data, and for being vague about how it may be used later. Outrage over a particularly explicit disclosure is understandable, but the privacy problem runs much deeper than a single policy update from one company.

People have reason to worry unless platforms explicitly commit to not collecting or inferring sensitive data—and explicitly commit to not sharing it with government agencies. And even then, skepticism is healthy. These companies have a long history of changing policies quietly when it suits them.

---

We don’t just report on data privacy—we help you remove your personal information

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. With Malwarebytes Personal Data Remover, you can scan to find out which sites are exposing your personal information, and then delete that sensitive data from the internet.

Meta plans to test exclusive features that will be incorporated in paid versions of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. It confirmed these plans to TechCrunch.

But these plans are not to be confused with the ad-free subscription options that Meta introduced for Facebook and Instagram in the EU, the European Economic Area, and Switzerland in late 2023 and framed as a way to comply with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Digital Markets Act requirements.

From November 2023, users in those regions could either keep using the services for free with personalized ads or pay a monthly fee for an ad‑free experience. European rules require Meta to get users’ consent in order to show them targeted ads, so this was an obvious attempt to recoup advertising revenue when users declined to give that consent.

This year, users in the UK were given the same choice: use Meta’s products for free or subscribe to use them without ads. But only grudgingly, judging by the tone in the offer… “As part of laws in your region, you have a choice.”

That ad-free option, however, is not what Meta is talking about now.

The newly announced plans are not about ads, and they are also separate from Meta Verified, which starts at around $15 a month and focuses on creators and businesses, offering a verification badge, better support, and anti‑impersonation protection.

Instead, these new subscriptions are likely to focus on additional features—more control over how users share and connect, and possibly tools such as expanded AI capabilities, unlimited audience lists, seeing who you follow that doesn’t follow you back, or viewing stories without the poster knowing it was you.

These examples are unconfirmed. All we know for sure is that Meta plans to test new paid features to see which ones users are willing to pay for and how much they can charge.

Meta has said these features will focus on productivity, creativity, and expanded AI.

My opinion

Unfortunately, this feels like another refusal to listen.

Most of us aren’t asking for more AI in our feeds. We’re asking for a basic sense of control: control over who sees us, what’s tracked about us, and how our data is used to feed an algorithm designed to keep us scrolling.

Users shouldn’t have to choose between being mined for behavioral data or paying a monthly fee just to be left alone. The message baked into “pay or be profiled” is that privacy is now a luxury good, not a default right. But while regulators keep saying the model is unlawful, the experience on the ground still nudges people toward the path of least resistance: accept the tracking and move on.

Even then, this level of choice is only available to users in Europe.

Why not offer the same option to users in the US? Or will it take stronger US privacy regulation to make that happen?

---

We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your social media accounts by using Malwarebytes Identity Theft Protection.

Researchers discovered 16 malicious browser extensions for Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge that steal ChatGPT session tokens, giving attackers access to accounts, including conversation history and metadata.

The 16 malicious extensions (15 for Chrome and 1 for Edge) claim to improve and optimize ChatGPT, but instead siphon users’ session tokens to attackers. Together, they have been downloaded around 900 times, a relatively small number compared to other malicious extensions.

Despite benign descriptions and, in some cases, a “featured” badge, the real goal of these extensions is to hijack ChatGPT identities by stealing session authentication tokens and sending them to attacker-controlled backends.

Possession of these tokens gives attackers the same level of access as the user, including conversation history and metadata.

In addition to your ChatGPT session token, the extensions also send extra details about themselves (such as their version and language settings), along with information about how they’re used, and special keys they get from their own online service.

Taken together, this allows the attackers to build a picture of who you are and how you work online. They can use it to keep recognizing you over time, build a profile of your behavior, and maintain access to your ChatGPT-connected services for much longer. This increases the privacy impact and means a single compromised extension can cause broader harm if its servers are abused or breached.

According to the researchers, this campaign coincides with a broader trend:

“The rapid growth in adoption of AI-powered browser extensions, aimed at helping users with their everyday productivity needs. While most of them are completely benign, many of these extensions mimic known brands to gain users’ trust, particularly those designed to enhance interaction with large language models.”

How to stay safe

Although we always advise people to install extensions only from official web stores, this case proves once again that not all extensions available there are safe. That said, installing extensions from outside official web stores carries an even higher risk.

Extensions listed in official stores undergo a review process before being approved. This process, which combines automated and manual checks, assesses the extension’s safety, policy compliance, and overall user experience. The goal is to protect users from scams, malware, and other malicious activity. However, this review process is not foolproof.

Microsoft and Google have been notified about the abuse. However, extensions that are already installed may remain active in Chrome and Edge until users manually remove them.

Malicious extensions

These are the browser extensions you should remove. They are listed by Name — Publisher — Extension ID:

• ChatGPT bulk delete, Chat manager — ChatGPT Mods — gbcgjnbccjojicobfimcnfjddhpphaod
• ChatGPT export, Markdown, JSON, images — ChatGPT Mods — hljdedgemmmkdalbnmnpoimdedckdkhm
• ChatGPT folder, voice download, prompt manager, free tools — ChatGPT Mods — lmiigijnefpkjcenfbinhdpafehaddag
• ChatGPT message navigator, history scroller — ChatGPT Mods — ifjimhnbnbniiiaihphlclkpfikcdkab
• ChatGPT Mods — Folder Voice Download & More Free Tools — jhohjhmbiakpgedidneeloaoloadlbdj
• ChatGPT pin chat, bookmark — ChatGPT Mods — kefnabicobeigajdngijnnjmljehknjl
• ChatGPT Prompt Manager, Folder, Library, Auto Send — ChatGPT Mods — ioaeacncbhpmlkediaagefiegegknglc
• ChatGPT prompt optimization — ChatGPT Mods — mmjmcfaejolfbenlplfoihnobnggljij
• ChatGPT search history, locate specific messages — ChatGPT Mods — ipjgfhcjeckaibnohigmbcaonfcjepmb
• ChatGPT Timestamp Display — ChatGPT Mods — afjenpabhpfodjpncbiiahbknnghabdc
• ChatGPT Token counter — ChatGPT Mods — hfdpdgblphooommgcjdnnmhpglleaafj
• ChatGPT model switch, save advanced model uses — ChatGPT Mods — pfgbcfaiglkcoclichlojeaklcfboieh
• ChatGPT voice download, TTS download — ChatGPT Mods — območbankihdfckkbfnoglefmdgmblcld (original: obdobankihdfckkbfnoglefmdgmblcld)
• Collapsed message — ChatGPT Mods — lechagcebaneoafonkbfkljmbmaaoaec
• Multi-Profile Management & Switching — ChatGPT Mods — nhnfaiiobkpbenbbiblmgncgokeknnno
• Search with ChatGPT — ChatGPT Mods — hpcejjllhbalkcmdikecfngkepppoknd

---

We don’t just report on threats—we remove them

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

New Strict Account Settings allow users to block attachments and media and silence calls from unknown people.

The post WhatsApp Boosts Account Security for At-Risk Individuals appeared first on SecurityWeek.

TikTok may have found a way to stay online in the US. The company announced late last week that it has set up a joint venture backed largely by US investors. TikTok announced TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC on Friday in a deal valued at about $14 billion, allowing it to continue operating in the country.

This is the culmination of a long-running fight between TikTok and US authorities. In 2019, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) flagged ByteDance’s 2017 acquisition of Musical.ly as a national security risk, on the basis that state links between the app’s Chinese owner would make put US users’ data at risk.

In his first term, President Trump issued an executive order demanding that ByteDance sell the business or face a ban. That was order was blocked by courts, and President Biden later replaced it with a broader review process in 2021.

In April 2024, Congress passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), which Biden signed into law. That set a January 19, 2025 deadline for ByteDance to divest its business or face a nationwide ban. With no deal finalized, TikTok voluntarily went dark for about 12 hours on January 18, 2025. Trump later issued executive orders extending the deadline, culminating in a September 2025 agreement that led to the joint venture.

Three managing investors each hold 15% of the new business: database giant Oracle (which previously vied to acquire TikTok when ByteDance was first told to divest), technology-focused investment group Silver Lake, and the United Arab Emirates-backed AI (Artificial Intelligence) investment company MGX.

Other investors include the family office of tech entrepreneur Michael Dell, as well as Vastmere Strategic Investments, Alpha Wave Partners, Revolution, Merritt Way, and Via Nova.

Original owner ByteDance retains 19.9% of the business, and according to an internal memo released before the deal was officially announced, 30% of the company will be owned by affiliates of existing ByteDance investors. That’s in spite of the fact that PAFACA mandated a complete severance of TikTok in the US from its Chinese ownership.

A focus on security

The company is eager to promote data security for its users. With that in mind, Oracle takes the role of “trusted security partner” for data protection and compliance auditing under the deal.

Oracle is also expected to store US user data in its cloud environment. The program will reportedly align with security frameworks including the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework. Other TikTok-owned apps such as CapCut and Lemon8 will also fall under the joint venture’s security umbrella.

Canada’s TikTok tension

It’s been a busy month for ByteDance, with other developments north of the border. Last week, Canada’s Federal Court overturned a November 2024 governmental order to shut down TikTok’s Canadian business on national security grounds. The decision gives Industry Minister Mélanie Joly time to review the case.

Why this matters

TikTok’s new US joint venture lowers the risk of direct foreign access to American user data, but it doesn’t erase all of the concerns that put the app in regulators’ crosshairs in the first place. ByteDance still retains an economic stake, the recommendation algorithm remains largely opaque, and oversight depends on audits and enforcement rather than hard technical separation.

In other words, this deal reduces exposure, but it doesn’t make TikTok a risk-free platform. For users, that means the same common-sense rules still apply: be thoughtful about what you share and remember that regulatory approval isn’t the same as total data safety.

---

We don’t just report on data privacy—we help you remove your personal information

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. With Malwarebytes Personal Data Remover, you can scan to find out which sites are exposing your personal information, and then delete that sensitive data from the internet.

Loyal readers and other privacy-conscious people will be familiar with the expression, “If it’s too good to be true, it’s probably false.”

Getting paid handsomely to scroll social media definitely falls into that category. It sounds like an easy side hustle, which usually means there’s a catch.

In January 2026, an app called Freecash shot up to the number two spot on Apple’s free iOS chart in the US, helped along by TikTok ads that look a lot like job offers from TikTok itself. The ads promised up to $35 an hour to watch your “For You” page. According to reporting, the ads didn’t promote Freecash by name. Instead, they showed a young woman expressing excitement about seemingly being “hired by TikTok” to watch videos for money.

The landing pages featured TikTok and Freecash logos and invited users to “get paid to scroll” and “cash out instantly,” implying a simple exchange of time for money.

Those claims were misleading enough that TikTok said the ads violated its rules on financial misrepresentation and removed some of them.

Once you install the app, the promised TikTok paycheck vanishes. Instead, Freecash routes you to a rotating roster of mobile games—titles like Monopoly Go and Disney Solitaire—and offers cash rewards for completing time‑limited in‑game challenges. Payouts range from a single cent for a few minutes of daily play up to triple‑digit amounts if you reach high levels within a fixed period.

The whole setup is designed not to reward scrolling, as it claims, but to funnel you into games where you are likely to spend money or watch paid advertisements.

Freecash’s parent company, Berlin‑based Almedia, openly describes the platform as a way to match mobile game developers with users who are likely to install and spend. The company’s CEO has spoken publicly about using past spending data to steer users toward the genres where they’re most “valuable” to advertisers. 

Our concern, beyond the bait-and-switch, is the privacy issue. Freecash’s privacy policy allows the automatic collection of highly sensitive information, including data about race, religion, sex life, sexual orientation, health, and biometrics. Each additional mobile game you install to chase rewards adds its own privacy policy, tracking, and telemetry. Together, they greatly increase how much behavioral data these companies can harvest about a user.

Experts warn that data brokers already trade lists of people likely to be more susceptible to scams or compulsive online behavior—profiles that apps like this can help refine.

We’ve previously reported on data brokers that used games and apps to build massive databases, only to later suffer breaches exposing all that data.

When asked about the ads, Freecash said the most misleading TikTok promotions were created by third-party affiliates, not by the company itself. Which is quite possible because Freecash does offer an affiliate payout program to people who promote the app online. But they made promises to review and tighten partner monitoring.

For experienced users, the pattern should feel familiar: eye‑catching promises of easy money, a bait‑and‑switch into something that takes more time and effort than advertised, and a business model that suddenly makes sense when you realize your attention and data are the real products.

How to stay private

Free cash? Apparently, there is no such thing.

If you’re curious how intrusive schemes like this can be, consider using a separate email address created specifically for testing. Avoid sharing real personal details. Many users report that once they sign up, marketing emails quickly pile up.

Some of these schemes also appeal to people who are younger or under financial pressure, offering tiny payouts while generating far more value for advertisers and app developers.

So, what can you do?

• Gather information about the company you’re about to give your data. Talk to friends and relatives about your plans. Shared common sense often helps make the right decisions.
• Create a separate account if you want to test a service. Use a dedicated email address and avoid sharing real personal details.
• Limit information you provide online to what makes sense for the purpose. Does a game publisher need your Social Security Number? I don’t think so.
• Be cautious about app installs that are framed as required to make the money initially promised, and review permissions carefully.
• Use an up-to-date real-time anti-malware solution on all your devices.

Work from the premise that free money does not exist. Try to work out the business model of those offering it, and then decide.

---

We don’t just report on threats – we help protect your social media

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. Protect your social media accounts by using Malwarebytes Identity Theft Protection.

This week on the Lock and Code podcast…

When you hear the words “data privacy,” what do you first imagine?

Maybe you picture going into your social media apps and setting your profile and posts to private. Maybe you think about who you’ve shared your location with and deciding to revoke some of that access. Maybe you want to remove a few apps entirely from your smartphone, maybe you want to try a new web browser, maybe you even want to skirt the type of street-level surveillance provided by Automated License Plate Readers, which can record your car model, license plate number, and location on your morning drive to work.

Importantly, all of these are “data privacy,” but trying to do all of these things at once can feel impossible.

That’s why, this year, for Data Privacy Day, Malwarebytes Senior Privacy Advocate (and Lock and Code host) David Ruiz is sharing the one thing he’s doing different to improve his privacy. And it’s this: He’s given up Google Search entirely.

When Ruiz requested the data that Google had collected about him last year, he saw that the company had recorded an eye-popping 8,000 searches in just the span of 18 months. And those 8,000 searches didn’t just reveal what he was thinking about on any given day—including his shopping interests, his home improvement projects, and his late-night medical concerns—they also revealed when he clicked on an ad based on the words he searched. This type of data, which connects a person’s searches to the likelihood of engaging with an online ad, is vital to Google’s revenue, and it’s the type of thing that Ruiz is seeking to finally cut off.

So, for 2026, he has switched to a new search engine, Brave Search.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast, Ruiz explains why he made the switch, what he values about Brave Search, and why he also refused to switch to any of the major AI platforms in replacing Google.

Tune in today to listen to the full episode.

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 is coming:

The Irish government is planning to bolster its police’s ability to intercept communications, including encrypted messages, and provide a legal basis for spyware use.