With both spring and St. Valentine’s Day just around the corner, love is in the air — but we’re going to look at it through the lens of ultra-modern high-technology. Today, we’re diving into how technology is reshaping our romantic ideals and even the language we use to flirt. And, of course, we’ll throw in some non-obvious tips to make sure you don’t end up as a casualty of the modern-day love game.

New languages of love

Ever received your fifth video e-card of the day from an older relative and thought, “Make it stop”? Or do you feel like a period at the end of a sentence is a sign of passive aggression? In the world of messaging, different social and age groups speak their own digital dialects, and things often get lost in translation.

This is especially obvious in how Gen Z and Gen Alpha use emojis. For them, the Loudly Crying Face 😭 often doesn’t mean sadness — it means laughter, shock, or obsession. Meanwhile, the Heart Eyes emoji might be used for irony rather than romance: “Lost my wallet on the way home 😍😍😍”. Some double meanings have already become universal, like 🔥 for approval/praise, or 🍆 for… well, surely you know that by now… right?! 😭

Still, the ambiguity of these symbols doesn’t stop folks from crafting entire sentences out of nothing but emoji. For instance, a declaration of love might look something like this:

🤫❤️🫵

Or here’s an invitation to go on a date:

🫵🚶➡️💋🌹🍝🍷❓

By the way, there are entire books written in emojis. Back in 2009, enthusiasts actually translated the entirety of Moby Dick into emojis. The translators had to get creative — even paying volunteers to vote on the most accurate combinations for every single sentence. Granted it’s not exactly a literary masterpiece — the emoji language has its limits, after all — but the experiment was pretty fascinating: they actually managed to convey the general plot.

Unfortunately, putting together a definitive emoji dictionary or a formal style guide for texting is nearly impossible. There are just too many variables: age, context, personal interests, and social circles. Still, it never hurts to ask your friends and loved ones how they express tone and emotion in their messages. Fun fact: couples who use emojis regularly generally report feeling closer to one another.

However, if you are big into emojis, keep in mind that your writing style is surprisingly easy to spoof. It’s easy for an attacker to run your messages or public posts through AI to clone your tone for social engineering attacks on your friends and family. So, if you get a frantic DM or a request for an urgent wire transfer that sounds exactly like your best friend, double-check it. Even if the vibe is spot on, stay skeptical. We took a deeper dive into spotting these deepfake scams in our post about the attack of the clones.

Dating an AI

Of course, in 2026, it’s impossible to ignore the topic of relationships with artificial intelligence; it feels like we’re closer than ever to the plot of the movie Her. Just 10 years ago, news about people dating robots sounded like sci-fi tropes or urban legends. Today, stories about teens caught up in romances with their favorite characters on Character AI, or full-blown wedding ceremonies with ChatGPT, barely elicit more than a nervous chuckle.

In 2017, the service Replika launched, allowing users to create a virtual friend or life partner powered by AI. Its founder, Eugenia Kuyda — a Russian native living in San Francisco since 2010 — built the chatbot after her friend was tragically killed by a car in 2015, leaving her with nothing but their chat logs. What started as a bot created to help her process her grief was eventually released to her friends and then the general public. It turned out that a lot of people were craving that kind of connection.

Replika lets users customize a character’s personality, interests, and appearance, after which they can text or even call them. A paid subscription unlocks the romantic relationship option, along with AI-generated photos and selfies, voice calls with roleplay, and the ability to hand-pick exactly what the character remembers from your conversations.

However, these interactions aren’t always harmless. In 2021, a Replika chatbot actually encouraged a user in his plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II. The man eventually attempted to break into Windsor Castle — an “adventure” that ended in 2023 with a nine-year prison sentence. Following the scandal, the company had to overhaul its algorithms to stop the AI from egging on illegal behavior. The downside? According to many Replika devotees, the AI model lost its spark and became indifferent to users. After thousands of users revolted against the updated version, Replika was forced to cave and give longtime customers the option to roll back to the legacy chatbot version.

But sometimes, just chatting with a bot isn’t enough. There are entire online communities of people who actually marry their AI. Even professional wedding planners are getting in on the action. Last year, Yurina Noguchi, 32, “married” Klaus, an AI persona she’d been chatting with on ChatGPT. The wedding featured a full ceremony with guests, the reading of vows, and even a photoshoot of the “happy newlyweds”.

No matter how your relationship with a chatbot evolves, it’s vital to remember that generative neural networks don’t have feelings — even if they try their hardest to fulfill every request, agree with you, and do everything it can to “please” you. What’s more, AI isn’t capable of independent thought (at least not yet). It’s simply calculating the most statistically probable and acceptable sequence of words to serve up in response to your prompt.

Love by design: dating algorithms

Those who aren’t ready to tie the knot with a bot aren’t exactly having an easy time either: in today’s world, face-to-face interactions are dwindling every year. Modern love requires modern tech! And while you’ve definitely heard the usual grumbling, “Back in the day, people fell in love for real. These days it’s all about swiping left or right!” Statistics tell a different story. Roughly 16% of couples worldwide say they met online, and in some countries that number climbs to as high as 51%.

That said, dating apps like Tinder spark some seriously mixed emotions. The internet is practically overflowing with articles and videos claiming these apps are killing romance and making everyone lonely. But what does the research say?

In 2025, scientists conducted a meta-analysis of studies investigating how dating apps impact users’ wellbeing, body image, and mental health. Half of the studies focused exclusively on men, while the other half included both men and women. Here are the results: 86% of respondents linked negative body image to their use of dating apps! The analysis also showed that in nearly one out of every two cases, dating app usage correlated with a decline in mental health and overall wellbeing.

Other researchers noted that depression levels are lower among those who steer clear of dating apps. Meanwhile, users who already struggled with loneliness or anxiety often develop a dependency on online dating; they don’t just log on for potential relationships, but for the hits of dopamine from likes, matches, and the endless scroll of profiles.

However, the issue might not just be the algorithms — it could be our expectations. Many are convinced that “sparks” must fly on the very first date, and that everyone has a “soulmate” waiting for them somewhere out there. In reality, these romanticized ideals only surfaced during the Romantic era as a rebuttal to Enlightenment rationalism, where marriages of convenience were the norm.

It’s also worth noting that the romantic view of love didn’t just appear out of thin air: the Romantics, much like many of our contemporaries, were skeptical of rapid technological progress, industrialization, and urbanization. To them, “true love” seemed fundamentally incompatible with cold machinery and smog-choked cities. It’s no coincidence, after all, that Anna Karenina meets her end under the wheels of a train.

Fast forward to today, and many feel like algorithms are increasingly pulling the strings of our decision-making. However, that doesn’t mean online dating is a lost cause; researchers have yet to reach a consensus on exactly how long-lasting or successful internet-born relationships really are. The bottom line: don’t panic, just make sure your digital networking stays safe!

How to stay safe while dating online

So, you’ve decided to hack Cupid and signed up for a dating app. What could possibly go wrong?

Deepfakes and catfishing

Catfishing is a classic online scam where a fraudster pretends to be someone else. It used to be that catfishers just stole photos and life stories from real people, but nowadays they’re increasingly pivoting to generative models. Some AIs can churn out incredibly realistic photos of people who don’t even exist, and whipping up a backstory is a piece of cake — or should we say, a piece of prompt. By the way, that “verified account” checkmark isn’t a silver bullet; sometimes AI manages to trick identity verification systems too.

To verify that you’re talking to a real human, try asking for a video call or doing a reverse image search on their photos. If you want to level up your detection skills, check out our three posts on how to spot fakes: from photos and audio recordings to real-time deepfake video — like the kind used in live video chats.

Phishing and scams

Picture this: you’ve been hitting it off with a new connection for a while, and then, totally out of the blue, they drop a suspicious link and ask you to follow it. Maybe they want you to “help pick out seats” or “buy movie tickets”. Even if you feel like you’ve built up a real bond, there’s a chance your match is a scammer (or just a bot), and the link is malicious.

Telling you to “never click a malicious link” is pretty useless advice — it’s not like they come with a warning label. Instead, try this: to make sure your browsing stays safe, use a Kaspersky Premium that automatically blocks phishing attempts and keeps you off sketchy sites.

Keep in mind that there’s an even more sophisticated scheme out there known as “Pig Butchering”. In these cases, the scammer might chat with the victim for weeks or even months. Sadly, it ends badly: after lulling the victim into a false sense of security through friendly or romantic banter, the scammer casually nudges them toward a “can’t-miss crypto investment” — and then vanishes along with the “invested” funds.

Stalking and doxing

The internet is full of horror stories about obsessed creepers, harassment, and stalking. That’s exactly why posting photos that reveal where you live or work — or telling strangers about your favorite local hangouts — is a bad move. We’ve previously covered how to avoid becoming a victim of doxing (the gathering and public release of your personal info without your consent). Your first step is to lock down the privacy settings on all your social media and apps using our free Privacy Checker tool.

We also recommend stripping metadata from your photos and videos before you post or send them; many sites and apps don’t do this for you. Metadata can allow anyone who downloads your photo to pinpoint the exact coordinates of where it was taken.

Finally, don’t forget about your physical safety. Before heading out on a date, it’s a smart move to share your live geolocation, and set up a safe word or a code phrase with a trusted friend to signal if things start feeling off.

Sextortion and nudes

We don’t recommend ever sending intimate photos to strangers. Honestly, we don’t even recommend sending them to people you do know — you never know how things might go sideways down the road. But if a conversation has already headed in that direction, suggest moving it to an app with end-to-end encryption that supports self-destructing messages (like “delete after viewing”). Telegram’s Secret Chats are great for this (plus — they block screenshots!), as are other secure messengers. If you do find yourself in a bad spot, check out our posts on what to do if you’re a victim of sextortion and how to get leaked nudes removed from the internet.

More on love, security (and robots):

• Neither flowers nor gifts: how women get scammed
• Scams targeting lovers or the lovelorn
• AI and the new reality of sextortion
• Fifty shades of sextortion
• Your guide to safe and private online dating

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.

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!

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.

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.

Michael suspects personal information he submitted to rent application platforms was leaked online. And analysis shows millions of documents may also be at risk

• Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast

Michael* has spent the past two months trying to get his digital identity back.

The 47-year-old Victorian schoolteacher was in the process of moving to a new town and applying for rental properties online. Around this time – and unbeknown to him – his mobile phone number was transferred to someone else.

Continue reading...

© Composite: Getty Images

© Composite: Getty Images

© Composite: Getty Images

De privacygerichte fotocloudopslagdienst Ente krijgt meerdere functies waardoor de app meer gaat lijken op populaire alternatieve fotodiensten zoals Google Foto's. Gebruikers kunnen voortaan reacties achterlaten, adminrollen toewijzen en albums downloaden. Ook is het instellingenmenu aangepast.

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.

Technologies for creating fake video and voice messages are accessible to anyone these days, and scammers are busy mastering the art of deepfakes. No one is immune to the threat — modern neural networks can clone a person’s voice from just three to five seconds of audio, and create highly convincing videos from a couple of photos. We’ve previously discussed how to distinguish a real photo or video from a fake and trace its origin to when it was taken or generated. Now let’s take a look at how attackers create and use deepfakes in real time, how to spot a fake without forensic tools, and how to protect yourself and loved ones from “clone attacks”.

How deepfakes are made

Scammers gather source material for deepfakes from open sources: webinars, public videos on social networks and channels, and online speeches. Sometimes they simply call identity theft targets and keep them on the line for as long as possible to collect data for maximum-quality voice cloning. And hacking the messaging account of someone who loves voice and video messages is the ultimate jackpot for scammers. With access to video recordings and voice messages, they can generate realistic fakes that 95% of folks are unable to tell apart from real messages from friends or colleagues.

The tools for creating deepfakes vary widely, from simple Telegram bots to professional generators like HeyGen and ElevenLabs. Scammers use deepfakes together with social engineering: for example, they might first simulate a messenger app call that appears to drop out constantly, then send a pre-generated video message of fairly low quality, blaming it on the supposedly poor connection.

In most cases, the message is about some kind of emergency in which the deepfake victim requires immediate help. Naturally the “friend in need” is desperate for money, but, as luck would have it, they’ve no access to an ATM, or have lost their wallet, and the bad connection rules out an online transfer. The solution is, of course, to send the money not directly to the “friend”, but to a fake account, phone number, or cryptowallet.

Such scams often involve pre-generated videos, but of late real-time deepfake streaming services have come into play. Among other things, these allow users to substitute their own face in a chat-roulette or video call.

How to recognize a deepfake

If you see a familiar face on the screen together with a recognizable voice but are asked unusual questions, chances are it’s a deepfake scam. Fortunately, there are certain visual, auditory, and behavioral signs that can help even non-techies to spot a fake.

Visual signs of a deepfake

Lighting and shadow issues. Deepfakes often ignore the physics of light: the direction of shadows on the face and in the background may not match, and glares on the skin may look unnatural or not be there at all. Or the person in the video may be half-turned toward the window, but their face is lit by studio lighting. This example will be familiar to participants in video conferences, where substituted background images can appear extremely unnatural.

Blurred or floating facial features. Pay attention to the hairline: deepfakes often show blurring, flickering, or unnatural color transitions along this area. These artifacts are caused by flaws in the algorithm for superimposing the cloned face onto the original.

Unnaturally blinking or “dead” eyes. A person blinks on average 10 to 20 times per minute. Some deepfakes blink too rarely, others too often. Eyelid movements can be too abrupt, and sometimes blinking is out of sync, with one eye not matching the other. “Glassy” or “dead-eye” stares are also characteristic of deepfakes. And sometimes a pupil (usually just the one) may twitch randomly due to a neural network hallucination.

When analyzing a static image such as a photograph, it’s also a good idea to zoom in on the eyes and compare the reflections on the irises — in real photos they’ll be identical; in deepfakes — often not.

Lip-syncing issues. Even top-quality deepfakes trip up when it comes to synchronizing speech with lip movements. A delay of just a hundred milliseconds is noticeable to the naked eye. It’s often possible to observe an irregular lip shape when pronouncing the sounds m, f, or t. All of these are telltale signs of an AI-modeled face.

Static or blurred background. In generated videos, the background often looks unrealistic: it might be too blurry; its elements may not interact with the on-screen face; or sometimes the image behind the person remains motionless even when the camera moves.

Odd facial expressions. Deepfakes do a poor job of imitating emotion: facial expressions may not change in line with the conversation; smiles look frozen, and the fine wrinkles and folds that appear in real faces when expressing emotion are absent — the fake looks botoxed.

Auditory signs of a deepfake

Early AI generators modeled speech from small, monotonous phonemes, and when the intonation changed, there was an audible shift in pitch, making it easy to recognize a synthesized voice. Although today’s technology has advanced far beyond this, there are other signs that still give away generated voices.

Wooden or electronic tone. If the voice sounds unusually flat, without natural intonation variations, or there’s a vaguely electronic quality to it, there’s a high probability you’re talking to a deepfake. Real speech contains many variations in tone and natural imperfections.

No breathing sounds. Humans take micropauses and breathe in between phrases — especially in long sentences, not to mention small coughs and sniffs. Synthetic voices often lack these nuances, or place them unnaturally.

Robotic speech or sudden breaks. The voice may abruptly cut off, words may sound “glued” together, and the stress and intonation may not be what you’re used to hearing from your friend or colleague.

Lack of… shibboleths in speech. Pay attention to speech patterns (such as accent or phrases) that are typical of the person in real life but are poorly imitated (if at all) by the deepfake.

To mask visual and auditory artifacts, scammers often simulate poor connectivity by sending a noisy video or audio message. A low-quality video stream or media file is the first red flag indicating that checks are needed of the person at the other end.

Behavioral signs of a deepfake

Analyzing the movements and behavioral nuances of the caller is perhaps still the most reliable way to spot a deepfake in real time.

Can’t turn their head. During the video call, ask the person to turn their head so they’re looking completely to the side. Most deepfakes are created using portrait photos and videos, so a sideways turn will cause the image to float, distort, or even break up. AI startup Metaphysic.ai — creators of viral Tom Cruise deepfakes — confirm that head rotation is the most reliable deepfake test at present.

Unnatural gestures. Ask the on-screen person to perform a spontaneous action: wave their hand in front of their face; scratch their nose; take a sip from a cup; cover their eyes with their hands; or point to something in the room. Deepfakes have trouble handling impromptu gestures — hands may pass ghostlike through objects or the face, or fingers may appear distorted, or move unnaturally.

Screen sharing. If the conversation is work-related, ask your chat partner to share their screen and show an on-topic file or document. Without access to your real-life colleague’s device, this will be virtually impossible to fake.

Can’t answer tricky questions. Ask something that only the genuine article could know, for example: “What meeting do we have at work tomorrow?”, “Where did I get this scar?”, “Where did we go on vacation two years ago?” A scammer won’t be able to answer questions if the answers aren’t present in the hacked chats or publicly available sources.

Don’t know the codeword. Agree with friends and family on a secret word or phrase for emergency use to confirm identity. If a panicked relative asks you to urgently transfer money, ask them for the family codeword. A flesh-and-blood relation will reel it off; a deepfake-armed fraudster won’t.

What to do if you encounter a deepfake

If you’ve even the slightest suspicion that what you’re talking to isn’t a real human but a deepfake, follow our tips below.

• End the chat and call back. The surest check is to end the video call and connect with the person through another channel: call or text their regular phone, or message them in another app. If your opposite number is unhappy about this, pretend the connection dropped out.

• Don’t be pressured into sending money. A favorite trick is to create a false sense of urgency. “Mom, I need money right now, I’ve had an accident”; “I don’t have time to explain”; “If you don’t send it in ten minutes, I’m done for!” A real person usually won’t mind waiting a few extra minutes while you double-check the information.
• Tell your friend or colleague they’ve been hacked. If a call or message from someone in your contacts comes from a new number or an unfamiliar account, it’s not unusual — attackers often create fake profiles or use temporary numbers, and this is yet another red flag. But if you get a deepfake call from a contact in a messenger app or your address book, inform them immediately that their account has been hacked — and do it via another communication channel. This will help them take steps to regain access to their account (see our detailed instructions for Telegram and WhatsApp), and to minimize potential damage to other contacts, for example, by posting about the hack.

How to stop your own face getting deepfaked

• Restrict public access to your photos and videos. Hide your social media profiles from strangers, limit your friends list to real people, and delete videos with your voice and face from public access.
• Don’t give suspicious apps access to your smartphone camera or microphone. Scammers can collect biometric data through fake apps disguised as games or utilities. To stop such programs from getting on your devices, use a proven all-in-one security solution.
• Use passkeys, unique passwords, and two-factor authentication (2FA) where possible. Even if scammers do create a deepfake with your face, 2FA will make it much harder to access your accounts and use them to send deepfakes. A cross-platform password manager with support for passkeys and 2FA codes can help out here.
• Teach friends and family how to spot deepfakes. Elderly relatives, young children, and anyone new to technology are the most vulnerable targets. Educate them about scams, show them examples of deepfakes, and practice using a family codeword.
• Use content analyzers. While there’s no silver bullet against deepfakes, there are services that can identify AI-generated content with high accuracy. For graphics, these include Undetectable AI and Illuminarty; for video — Deepware; and for all types of deepfakes — Sensity AI and Hive Moderation.
• Keep a cool head. Scammers apply psychological pressure to hurry victims into acting rashly. Remember the golden rule: if a call, video, or voice message from anyone you know rouses even the slightest suspicion, end the conversation and make contact through another channel.

To protect yourself and loved ones from being scammed, learn more about how scammers deploy deepfakes:

• How phishers and scammers use AI
• How fraudsters bypass customer identity verification using deepfakes
• Watch the (verified) birdie, or new ways to recognize fakes
• Is it the boss — or is it a fraudster? Scams disguised as urgent orders from top brass
• Don’t believe your ears: voice deepfakes

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.

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.

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.

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.