WhatsApp has introduced ‘Private Processing,’ a new tech that allows users to use advanced AI features by offloading tasks to privacy-preserving cloud servers, without exposing their chat to Meta. Meta claims even it cannot see the messages while processing them. The system employs encrypted cloud infrastructure and hardware-based isolation without making it visible to anyone, even Meta, or processing data.
For those who decide to use Private Processing, the system works in an obscure verification via the user’s WhatsApp client to confirm the user’s validity.
Meta claims this system keeps WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption intact while offering AI features in chats. However, the feature currently applies only to select use cases and excludes Meta’s broader AI deployments, including those used in India’s public service systems.
Private processing employs Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) — safe virtual machines that use cloud infrastructure to keep AI requests hidden.
According to Meta, the Private processing is a response to privacy questions around AI and messaging. WhatsApp has now joined other companies like Apple that have introduced confidential AI computing models in the previous year. “To validate our implementation of these and other security principles, independent security researchers will be able to continuously verify our privacy and security architecture and its integrity,” Meta said.
It is similar to Apple’s private cloud computing in terms of public transparency and stateless processing. Currently, however, WhatsApp is using them only for select features. Apple, on the other hand, has declared plans to implement this model throughout all its AI tools, whereas WhatsApp has not made such claims, yet.
WhatsApp says, “Private Processing uses anonymous credentials to authenticate users over OHTTP. This way, Private Processing can authenticate users to the Private Processing system but remains unable to identify them.”
In 2025 alone, three VPN apps have had over a million downloads on Google Play and Apple’s App Store, suggesting these aren’t small-time apps, Sensor Tower reports. They are advertised as “private browsing” tools, but the VPNs provide the companies with complete user data of their online activity. This is alarming because China’s national security laws mandate that companies give user data if the government demands it.
The intricate web of ownership structures raises important questions; the apps are run by Singapore-based Innovative Connecting, owned by Lemon Seed, a Cayman Islands firm. Qihoo acquired Lemon Seed for $69.9 million in 2020. The company claimed to sell the business months late, but FT reports the China-based team making the applications were still under Qihoo’s umbrella for years. According to FT, a developer said, “You could say that we’re part of them, and you could say we’re not. It’s complicated.”
Google said it strives to follow sanctions and remove violators when found. Apple has removed two apps- Snap VPN and Thunder VPN- after FT contacted the business, claiming it follows strict rules on VPN data-sharing.
What Google and Apple face is more than public outage. Investors prioritise data privacy, and regulatory threat has increased, mainly with growing concerns around U.S tech firms’ links to China. If the U.S government gets involved, it can result in stricter rules, fines, and even more app removals. If this happens, shareholders won’t be happy.
According to FT, “Innovative Connecting said the content of the article was not accurate and declined to comment further. Guangzhou Lianchuang declined to comment. Qihoo and Chen Ningyi did not respond to requests for comment.”
Two federal employees have filed a lawsuit against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), alleging that a newly implemented email system is being used to compile a database of federal workers without proper authorization. The lawsuit raises concerns about potential misuse of employee information and suggests a possible connection to Elon Musk, though no concrete evidence has been provided. The controversy began when OPM sent emails to employees, claiming it was testing a new communication system. Recipients were asked to reply to confirm receipt, but the plaintiffs argue that this was more than a routine test—it was an attempt to secretly create a list of government workers for future personnel decisions, including potential job cuts.
The lawsuit names Amanda Scales, a former executive at Musk’s artificial intelligence company, xAI, who now serves as OPM’s chief of staff. The plaintiffs suspect that her appointment may be linked to the email system’s implementation, though they have not provided definitive proof. They claim that an unauthorized email server was set up within OPM’s offices, making it appear as though messages were coming from official government sources when they were actually routed through a separate system.
An anonymous OPM employee’s post, cited in the lawsuit, alleges that the agency’s Chief Information Officer, Melvin Brown, was sidelined after refusing to implement the email list. The post further claims that a physical server was installed at OPM headquarters, enabling external entities to send messages that appeared to originate from within the agency. These allegations have raised serious concerns about transparency and data security within the federal government.
The lawsuit also argues that the email system violates the E-Government Act of 2002, which requires federal agencies to conduct strict privacy assessments before creating databases containing personal information. The plaintiffs contend that OPM bypassed these requirements, putting employees at risk of having their information used without consent.
Beyond the legal issues, the case reflects growing anxiety among federal employees about potential restructuring under the new administration. Reports suggest that significant workforce reductions may be on the horizon, and the lawsuit implies that the email system could play a role in streamlining mass layoffs. If the allegations are proven true, it could have major implications for how employee information is collected and used in the future.
As of now, OPM has not officially responded to the allegations, and there is no definitive proof linking the email system to Musk or any specific policy agenda. However, the case has sparked widespread discussions about transparency, data security, and the ethical use of employee information within the federal government. The lawsuit highlights the need for stricter oversight and accountability to ensure that federal employees’ privacy rights are protected.
The lawsuit against OPM underscores the growing tension between federal employees and government agencies over data privacy and transparency. While the allegations remain unproven, they raise important questions about the ethical use of employee information and the potential for misuse in decision-making processes. As the case unfolds, it could set a precedent for how federal agencies handle employee data and implement new systems in the future. For now, the controversy serves as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding privacy and ensuring accountability in government operations.