If you’re worried about deepfake likenesses of yourself showing up online, you’re not alone; YouTube is worried for you. It wants to protect you by having you upload a selfie video and government ID to its site.

The idea is that the video giant will use its own AI to patrol the service for fake videos using your likeness. In exchange, you get the chance to have them taken down.

This isn’t available for everyone, though. It’s for celebs, those in vulnerable jobs, and now, most YouTube creators.

YouTube has been working on this concept, which it calls its “likeness detection” system, since it first floated the idea publicly in September 2024. That December, it launched a partnership with the Creative Artists Agency that saw it using the technology with sporting and entertainment figures.

In October last year, it expanded likeness detection to cover more creators, and then in March it expanded it again to cover politicians and journalists. And last month, it widened the net again, offering the service to Hollywood celebs. They can use it regardless of whether they have a YouTube account, it added.

Now, in its latest move, anyone 18 or older with a selfie and ID can sign up. At least in theory, as it hasn’t rolled out to everyone yet. It’s also for faces only; AI-generated voice clones are another problem entirely.

The privacy risk

Privacy advocates warned that YouTube’s likeness detection system could normalize handing biometric data to large tech platforms, even if YouTube says the data is only used to improve likeness detection models with creator permission.

On the help page for the likeness detection service, YouTube says creators can separately choose whether their face and voice templates are used to improve its likeness detection models.

“When you sign up for Likeness detection, you also have the option to allow YouTube to use your face and voice templates to develop and improve likeness detection models. This helps us build better, more accurate likeness detection technologies.”

Adding:

“You can opt out of YouTube’s use of this data for development and improvement of likeness models at any time.”

YouTube supports legislation intended to tackle deepfakes, such as the NO FAKES and TAKE IT DOWN acts. These are designed to help stop the misappropriation of someone’s image online. TAKE IT DOWN, which became law a year ago, focuses purely on “nonconsensual intimate imagery.” But that doesn’t cover other kinds of deepfakes, such as fake politicians or celebrity endorsements. Those are becoming increasingly common. NO FAKES, which hasn’t yet become law, is far broader in scope, assigning people federal rights over their own image.

So is it worth the trade?

Deepfakes, intimate and otherwise, are definitely a threat, especially for YouTubers who become popular. And the barrier to entry is lowering all the time. Google’s own DeepMind researchers found most generative AI misuse isn’t sophisticated; it’s mundane likeness manipulation by anyone with a browser.

So do you hand over your face and government ID for your protection, to a company whose broader data collection practices have faced years of scrutiny, and hope its policies don’t change? Or do you skip it and hope that the deepfake merchants don’t decide to target you?

Creators commenting on YouTube’s video revealing the service six months ago were less than impressed. One commenter said:

“I was 100% on board, up until the ID upload. That makes me very uncomfortable.”

Echoing several others who complained that it’s difficult to get takedown requests actioned, another added:

“If YouTube actually acted upon these kinds of reports, then I’d be more in favour of this.”

Whether you decide to sign up for the service or not, just be sure to do it with your eyes open.

---

---

This week on the Lock and Code podcast…

In May of last year, a warning about AI came from somewhere unexpected: The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum.

Posting publicly on social media, the museum warned about a Facebook account using generative AI to create fake images of people who died in the Holocaust. Despite using AI to generate fake images, the people in said images were sometimes real. They had real names, birthplaces, and stories of deportation that the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum itself had shared before. They had real faces captured in real surviving photographs, which were likely abused to generate the false images. 

In other words, someone, or some team of people online, was deepfaking the Holocaust.

As the Auschwitz museum wrote online:

“These are not real photos of the victims. They are digital inventions, often stylized or sanitized, that risk turning remembrance into fictionalized performance. The history of Auschwitz is a well-documented story. Altering its visual record with AI imagery introduces distortion, no matter the intent.”

Months later, the public found out what that intent was: money.

A BBC investigation found an international network of Facebook accounts posting AI-generated images to earn money from those images’ potential virality. It’s a problem sometimes referred to as “AI slop” but it comes with a major incentive. When accounts that make these kinds of images are invited to Facebook’s content monetization program, they can make $1,000 a month for posting anything that gets clicks.

And on Facebook, the BBC found, that means several accounts posting AI-generated images about the Holocaust. As the BBC reported:

“AI spammers have posted fake images purporting to be from inside [Auschwitz], such as a prisoner playing a violin or lovers meeting at the boundaries of fences—attracting tens of thousands of likes and shares.”

The economics of lying are concrete today. People can use AI to make fake images that make people feel good about terrible things or feel scared about untrue things, and they can make money until shut down by the Big Tech platforms themselves, which, in this case, only happened because of the BBC’s investigation. In fact, it’s that type of inaction from social media platforms that compelled the German government and multiple Holocaust memorial institutions to send an open letter earlier this year that asked for better controls and restrictions against this type of content.

As the signatories warned in their letter, the economic appeal for these accounts to distort history is too high a risk to allow. You can read the full letter here.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Clara Mansfeld, a historian working on digital communications at one of the institutions signed onto the open letter—the Foundation of Hamburg Memorials and Learning Centers Commemorating the Victims of Nazi Crimes. In their conversation, Mansfeld discusses digital access to history, the manipulation of factual records through AI-generated imagery, and the threat that society faces when it becomes harder to evaluate the truth.

“What happens when the first thought we have with every historical image is, ‘Is that even real or is that AI?’ I don’t think we have really grasped what that means for us as a society.”

Tune in today to listen to the full conversation.

Show notes and credits:

Intro Music: “Spellbound” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Outro Music: “Good God” by Wowa (unminus.com)

---

Listen up—Malwarebytes doesn’t just talk cybersecurity, we provide it.

Protect yourself from online attacks that threaten your identity, your files, your system, and your financial well-being with our exclusive offer for Malwarebytes Premium Security for Lock and Code listeners.

Recent news had us wondering whether Meta actually knows what it wants.

On one platform, Meta is promoting AI chats that it says even it cannot read. On another, it has removed one of the few features that genuinely prevented Meta from accessing private conversations.

“Meta removed support for end-to-end encrypted chats from Instagram as of May 8, 2026.”

“Meta adds fully private AI chats to WhatsApp.”

At the moment, Meta is heavily promoting a new Incognito Chat mode for its Meta AI assistant in WhatsApp, built on top of a system it calls Private Processing. According to WhatsApp’s own announcement, Incognito Chat is:

 “Truly private — no one can read your conversation, not even us.”

When you start an Incognito chat with Meta AI, you get a temporary conversation where messages aren’t saved and disappear by default, which Meta pitches as “a space to think and explore ideas without anyone watching.”

BBC News and others report that these AI chats are text‑only for now, run in a sandboxed environment, and are separate from your regular end‑to‑end encrypted (E2EE) messaging with other people on WhatsApp.

Meta is also preparing “Side Chat,” which will let you invoke Meta AI inside other WhatsApp chats, again using this Private Processing infrastructure to claim AI assistance without breaking the underlying encryption.

On paper, that’s an impressive technical and marketing story: powerful AI, wrapped in layers of privacy‑preserving infrastructure, added to an app that already has a strong reputation for end‑to‑end encryption by default.

Meanwhile, on Instagram…

Now contrast that with what’s happening on Instagram. On 8 May 2026, Meta removed optional end‑to‑end encryption for Instagram Direct Messages (DMs) entirely. Users who had previously turned the feature on were shown notices that “end‑to‑end encrypted messaging on Instagram is no longer supported as of 8 May 2026,” and were urged to download backups of their encrypted conversations before the cutoff.

End‑to‑end encryption ensures that only the sender and recipient can read their conversations. Instagram offered this as an opt‑in feature since late 2023, but it was buried several taps deep inside individual conversation settings and never turned on by default. Meta’s explanation for shutting it down is that “very few people” used encrypted DMs and that maintaining a separate encrypted system added complexity. Critics have pointed out the circular logic. The company hid the feature, did not advertise it, and is now using low adoption as the reason to kill it rather than, say, making it easier to find or turning it on by default.

What all this means

From a user’s perspective, the result is confusing: one Meta product introduces stronger privacy than ever for AI chats, while another removes the one feature that truly stopped Meta from reading your conversations.

The key point to remember here is that “incognito” and “private” are marketing words, while end‑to‑end encryption is a technical guarantee.

For security‑conscious users, this split personality means you can no longer treat all Meta chats the same. WhatsApp remains end‑to‑end encrypted for person‑to‑person messages and adds optional privacy features around its AI, while Instagram DMs should now be assumed readable by Meta and potentially accessible to law enforcement, advertisers, or attackers who gain access to Meta’s systems.

---

---

Why make AI chats private?

We’ve seen that AI chats have suddenly turned up in search results without users’ knowledge. So there definitely is a positive side to this new feature.

We also know there have been lawsuits against chatbot providers in cases where the outcome of an AI conversation led to very undesirable results. But how would you be able to provide evidence when messages auto-disappear?

How to proceed

Meta’s recent moves show that strong privacy features can be added where they support a strategic narrative and removed where they conflict with business or regulatory priorities. Users can’t control those decisions, but they can respond by choosing where they hold their most sensitive conversations and by assuming that if a chat isn’t end‑to‑end encrypted by default, it is ultimately readable by someone other than the people in it.

So, what’s a safe way to move forward?

• Treat Instagram DMs as postcard-level privacy. Now that E2EE is gone, assume Meta can read and scan your messages and that content could be accessed under legal orders or in a breach. Do not send passwords, recovery codes, banking details, or compromising photos over Instagram.
• When someone asks you to move a conversation to Signal, WhatsApp, or another E2EE messenger, ask them why. It does make sense when you’re sharing financial details, personal images, health information, or anything you would not want a platform provider to read. But sometimes scammers prefer encrypted platforms too, because they’re harder to monitor.
• Do not confuse “incognito” AI chats with full encryption. WhatsApp’s Incognito mode for Meta AI may be a privacy improvement over standard cloud AI chats, but it is still a conversation with a large language model owned by the same company that runs the platform. Share only what you’re comfortable entrusting to Meta.
• Regularly review your privacy and security settings. Check which devices are logged in, enable two‑factor authentication, and verify which of your chat apps are actually end‑to‑end encrypted by default.

---

Scammers know more about you than you think. 

Malwarebytes Mobile Security protects you from phishing, scam texts, malicious sites, and more. With real-time AI-powered Scam Guard built right in. 

Download for iOS → Download for Android → 

Schools love a good photo, whether it’s from a trip to a castle, a science prize ceremony, or sports day shot from three angles. For two decades, celebratory images like these have gone straight onto school websites, captioned with a name and a grade. But those days are gone, because it’s the internet in 2026 and we can’t have nice things.

As first reported by the Guardian, experts are now urging schools to take those pictures down. According to the UK’s National Crime Agency, the Internet Watch Foundation, and an advisory body called the Early Warning Working Group (EWWG), blackmailers have been scraping ordinary school photos, feeding them through AI deepfake tools to manufacture child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and demanding payment to keep the images offline.

One school, 150 images

Late last year, cybercriminals contacted an unnamed UK secondary school with that demand. The IWF classified 150 of the resulting images as CSAM under UK law and generated digital fingerprints for each image so major platforms could block reuploads.

The IWF isn’t naming the school or the police force, and it doesn’t believe this was an isolated case. The EWWG says it’s “only a matter of time” before more schools face similar demands.

UK safeguarding minister Jess Phillips called it a “deeply worrying emerging threat.” In February 2025, the UK became the first country to ban AI tools designed specifically to generate CSAM.

How we got here

This threat didn’t appear overnight, and it isn’t limited to the UK. It’s an evolution of a long-time threat: sextortion, when someone uses intimate images to blackmail you. Traditionally, sextortion relied on real intimate images that were stolen or shared, but deepfake AI has changed everything.

The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) logged more than 16,000 sextortion complaints in the first half of 2021, with losses exceeding $8 million. By June 2023, the bureau warned the playbook had shifted: attackers were using ordinary social media photos to create fake explicit images and extort minors.

UK children’s counseling helpline Childline has seen similar shifts as deepfake tools become more accessible. It already logs many sextortion cases each year, many from kids who were manipulated into sharing intimate images of themselves. Now, the organization is getting calls from children who are being sent deepfake CSAM images of themselves without any prior contact.

One 15-year-old girl, for example, was sent a “really convincing” fake nude built from her Instagram photos.

By November 2025, IWF reports of AI-generated CSAM had more than doubled year over year, rising from 199 to 426. Girls accounted for 94% of the victims. Reported cases included children ranging from newborns to two-year-olds, according to the organization.

The ecosystem around these tools is industrial. In April 2025, a researcher found an exposed AWS S3 bucket belonging to South Korean “nudify” app GenNomis containing 93,485 AI-generated images alongside the prompts that produced them.

What the schools are being told

The EWWG’s advice is to replace close-up, identifiable photos with images taken from a distance, blurred images, or photos shot from behind. It also advises schools to remove full names from captions, audit existing images, and ask parents to re-sign consent forms.

In fact, it advises schools to rethink whether they need to publish children’s photos online at all.

Some schools have already acted. According to the Guardian, Loughborough Schools Foundation, a group of three private schools sharing a website, removed recognizable pupil images entirely last year.

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) says that it “would still generally expect you to offer an opt-out to parents” when publishing an identifiable photo of a child, but says this isn’t legally the same as consent, which has a higher bar.

Things get murkier in the US, where states often have their own student privacy statutes. Broadly, though, under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), schools typically include identifiable photos of students under the category of directory information. This category also covers name, address, telephone listing, date and place of birth, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, and dates of attendance.

Under FERPA, schools can publish this type of information unless the child’s guardian specifically opts out. They have to notify a guardian when they want to publish it, but that process may not apply indefinitely after a student leaves the school.

That means student photos and information can remain online long after families assume they have disappeared.

What happens next

Back in the UK, Childline’s Report Remove service allows children to flag explicit images or videos of themselves that have been posted online. The service took 394 blackmail reports from under-18s last year, up by one-third compared to 2024.

Meanwhile, the UK government is amending the Crime and Policing Bill, forcing platforms to take flagged intimate images down within 48 hours or face fines of 10% of global revenue.

We anticipate a race between regulators and AI-enabled cybercriminals. Right now, attackers still have to manually find the photos themselves. The concern is that this process could soon become automated, allowing criminals to scrape names and photos from school websites and social media platforms at scale.

For parents, the simplest protection may be limiting how many identifiable pictures of your children are available online. That includes being vigilant not just with your child’s school, but their sports clubs, extracurricular activities, and social media accounts.

---

---