Search This Blog
Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Labels

Footer About

Footer About

Labels

Load More
Trendy Right Now

Popular Posts

Showing posts with label Data protection. Show all posts
USB
Backup Cyber Security Data protection Encryption storage USB

USB Drives Are Handy, But Never For Your Only Backup

 

Storing important files on a USB drive offers convenience due to their ease of use and affordability, but there are significant considerations regarding both data preservation and security that users must address. USB drives, while widely used for backup, should not be solely relied upon for safeguarding crucial files, as various risks such as device failure, malware infection, and physical theft can compromise data integrity.

Data preservation challenges

USB drive longevity depends heavily on build quality, frequency of use, and storage conditions. Cheap flash drives carry a higher failure risk compared to rugged, high-grade SSDs, though even premium devices can malfunction unexpectedly. Relying on a single drive is risky; redundancy is the key to effective file preservation.

Users are encouraged to maintain multiple backups, ideally spanning different storage approaches—such as using several USB drives, local RAID setups, and cloud storage—for vital files. Each backup method has its trade-offs: local storage like RAID arrays provides resilience against hardware failure, while cloud storage via services such as Google Drive or Dropbox enables convenient access but introduces exposure to hacking or unauthorized access due to online vulnerabilities.

Malware and physical risks

All USB drives are susceptible to malware, especially when connected to compromised computers. Such infections can propagate, and in some cases, lead to ransomware attacks where files are held hostage. Additionally, used or secondhand USB drives pose heightened malware risks and should typically be avoided. Physical security is another concern; although USB drives are inaccessible remotely when unplugged, they are unprotected if stolen unless properly encrypted.

Encryption significantly improves USB drive security. Tools like BitLocker (Windows) and Disk Utility (MacOS) enable password protection, making it more difficult for thieves or unauthorized users to access files even if they obtain the physical device. Secure physical storage—such as safes or safety deposit boxes—further limits theft risk.

Recommended backup strategy

Most users should keep at least two backups: one local (such as a USB drive) and one cloud-based. This dual approach ensures data recovery if either the cloud service is compromised or the physical drive is lost or damaged. For extremely sensitive data, robust local systems with advanced encryption are preferable. Regularly simulating data loss scenarios and confirming your ability to restore lost files provides confidence and peace of mind in your backup strategy.
Read more »
data security
Chinese Chinese Hackers Cyber Security Data Breaches Data Leak Data protection data security

Knownsec Data Leak Exposes Deep Cyber Links and Global Targeting Operations

 

A recent leak involving Chinese cybersecurity company Knownsec has uncovered more than 12,000 internal documents, offering an unusually detailed picture of how deeply a private firm can be intertwined with state-linked cyber activities. The incident has raised widespread concern among researchers, as the exposed files reportedly include information on internal artificial intelligence tools, sophisticated cyber capabilities, and extensive international targeting efforts. Although the materials were quickly removed after surfacing briefly on GitHub, they have already circulated across the global security community, enabling analysts to examine the scale and structure of the operations. 

The leaked data appears to illustrate connections between Knownsec and several government-aligned entities, giving researchers insight into China’s broader cyber ecosystem. According to those reviewing the documents, the files map out international targets across more than twenty countries and regions, including India, Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nigeria, and the United Kingdom. Of particular concern are spreadsheets that allegedly outline attacks on around 80 foreign organizations, including critical infrastructure providers and major telecommunications companies. These insights suggest activity far more coordinated than previously understood, highlighting the growing sophistication of state-associated cyber programs. 

Among the most significant revelations is the volume of foreign data reportedly linked to prior breaches. Files attributed to the leaks include approximately 95GB of immigration information from India, 3TB of call logs taken from South Korea’s LG U Plus, and nearly 459GB of transportation records from Taiwan. Researchers also identified multiple Remote Access Trojans capable of infiltrating Windows, Linux, macOS, iOS, and Android systems. Android-based malware found in the leaked content reportedly has functionality allowing data extraction from widely used Chinese messaging applications and Telegram, further emphasizing the operational depth of the tools. 

The documents also reference hardware-based hacking devices, including a malicious power bank engineered to clandestinely upload data into a victim’s system once connected. Such devices demonstrate that offensive cyber operations may extend beyond software to include physical infiltration tools designed for discreet, targeted attacks. Security analysts reviewing the information suggest that these capabilities indicate a more expansive and organized program than earlier assessments had captured. 

Beijing has denied awareness of any breach involving Knownsec. A Foreign Ministry spokesperson reiterated that China opposes malicious cyber activities and enforces relevant laws, though the official statement did not directly address the alleged connections between the state and companies involved in intelligence-oriented work. While the government’s response distances itself from the incident, analysts note that the leaked documents will likely renew debates about the role of private firms in national cyber strategies. 

Experts warn that traditional cybersecurity measures—including antivirus software and firewall defenses—are insufficient against the type of advanced tools referenced in the leak. Instead, organizations are encouraged to adopt more comprehensive protection strategies, such as real-time monitoring systems, strict network segmentation, and the responsible integration of AI-driven threat detection. 

The Knownsec incident underscores that as adversaries continue to refine their methods, defensive systems must evolve accordingly to prevent large-scale breaches and safeguard sensitive data.
Read more »
Malware Attack
APT44 Cyber Attacks Cyber Hackers Data Hackers Data protection data security data wipers Data Wiping Malware Hacker attack Malware Attack

Russian Sandworm Hackers Deploy New Data-Wipers Against Ukraine’s Government and Grain Sector

 

Russian state-backed hacking group Sandworm has intensified its destructive cyber operations in Ukraine, deploying several families of data-wiping malware against organizations in the government, education, logistics, energy, and grain industries. According to a new report by cybersecurity firm ESET, the attacks occurred in June and September and form part of a broader pattern of digital sabotage carried out by Sandworm—also known as APT44—throughout the conflict. 

Data wipers differ fundamentally from ransomware, which typically encrypts and steals data for extortion. Wipers are designed solely to destroy information by corrupting files, damaging disk partitions, or deleting master boot records in ways that prevent recovery. The resulting disruption can be severe, especially for critical Ukrainian institutions already strained by wartime pressures. Since Russia’s invasion, Ukraine has faced repeated wiper campaigns attributed to state-aligned actors, including PathWiper, HermeticWiper, CaddyWiper, WhisperGate, and IsaacWiper.

ESET’s report documents advanced persistent threat (APT) activity between April and September 2025 and highlights a notable escalation: targeted attacks against Ukraine’s grain sector. Grain exports remain one of the country’s essential revenue streams, and ESET notes that wiper attacks on this industry reflect an attempt to erode Ukraine’s economic resilience. The company reports that Sandworm deployed multiple variants of wiper malware during both June and September, striking organizations responsible for government operations, energy distribution, logistics networks, and grain production. While each of these sectors has faced previous sabotage attempts, direct attacks on the grain industry remain comparatively rare and underscore a growing focus on undermining Ukraine’s wartime economy. 

Earlier, in April 2025, APT44 used two additional wipers—ZeroLot and Sting—against a Ukrainian university. Investigators discovered that Sting was executed through a Windows scheduled task named after the Hungarian dish goulash, a detail that illustrates the group’s use of deceptive operational techniques. ESET also found that initial access in several incidents was achieved by UAC-0099, a separate threat actor active since 2023, which then passed control to Sandworm for wiper deployment. UAC-0099 has consistently focused its intrusions on Ukrainian institutions, suggesting coordinated efforts between threat groups aligned with Russian interests. 

Although Sandworm has recently engaged in more espionage-driven operations, ESET concludes that destructive attacks remain a persistent and ongoing part of the group’s strategy. The report further identifies cyber activity linked to Iranian interests, though not attributed to a specific Iranian threat group. These clusters involved the use of Go-based wipers derived from open-source code and targeted Israel’s energy and engineering sectors in June 2025. The tactics, techniques, and procedures align with those typically associated with Iranian state-aligned hackers, indicating a parallel rise in destructive cyber operations across regions affected by geopolitical tensions. 

Defending against data-wiping attacks requires a combination of familiar but essential cybersecurity practices. Many of the same measures advised for ransomware—such as maintaining offline, immutable backups—are crucial because wipers aim to permanently destroy data rather than exploit it. Strong endpoint detection systems, modern intrusion prevention technologies, and consistent software patching can help prevent attackers from gaining a foothold in networks. As Ukraine continues to face sophisticated threats from state-backed actors, resilient cybersecurity defenses are increasingly vital for preserving both operational continuity and national stability.
Read more »
Ransomware attack
AlphV Group Australian Government cyber resilience Cybersecurity Breach Data Breach Data Leak Data protection Digital Security Law Firm Hack Ransomware attack

WA Law Firm Faces Cybersecurity Breach Following Ransomware Reports

 


It seems that Western Australia's legal sector and government sectors are experiencing ripples right now following reports that the Russian ransomware group AlphV has successfully hacked the prominent national law firm HWL Ebsworth and extracted a ransom payment from the firm. This has sent shockwaves through the legal and government sectors across Western Australia. 

It has raised serious concerns since May, when the first hints about the breach came to light, concerning the risk of revealing sensitive information, such as information pertaining to over 300 motor vehicle insurance claims filed with the Insurance Commission of Western Australia. In a statement released by the ABC on Monday, the ABC has confirmed that HWL Ebsworth data that was held by the company on behalf of WA government entities may have been compromised after a cybercriminal syndicate claimed to have published a vast repository of the firm’s files earlier this month on the dark web. 

Although the full extent of the breach is unclear, investigations are currently underway to determine how large the data exposure is and what the potential consequences are. It has been reported that an ICWA spokesperson acknowledged in an official statement that there has been an impact on the Commission, which is responsible for providing insurance coverage for all vehicles registered in Western Australia as well as overseeing the government's self-insurance programs for property, workers' compensation, and liability. 

Although the agency indicated that the extent of any data compromise cannot yet be verified because of ongoing investigation restrictions, the agency noted that it cannot verify the extent of any data compromise at the moment. A spokesperson from the Insurance Commission said, “The details of the data that has been accessed are not yet known, but this is part of a live investigation that we are actively supporting. It is important to note that this situation is extremely serious and that the information that may be compromised is sensitive.

Anubis, a ransomware group that was a part of the law firm that has been involved in the cyberattack, escalated the cyberattack by releasing a trove of sensitive information belonging to one of the firm's clients, which caused the cyberattack to take an alarming turn. The leaked material was reportedly containing confidential business correspondence, financial records, and deeply personal correspondence. 

An extensive collection of data was exposed, including screenshots of text messages sent and received by the client and family members, emails, and even Facebook posts - all of which revealed intimate details about private family disputes that surrounded the client. Anubis stated, in its statement on the dark web, that the cache contained “financial information, correspondence, personal messages, and other details of family relationships.” 

Despite this, the company highlighted the possibility of emotional and reputational damage as a result of such exposure. It was pointed out by the group that families already going through difficult circumstances like divorce, adoption, or child custody battles were now going to experience additional stress due to their private matters being made public, even though the full scope of the breach remains unclear, and the ransomware operators have yet to provide a specific ransom amount, making it difficult to speculate about the intentions of the attackers. 

Cyber Daily contacted Paterson & Dowding in response to inquiries it received, and a spokesperson confirmed that there had been unauthorized access to data and exfiltration by the firm. “Our team immediately acted upon becoming aware of unusual activity on our system as soon as we became aware of it, engaging external experts to deal with the incident, and launching an urgent investigation as soon as possible,” said the spokesperson. 

There is no doubt in the minds of the firm that a limited number of personal information had been accessed, but the threat actors had already published a portion of the data online. In addition to notifying affected clients and employees, Paterson & Dowding is coordinating with regulatory bodies, including the Australian Cyber Security Centre and the Office of the Information Commissioner, about the incident.

A representative of the company stated that he regretted the distress the firm had caused as a result of the breach of confidentiality and compliance. Meanwhile, an individual identifying himself as Tobias Keller - a self-proclaimed "journalist" and representative of Anubis - told Cyber Daily that Paterson & Dowding was one of four Australian law firms targeted by a larger cyber campaign, which included Pound Road Medical Center and Aussie Fluid Power, among others. 

While the HWL Ebsworth cyberattack is still unfolding, it has raised increasing concern from the federal and state government authorities as the investigation continues. In addition to providing independent legal services to the Insurance Commission of Western Australia (ICWA), the firm also reviews its systems in order to determine if any client information has been compromised. In this position, one of 15 legal partners serves the Insurance Commission of Western Australia (ICWA). 

A representative of ICWA confirmed that the firm is currently assessing the affected data in order to clarify the situation for impacted parties. However, a court order in New South Wales prohibiting the agency from accessing the leaked files has hampered its own ability to verify possible data loss. 

As ICWA's Chief Executive Officer Rod Whithear acknowledged the Commission's growing concerns, he stated that a consent framework for limited access to the information is being developed as a result of a consent framework being developed. Currently, the Insurance Commission is implementing a consent regime that will allow them to assess whether data has been exfiltrated and if so, will be able to assess the exfiltrated information." He assured that the Commission remains committed to supporting any claimant impacted by the breach. 

In addition to its involvement in insurance-related matters, HWL Ebsworth has established an extensive professional relationship with multiple departments of the State government of Washington. According to the firm's public transportation radio network replacement program, between 2017 and 2020, it was expected that it would receive approximately $280,000 for its role in providing legal advice to the state regarding its replacement of public transport radio networks, a project which would initially involve a $200 million contract with Huawei, the Chinese technology giant. 

A $6.6 million settlement with Huawei and its partner firm was reached in 2020 after U.S. trade restrictions rendered the project unviable, ultimately resulting in Huawei and its partner firm being fined $6.6 million. Aside from legal representation for public housing initiatives and Government Employees Superannuation Board, HWL Ebsworth has provided legal representation for the Government Employees Superannuation Board as well. 

In light of the breach, the state government has clarified, apart from the ICWA, that no other agencies seem to have been directly affected as a result. A significant vulnerability has been highlighted by this incident in the intersection of government operations with private legal service providers, but the incident has also highlighted broader issues related to cyber security. 

Addressing the broader impacts of the attack will also be in the hands of the new Cyber Security Coordinator, Air Marshal Darren Goldie, who was appointed in order to strengthen the national cyber resilience program. The Minister of Home Affairs, Clare O'Neill, has described the breach as one of the biggest cyber incidents Australia has experienced in recent years, placing it alongside a number of major cases such as Latitude, Optus, and Medibank. 

The Australian Federal Police and Victorian Police, working together with the Australian Cyber Security Centre, continue to investigate the root cause and impact of the attack. A number of cyber incidents are unfolding throughout Australia, which serves to serve as an alarming reminder of how fragile digital trust is becoming within the legal and governmental ecosystems of the country. Experts say that while authorities are intensifying their efforts to locate the perpetrators and strengthen defenses, the breach underscores the urgent need for stronger cybersecurity governance among third parties and law firms involved in the handling of sensitive data. 

The monitoring of threats, employee awareness, and robust data protection frameworks, the nation's foremost challenge is now to rebuild trust in institutions and information integrity, beyond just restoring the systems. Beyond just restoring systems, rebuilding confidence in institutions and information integrity are the most urgent tasks facing us today.
Read more »
Hacker attack
Cyberattaccks Data Breach Data Leak Data protection Data Safety User Data data security Hacker attack

Hacker Claims Responsibility for University of Pennsylvania Breach Exposing 1.2 Million Donor Records

 

A hacker has taken responsibility for the University of Pennsylvania’s recent “We got hacked” email incident, claiming the breach was far more extensive than initially reported. The attacker alleges that data on approximately 1.2 million donors, students, and alumni was exposed, along with internal documents from multiple university systems. The cyberattack surfaced last Friday when Penn alumni and students received inflammatory emails from legitimate Penn.edu addresses, which the university initially dismissed as “fraudulent and obviously fake.”  

According to the hacker, their group gained full access to a Penn employee’s PennKey single sign-on (SSO) credentials, allowing them to infiltrate critical systems such as the university’s VPN, Salesforce Marketing Cloud, SAP business intelligence platform, SharePoint, and Qlik analytics. The attackers claim to have exfiltrated sensitive personal data, including names, contact information, birth dates, estimated net worth, donation records, and demographic details such as religion, race, and sexual orientation. Screenshots and data samples shared with cybersecurity publication BleepingComputer appeared to confirm the hackers’ access to these systems.  

The hacker stated that the breach began on October 30th and that data extraction was completed by October 31st, after which the compromised credentials were revoked. In retaliation, the group allegedly used remaining access to the Salesforce Marketing Cloud to send the offensive emails to roughly 700,000 recipients. When asked about the method used to obtain the credentials, the hacker declined to specify but attributed the breach to weak security practices at the university. Following the intrusion, the hacker reportedly published a 1.7 GB archive containing spreadsheets, donor-related materials, and files allegedly sourced from Penn’s SharePoint and Box systems. 

The attacker told BleepingComputer that their motive was not political but financial, driven primarily by access to the university’s donor database. “We’re not politically motivated,” the hacker said. “The main goal was their vast, wonderfully wealthy donor database.” They added that they were not seeking ransom, claiming, “We don’t think they’d pay, and we can extract plenty of value out of the data ourselves.” Although the full donor database has not yet been released, the hacker warned it could be leaked in the coming months. 

In response, the University of Pennsylvania stated that it is investigating the incident and has referred the matter to the FBI. “We understand and share our community’s concerns and have reported this to the FBI,” a Penn spokesperson confirmed. “We are working with law enforcement as well as third-party technical experts to address this as rapidly as possible.” Experts warn that donors and affiliates affected by the breach should remain alert to potential phishing attempts and impersonation scams. 

With detailed personal and financial data now at risk, attackers could exploit the information to send fraudulent donation requests or gain access to victims’ online accounts. Recipients of any suspicious communications related to donations or university correspondence are advised to verify messages directly with Penn before responding. 

 The University of Pennsylvania breach highlights the growing risks faced by educational institutions holding vast amounts of personal and donor data, emphasizing the urgent need for robust access controls and system monitoring to prevent future compromises.
Read more »
Personal Data
cybersecurity threat Data Breach Data Leak Data protection data security Defence Ministry Personal Data

Afghans Report Killings After British Ministry of Defence Data Leak

 

Dozens of Afghans whose personal information was exposed in a British Ministry of Defence (MoD) data breach have reported that their relatives or colleagues were killed because of the leak, according to new research submitted to a UK parliamentary inquiry. The breach, which occurred in February 2022, revealed the identities of nearly 19,000 Afghans who had worked with the UK government during the war in Afghanistan. It happened just six months after the Taliban regained control of Kabul, leaving many of those listed in grave danger. 

The study, conducted by Refugee Legal Support in partnership with Lancaster University and the University of York, surveyed 350 individuals affected by the breach. Of those, 231 said the MoD had directly informed them that their data had been compromised. Nearly 50 respondents said their family members or colleagues were killed as a result, while over 40 percent reported receiving death threats. At least half said their relatives or friends had been targeted by the Taliban following the exposure of their details. 

One participant, a former Afghan special forces member, described how his family suffered extreme violence after the leak. “My father was brutally beaten until his toenails were torn off, and my parents remain under constant threat,” he said, adding that his family continues to face harassment and repeated house searches. Others criticized the British government for waiting too long to alert them, saying the delay had endangered lives unnecessarily.  

According to several accounts, while the MoD discovered the breach in 2023, many affected Afghans were only notified in mid-2025. “Waiting nearly two years to learn that our personal data was exposed placed many of us in serious jeopardy,” said a former Afghan National Army officer still living in Afghanistan. “If we had been told sooner, we could have taken steps to protect our families.”  

Olivia Clark, Executive Director of Refugee Legal Support, said the findings revealed the “devastating human consequences” of the government’s failure to protect sensitive information. “Afghans who risked their lives working alongside British forces have faced renewed threats, violent assaults, and even killings of their loved ones after their identities were exposed,” she said. 

Clark added that only a small portion of those affected have been offered relocation to the UK. The government estimates that more than 7,300 Afghans qualify for resettlement under a program launched in 2024 to assist those placed at risk by the data breach. However, rights organizations say the scheme has been too slow and insufficient compared to the magnitude of the crisis.

The breach has raised significant concerns about how the UK manages sensitive defense data and its responsibilities toward Afghans who supported British missions. For many of those affected, the consequences of the exposure remain deeply personal and ongoing, with families still living under threat while waiting for promised protection or safe passage to the UK.
Read more »
Privacy
AI governance AI Security Corporate Data Breach Cybersecurity Data protection Digital Risk ethical AI Information Security Privacy

Unsecured Corporate Data Found Freely Accessible Through Simple Searches

 


An era when artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming the backbone of modern business innovation is presenting a striking gap between awareness and action in a way that has been largely overlooked. In a recent study conducted by Sapio Research, it has been reported that while most organisations in Europe acknowledge the growing risks associated with AI adoption, only a small number have taken concrete steps towards reducing them.

Based on insights from 800 consumers and 375 finance decision-makers across the UK, Germany, France, and the Netherlands, the Finance Pulse 2024 report highlights a surprising paradox: 93 per cent of companies are aware that artificial intelligence poses a risk, yet only half have developed formal policies to regulate its responsible use. 

There was a significant number of respondents who expressed concern about data security (43%), followed closely by a concern about accountability, transparency, and the lack specialised skills to ensure a safe implementation (both of which reached 29%). In spite of this increased awareness, only 46% of companies currently maintain formal guidelines for the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace, and even fewer—48%—impose restrictions on the type of data that employees are permitted to feed into the systems. 

It has also been noted that just 38% of companies have implemented strict access controls to safeguard sensitive information. Speaking on the findings of this study, Andrew White, CEO and Co-Founder of Sapio Research, commented that even though artificial intelligence remains a high priority for investment across Europe, its rapid integration has left many employers confused about the use of this technology internally and ill-equipped to put in place the necessary governance frameworks.

It was found, in a recent investigation by cybersecurity consulting firm PromptArmor, that there had been a troubling lapse in digital security practices linked to the use of artificial intelligence-powered platforms. According to the firm's researchers, 22 widely used artificial intelligence applications—including Claude, Perplexity, and Vercel V0-had been examined by the firm's researchers, and highly confidential corporate information had been exposed on the internet by way of chatbot interfaces. 

There was an interesting collection of data found in the report, including access tokens for Amazon Web Services (AWS), internal court documents, Oracle salary reports that were explicitly marked as confidential, as well as a memo describing a venture capital firm's investment objectives. As detailed by PCMag, these researchers confirmed that anyone could easily access such sensitive material by entering a simple search query - "site:claude.ai + internal use only" - into any standard search engine, underscoring the fact that the use of unprotected AI integrations in the workplace is becoming a dangerous and unpredictable source of corporate data theft. 

A number of security researchers have long been investigating the vulnerabilities in popular AI chatbots. Recent findings have further strengthened the fragility of the technology's security posture. A vulnerability in ChatGPT has been resolved by OpenAI since August, which could have allowed threat actors to exploit a weakness in ChatGPT that could have allowed them to extract the users' email addresses through manipulation. 

In the same vein, experts at the Black Hat cybersecurity conference demonstrated how hackers could create malicious prompts within Google Calendar invitations by leveraging Google Gemini. Although Google resolved the issue before the conference, similar weaknesses were later found to exist in other AI platforms, such as Microsoft’s Copilot and Salesforce’s Einstein, even though they had been fixed by Google before the conference began.

Microsoft and Salesforce both issued patches in the middle of September, months after researchers reported the flaws in June. It is particularly noteworthy that these discoveries were made by ethical researchers rather than malicious hackers, which underscores the importance of responsible disclosure in safeguarding the integrity of artificial intelligence ecosystems. 

It is evident that, in addition to the security flaws of artificial intelligence, its operational shortcomings have begun to negatively impact organisations financially and reputationally. "AI hallucinations," or the phenomenon in which generative systems produce false or fabricated information with convincing accuracy, is one of the most concerning aspects of artificial intelligence. This type of incident has already had significant consequences for the lawyer involved, who was penalised for submitting a legal brief that was filled with over 20 fictitious court references produced by an artificial intelligence program. 

Deloitte also had to refund the Australian government six figures after submitting an artificial intelligence-assisted report that contained fabricated sources and inaccurate data. This highlighted the dangers of unchecked reliance on artificial intelligence for content generation and highlighted the risk associated with that. As a result of these issues, Stanford University’s Social Media Lab has coined the term “workslop” to describe AI-generated content that appears polished yet is lacking in substance. 

In the United States, 40% of full-time office employees reported that they encountered such material regularly, according to a study conducted. In my opinion, this trend demonstrates a growing disconnect between the supposed benefits of automation and the real efficiency can bring. When employees are spending hours correcting, rewriting, and verifying AI-generated material, the alleged benefits quickly fade away. 

Although what may begin as a convenience may turn out to be a liability, it can reduce production quality, drain resources, and in severe cases, expose companies to compliance violations and regulatory scrutiny. It is a fact that, as artificial intelligence continues to grow and integrate deeply into the digital and corporate ecosystems, it is bringing along with it a multitude of ethical and privacy challenges. 

In the wake of increasing reliance on AI-driven systems, long-standing concerns about unauthorised data collection, opaque processing practices, and algorithmic bias have been magnified, which has contributed to eroding public trust in technology. There is still the threat of unauthorised data usage on the part of many AI platforms, as they quietly collect and analyse user information without explicit consent or full transparency. Consequently, the threat of unauthorised data usage remains a serious concern. 

It is very common for individuals to be manipulated, profiled, and, in severe cases, to become the victims of identity theft as a result of this covert information extraction. Experts emphasise organisations must strengthen regulatory compliance by creating clear opt-in mechanisms, comprehensive deletion protocols, and transparent privacy disclosures that enable users to regain control of their personal information. 

In addition to these alarming concerns, biometric data has also been identified as a very important component of personal security, as it is the most intimate and immutable form of information a person has. Once compromised, biometric identifiers are unable to be replaced, making them prime targets for cybercriminals to exploit once they have been compromised. 

If such information is misused, whether through unauthorised surveillance or large-scale breaches, then it not only poses a greater risk of identity fraud but also raises profound questions regarding ethical and human rights issues. As a consequence of biometric leaks from public databases, citizens have been left vulnerable to long-term consequences that go beyond financial damage, because these systems remain fragile. 

There is also the issue of covert data collection methods embedded in AI systems, which allow them to harvest user information quietly without adequate disclosure, such as browser fingerprinting, behaviour tracking, and hidden cookies. utilising silent surveillance, companies risk losing user trust and being subject to potential regulatory penalties if they fail to comply with tightening data protection laws, such as GDPR. Microsoft and Salesforce both issued patches in the middle of September, months after researchers reported the flaws in June. 

It is particularly noteworthy that these discoveries were made by ethical researchers rather than malicious hackers, which underscores the importance of responsible disclosure in safeguarding the integrity of artificial intelligence ecosystems. It is evident that, in addition to the security flaws of artificial intelligence, its operational shortcomings have begun to negatively impact organisations financially and reputationally. 

"AI hallucinations," or the phenomenon in which generative systems produce false or fabricated information with convincing accuracy, is one of the most concerning aspects of artificial intelligence. This type of incident has already had significant consequences for the lawyer involved, who was penalised for submitting a legal brief that was filled with over 20 fictitious court references produced by an artificial intelligence program.

Deloitte also had to refund the Australian government six figures after submitting an artificial intelligence-assisted report that contained fabricated sources and inaccurate data. This highlighted the dangers of unchecked reliance on artificial intelligence for content generation, highlighted the risk associated with that. As a result of these issues, Stanford University’s Social Media Lab has coined the term “workslop” to describe AI-generated content that appears polished yet is lacking in substance. 

In the United States, 40% of full-time office employees reported that they encountered such material regularly, according to a study conducted. In my opinion, this trend demonstrates a growing disconnect between the supposed benefits of automation and the real efficiency it can bring. 

When employees are spending hours correcting, rewriting, and verifying AI-generated material, the alleged benefits quickly fade away. Although what may begin as a convenience may turn out to be a liability, it can reduce production quality, drain resources, and in severe cases, expose companies to compliance violations and regulatory scrutiny. 

It is a fact that, as artificial intelligence continues to grow and integrate deeply into the digital and corporate ecosystems, it is bringing along with it a multitude of ethical and privacy challenges. In the wake of increasing reliance on AI-driven systems, long-standing concerns about unauthorised data collection, opaque processing practices, and algorithmic bias have been magnified, which has contributed to eroding public trust in technology. 

There is still the threat of unauthorised data usage on the part of many AI platforms, as they quietly collect and analyse user information without explicit consent or full transparency. Consequently, the threat of unauthorised data usage remains a serious concern. It is very common for individuals to be manipulated, profiled, and, in severe cases, to become the victims of identity theft as a result of this covert information extraction. 

Experts emphasise that thatorganisationss must strengthen regulatory compliance by creating clear opt-in mechanisms, comprehensive deletion protocols, and transparent privacy disclosures that enable users to regain control of their personal information. In addition to these alarming concerns, biometric data has also been identified as a very important component of personal security, as it is the most intimate and immutable form of information a person has. 

Once compromised, biometric identifiers are unable to be replaced, making them prime targets for cybercriminals to exploit once they have been compromised. If such information is misused, whether through unauthorised surveillance or large-scale breaches, then it not oonly posesa greater risk of identity fraud but also raises profound questions regarding ethical and human rights issues. 

As a consequence of biometric leaks from public databases, citizens have been left vulnerable to long-term consequences that go beyond financial damage, because these systems remain fragile. There is also the issue of covert data collection methods embedded in AI systems, which allow them to harvest user information quietly without adequate disclosure, such as browser fingerprinting behaviourr tracking, and hidden cookies. 
By 
utilising silent surveillance, companies risk losing user trust and being subject to potential regulatory penalties if they fail to comply with tightening data protection laws, such as GDPR. Furthermore, the challenges extend further than privacy, further exposing the vulnerability of AI itself to ethical abuse. Algorithmic bias is becoming one of the most significant obstacles to fairness and accountability, with numerous examples having been shown to, be in f ,act contributing to discrimination, no matter how skewed the dataset. 

There are many examples of these biases in the real world - from hiring tools that unintentionally favour certain demographics to predictive policing systems which target marginalised communities disproportionately. In order to address these issues, we must maintain an ethical approach to AI development that is anchored in transparency, accountability, and inclusive governance to ensure technology enhances human progress while not compromising fundamental freedoms. 

In the age of artificial intelligence, it is imperative tthat hatorganisationss strike a balance between innovation and responsibility, as AI redefines the digital frontier. As we move forward, not only will we need to strengthen technical infrastructure, but we will also need to shift the culture toward ethics, transparency, and continual oversight to achieve this.

Investing in a secure AI infrastructure, educating employees about responsible usage, and adopting frameworks that emphasise privacy and accountability are all important for businesses to succeed in today's market. As an enterprise, if security and ethics are incorporated into the foundation of AI strategies rather than treated as a side note, today's vulnerabilities can be turned into tomorrow's competitive advantage – driving intelligent and trustworthy advancement.
Read more »
healthcare data breach
Data Breach Data Exfilteration Data protection data security Healthcare Healthcare Breach Healthcare Data healthcare data breach

Conduent Healthcare Data Breach Exposes 10.5 Million Patient Records in Massive 2025 Cyber Incident

 

In what may become the largest healthcare breach of 2025, Conduent Business Solutions LLC disclosed a cyberattack that compromised the data of over 10.5 million patients. The breach, first discovered in January, affected major clients including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana and Humana, among others. Although the incident has not yet appeared on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ HIPAA breach reporting website, Conduent confirmed the scale of the exposure in filings with federal regulators. 

The company reported to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in April that a “threat actor” gained unauthorized access to a portion of its network on January 13. The breach caused operational disruptions for several days, though systems were reportedly restored quickly. Conduent said the attack led to data exfiltration involving files connected to a limited number of its clients. Upon further forensic analysis, cybersecurity experts confirmed that these files contained sensitive personal and health information of millions of individuals. 

Affected data included patient names, treatment details, insurance information, and billing records. The company’s notification letters sent to Humana and Blue Cross customers revealed that the breach stemmed from Conduent’s third-party mailroom and printing services unit. Despite the massive scale, Conduent maintains that there is no evidence the stolen data has appeared on the dark web. 

Montana regulators recently launched an investigation into the breach, questioning why Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana took nearly ten months to notify affected individuals. Conduent, which provides business and government support services across 22 countries, reported approximately $25 million in direct response costs related to the incident during the second quarter of 2024. The company also confirmed that it holds cyber insurance coverage and has notified federal law enforcement. 

The Conduent breach underscores the growing risk of third-party vendor incidents in the healthcare sector. Experts note that even ancillary service providers like mailroom or billing vendors handle vast amounts of protected health information, making them prime targets for cybercriminals. Regulatory attorney Rachel Rose emphasized that all forms of protected health information (PHI)—digital or paper—fall under HIPAA’s privacy and security rules, requiring strict administrative and technical safeguards. 

Security consultant Wendell Bobst noted that healthcare organizations must improve vendor risk management programs by implementing continuous monitoring and stronger contractual protections. He recommended requiring certifications like HITRUST or FedRAMP for high-risk vendors and enforcing audit rights and breach response obligations. 

The incident follows last year’s record-breaking Change Healthcare ransomware attack, which exposed data from 193 million patients. While smaller in comparison, Conduent’s 10.5 million affected individuals highlight how interconnected the healthcare ecosystem has become—and how each vendor link in that chain poses a potential cybersecurity risk. As experts warn, healthcare organizations must tighten vendor oversight, ensure data minimization practices, and develop robust incident response playbooks to prevent the next large-scale PHI breach.
Read more »
Privacy Risks
Car Data Data collection Data Privacy Data protection Data Safety User Data data security Data Surveillance Mozilla Foundation Privacy Privacy Risks

Connected Car Privacy Risks: How Modern Vehicles Secretly Track and Sell Driver Data

 

The thrill of a smooth drive—the roar of the engine, the grip of the tires, and the comfort of a high-end cabin—often hides a quieter, more unsettling reality. Modern cars are no longer just machines; they’re data-collecting devices on wheels. While you enjoy the luxury and performance, your vehicle’s sensors silently record your weight, listen through cabin microphones, track your every route, and log detailed driving behavior. This constant surveillance has turned cars into one of the most privacy-invasive consumer products ever made. 

The Mozilla Foundation recently reviewed 25 major car brands and declared that modern vehicles are “the worst product category we have ever reviewed for privacy.” Not a single automaker met even basic standards for protecting user data. The organization found that cars collect massive amounts of information—from location and driving patterns to biometric data—often without explicit user consent or transparency about where that data ends up. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has already taken notice. The agency recently pursued General Motors (GM) and its subsidiary OnStar for collecting and selling drivers’ precise location and behavioral data without obtaining clear consent. Investigations revealed that data from vehicles could be gathered as frequently as every three seconds, offering an extraordinarily detailed picture of a driver’s habits, destinations, and lifestyle. 

That information doesn’t stay within the automaker’s servers. Instead, it’s often shared or sold to data brokers, insurers, and marketing agencies. Driver behavior, acceleration patterns, late-night trips, or frequent stops at specific locations could be used to adjust insurance premiums, evaluate credit risk, or profile consumers in ways few drivers fully understand. 

Inside the car, the illusion of comfort and control masks a network of tracking systems. Voice assistants that adjust your seat or temperature remember your commands. Smartphone apps that unlock the vehicle transmit telemetry data back to corporate servers. Even infotainment systems and microphones quietly collect information that could identify you and your routines. The same technology that powers convenience features also enables invasive data collection at an unprecedented scale. 

For consumers, awareness is the first defense. Before buying a new vehicle, it’s worth asking the dealer what kind of data the car collects and how it’s used. If they cannot answer directly, it’s a strong indication of a lack of transparency. After purchase, disabling unnecessary connectivity or data-sharing features can help protect privacy. Declining participation in “driver score” programs or telematics-based insurance offerings is another step toward reclaiming control. 

As automakers continue to blend luxury with technology, the line between innovation and intrusion grows thinner. Every drive leaves behind a digital footprint that tells a story—where you live, work, shop, and even who rides with you. The true cost of modern convenience isn’t just monetary—it’s the surrender of privacy. The quiet hum of the engine as you pull into your driveway should represent freedom, not another connection to a data-hungry network.
Read more »
data security flaws
Cloud Security Critical security flaw Customer Data Cyber Security Data protection data security data security flaws

Tata Motors Fixes Security Flaws That Exposed Sensitive Customer and Dealer Data

 

Indian automotive giant Tata Motors has addressed a series of major security vulnerabilities that exposed confidential internal data, including customer details, dealer information, and company reports. The flaws were discovered in the company’s E-Dukaan portal, an online platform used for purchasing spare parts for Tata commercial vehicles. 

According to security researcher Eaton Zveare, the exposed data included private customer information, confidential documents, and access credentials to Tata Motors’ cloud systems hosted on Amazon Web Services (AWS). Headquartered in Mumbai, Tata Motors is a key global player in the automobile industry, manufacturing passenger, commercial, and defense vehicles across 125 countries. 

Zveare revealed to TechCrunch that the E-Dukaan website’s source code contained AWS private keys that granted access to internal databases and cloud storage. These vulnerabilities exposed hundreds of thousands of invoices with sensitive customer data, including names, mailing addresses, and Permanent Account Numbers (PANs). Zveare said he avoided downloading large amounts of data “to prevent triggering alarms or causing additional costs for Tata Motors.” 

The researcher also uncovered MySQL database backups, Apache Parquet files containing private communications, and administrative credentials that allowed access to over 70 terabytes of data from Tata Motors’ FleetEdge fleet-tracking software. Further investigation revealed backdoor admin access to a Tableau analytics account that stored data on more than 8,000 users, including internal financial and performance reports, dealer scorecards, and dashboard metrics. 

Zveare added that the exposed credentials provided full administrative control, allowing anyone with access to modify or download the company’s internal data. Additionally, the vulnerabilities included API keys connected to Tata Motors’ fleet management system, Azuga, which operates the company’s test drive website. Zveare responsibly reported the flaws to Tata Motors through India’s national cybersecurity agency, CERT-In, in August 2023. 

The company acknowledged the findings in October 2023 and stated that it was addressing the AWS-related security loopholes. However, Tata Motors did not specify when all issues were fully resolved. In response to TechCrunch’s inquiry, Tata Motors confirmed that all reported vulnerabilities were fixed in 2023. 

However, the company declined to say whether it notified customers whose personal data was exposed. “We can confirm that the reported flaws and vulnerabilities were thoroughly reviewed following their identification in 2023 and were promptly and fully addressed,” said Tata Motors communications head, Sudeep Bhalla. “Our infrastructure is regularly audited by leading cybersecurity firms, and we maintain comprehensive access logs to monitor unauthorized activity. We also actively collaborate with industry experts and security researchers to strengthen our security posture.” 

The incident reveals the persistent risks of misconfigured cloud systems and exposed credentials in large enterprises. While Tata Motors acted swiftly after the report, cybersecurity experts emphasize that regular audits, strict access controls, and robust encryption are essential to prevent future breaches. 

As more automotive companies integrate digital platforms and connected systems into their operations, securing sensitive customer and dealer data remains a top priority.
Read more »
National Security
Artificial Intelligence Threats Cyber Defense Strategy Cyber Diplomacy Cyber Security Cybercrime Prevention Cybersecurity Data protection Digital Resilience Global Cyber Governance National Security

The Growing Role of Cybersecurity in Protecting Nations

 




It is becoming increasingly complex and volatile for nations to cope with the threat landscape facing them in an age when the boundaries between the digital and physical worlds are rapidly dissolving. Cyberattacks have evolved from isolated incidents of data theft to powerful instruments capable of undermining economies, destabilising governments and endangering the lives of civilians. 

It is no secret that the accelerating development of technologies, particularly generative artificial intelligence, has added an additional dimension to the problem at hand. A technology that was once hailed as a revolution in innovation and defence, GenAI has now turned into a double-edged sword.

It has armed malicious actors with the capability of automating large-scale attacks, crafting convincing phishing scams, generating convincing deepfakes, and developing adaptive malware that is capable of sneaking past conventional defences, thereby giving them an edge over conventional adversaries. 

Defenders are facing a growing set of mounting pressures as adversaries become increasingly sophisticated. There is an estimated global cybersecurity talent gap of between 2.8 and 4.8 million unfilled positions, putting nearly 70% of organisations at risk. Meanwhile, regulatory requirements, fragile supply chains, and an ever-increasing digital attack surface have compounded vulnerabilities across a broad range of industries. 

Geopolitics has added to the tensions against this backdrop, exacerbated by the ever-increasing threat of cybercrime. There is no longer much difference between espionage, sabotage, and warfare when it comes to state-sponsored cyber operations, which have transformed cyberspace into a crucial battleground for national power. 

It has been evident in recent weeks that digital offensives can now lead to the destruction of real-world infrastructure—undermining public trust, disrupting critical systems, and redefining the very concept of national security—as they have been used to attack Ukraine's infrastructure as well as campaigns aimed at crippling essential services around the globe. 

In India, there is an ambitious goal to develop a $1 trillion digital economy by the year 2025, and cybersecurity has quietly emerged as a key component of that transformation. In order to support the nation's digital expansion—which covers financial, commerce, healthcare, and governance—a fragile yet vital foundation of trust is being built on a foundation of cybersecurity, which has now become the scaffolding for this expansion. 

It has become more important than ever for enterprises to be capable of anticipating, detecting, and neutralising threats, as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and data-driven systems are increasingly integrated into their operations. This ability is critical not only to their resilience but also to their long-term competitiveness. In addition to the increasing use of digital technologies, the complexity of safeguarding interconnected ecosystems has increased as well. 

During October's Cybersecurity Awareness Month 2025, a renewed focus has been placed on strengthening artificial intelligence-powered defences as well as encouraging collective security measures. As a senior director at Acuity Knowledge Partners, Sameer Goyal stated that India's financial and digital sectors are increasingly operating within an always-on, API-driven environment defined by instant payments, open platforms, and expanding integrations with third-party services—factors that inevitably widen the attack surface for hackers. He argued that security was not an optional provision; it was fundamental. 

Taking note of the rise in sophisticated threats such as account takeovers, API abuse, ransomware, and deepfake fraud, he indicated that security is not optional. According to him, the primary challenge of a company is to protect its customers' trust while still providing frictionless digital experiences. According to Goyal, forward-thinking organisations are focusing on three key strategic pillars to ensure their digital experiences are frictionless: adopting zero-trust architectures, leveraging artificial intelligence for threat detection, and incorporating secure-by-design principles into development processes. 

Despite this caution, he warned that technology alone cannot guarantee security. For true cyber readiness, employees should be well-informed, well-practised and well-rehearsed in incident response playbooks, as well as participate in proactive red-team and purple-team simulations. “Trust is our currency in today’s digital age,” he said. “By combining zero-trust frameworks with artificial intelligence-driven analytics, cybersecurity has become much more than compliance — it is becoming a crucial element of competitiveness.” 

Among the things that make cybersecurity an exceptionally intricate domain of diplomacy are its deep entanglement with nearly every dimension of international relations-economics, military, and human rights, to name a few. As a result of the interconnectedness of our society, data movement across borders has become as crucial to global commerce as capital and goods moving across borders. It is no longer just tariffs and market access that are at the centre of trade disputes. 

It is also about the issues of data localisation, encryption standards, and technology transfer policies that matter the most. While the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) sets an international standard for data protection, it has also become a focal point in a number of ongoing debates regarding digital sovereignty and cross-border data governance that have been ongoing for some time. 

 As far as defence and security are concerned, geopolitical stakes are of equal importance to those of air, land, and sea. Since NATO officially recognised cyberspace in 2016—as a distinct operational domain comparable with the other three domains—allies have expanded their collective security frameworks to include cyber defence. To ensure a rapid collective response to cyber incidents, nations share threat intelligence, conduct simulation exercises, and harmonise their policies in coordination with one another. 

The alliance still faces a dilemma which is very sensitive and unresolved to the point where determining the threshold at which a cyberattack would qualify as an act of aggression enough to trigger Article 5, which is the cornerstone of NATO's commitment to mutual defence. Cybersecurity has become inextricable from concerns about human rights and democracy as well, in addition to commerce and defence.

In recent years, authoritarian states have increasingly abused digital tools for spying on dissidents, manipulating public discourse, and undermining democratic institutions abroad. As a consequence of these actions, the global community has been forced to examine issues of accountability and ethical technology use. The diplomatic community struggles with the establishment of international norms for responsible behaviour in cyberspace while it must navigate profound disagreements over internet governance, censorship, and the delicate balancing act between national security and individuals' privacy through the process of developing ethical norms.

There is no doubt that the tensions around cybersecurity have emerged over time from merely being a technical issue to becoming one of the most consequential arenas in modern diplomacy-shaping not only international stability, but also the very principles that underpin global cooperation. Global cybersecurity leaders are facing an age of uncertainty in the face of a raging tide of digital threats to economies and societies around the world. 

Almost six in ten executives, according to the Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2025, feel that cybersecurity risks have intensified over the past year, with almost 60 per cent of them admitting that geopolitical tensions are directly influencing their defence strategies in the near future. According to the survey, one in three CEOs is most concerned about cyber espionage, data theft, and intellectual property loss, and another 45 per cent are concerned about disruption to their business operations. 

Even though cybersecurity has increasingly become a central component of corporate and national strategy, these findings underscore a broader truth: cybersecurity is no longer just for IT departments anymore. Experts point out that the threat landscape has become increasingly complex over the past few years, but generative artificial intelligence offers both a challenge and an opportunity as well. 

Several threat actors have learned to weaponise artificial intelligence so they can craft realistic deepfakes, automate phishing campaigns, and develop adaptive malware, but defenders are also utilising the same technology to enhance their resilience. The advent of AI-enabled security systems has revolutionised the way organisations anticipate and react to threats by analysing anomalies in real time, automating response cycles, and simulating complex attack vectors. 

It is important to note, however, that progress remains uneven, with large corporations and developed economies being able to deploy cutting-edge artificial intelligence defences, but smaller businesses and public institutions continue to suffer from outdated infrastructure and a lack of talented workers, which makes global cybersecurity preparedness a growing concern. However, several nations are taking proactive steps toward closing this gap.

An example is the United Arab Emirates, which embraces cybersecurity not just as a technology imperative but also as a societal responsibility. A National Cybersecurity Strategy for the UAE was unveiled in early 2025. It is based on five pillars — governance, protection, innovation, capacity building, and partnerships. It is structured around five core pillars. It was also a result of these efforts that the UAE Cybersecurity Council, in partnership with the Tawazun Council and Lockheed Martin, established a Cybersecurity Centre of Excellence, which would develop domestic expertise and align national capabilities with global standards.

As a result of its innovative Public-Private-People model, which combines school curricula with nationwide drill and strengthens coordination between government and private sector, the country can further embed cybersecurity awareness across society. As a result of this approach, a more general realisation is taking shape globally: cybersecurity should be enshrined in the fabric of national governance, not as a secondary item but as a fundamental aspect of national governance. If cyber resilience is to be reframed as a core component of national security, sustained investment in infrastructure, talent, and innovation is needed, as well as rigorous oversight at the board and policy levels. 

The plan calls for the establishment of red-team exercises, stress testing, and cross-border intelligence sharing to prevent local incidents from spiralling into systemic crises. The collective action taken by these institutions marks an important shift in global security thinking, a shift that recognises that an economy's vitality and geopolitical stability are inseparable from the resilience of a nation's digital infrastructure. 

In the era of global diplomacy, cybersecurity has grown to be a key component, but it is much more than just an administrative adjustment or a passing policy trend. In this sense, it indicates the acknowledgement that all of the world's security, economic stability, and individual rights are inextricably intertwined within the fabric of the internet and cyberspace that we live in today. 

Considering the sophistication and borderless nature of threats in today's world, the field of cyber diplomacy is becoming more and more important as a defining arena of global engagement as a result. As much as traditional forms of military and economic statecraft play a significant role in shaping global stability, the ability to foster cooperation, set shared norms, and resolve digital conflicts holds as much weight.

In the international community, the central question facing it is no longer whether the concept of cybersecurity deserves to be included in diplomatic dialogue, but rather how effectively global institutions can implement this recognition into tangible results in the future. To maintain peace in an era where the next global conflict could start with just one line of malicious code, it is becoming imperative to establish frameworks for responsible behaviour, enhance transparency, and strengthen crisis communications mechanisms. 

Quite frankly, the stakes are simply too high, as if they were not already high enough. Considering how easily a cyberattack can disrupt power grids, paralyse transportation systems, or compromise electoral integrity, diplomacy in the digital sphere has become crucial to the protection of international order, especially in a world where cyberattacks are a daily occurrence.

The cybersecurity diplomacy sector is now a cornerstone of 21st-century governance – vital to safeguarding the interests of not only national governments, but also the broader ideals of peace, prosperity, and freedom that are at the foundation of globalisation. During these times of technological change and geopolitical uncertainty, the reality of cyber security is undeniable — it is no longer a specialized field but rather a shared global responsibility that requires all nations, corporations, and individuals to embrace a mindset in which digital trust is seen as an investment in long-term prosperity, and cyber resilience is seen as a crucial part of enhancing long-term security. 

The building of this future will not only require advanced technologies but also collaboration between governments, industries, and academia to develop skilled professionals, standardise security frameworks, and create a transparent approach to threat intelligence exchange. For the digital order to remain secure and stable, it will be imperative to raise public awareness, develop ethical technology, and create stronger cross-border partnerships. 

Those countries that are able to embrace cybersecurity in governance, innovation, and education right now will define the next generation of global leaders. There will come a point in the future when the strength of digital economies will not depend merely on their innovation, but on the depth of the protection they provide, for the interconnected world ahead will demand a currency of security that will represent progress in the long run.
Read more »
user consent
AI Photo Scanning AI Surveillance Camera Roll Access Cybersecurity awareness Data protection Facebook Data Tracking Meta Privacy Concerns Privacy user consent

Users Warned to Check This Setting as Meta Faces Privacy Concerns

 


A new AI experiment launched by Meta Platforms Inc. continues to blur the lines between innovation and privacy in the rapidly evolving digital landscape of connectivity. There has been a report that the tech giant, well known for changing the way billions of people interact online, has begun testing an artificial intelligence-powered feature that will scan users' camera rolls to identify pictures and videos that are likely to be shared the most. 

By leveraging generative AI, this new Facebook feature will simplify the process of creating content and boosting user engagement by providing relevant images to users, applying creative edits, and assembling themed visual recaps - effectively turning users' own galleries into curated storyboards that tell a compelling story. 

Digital Trends reported recently that Meta has rolled out a feature for users in the United States and Canada that is currently opt-in and available on an opt-in basis. This is their latest attempt to keep pace with rivals like TikTok and Instagram in a tightening battle for attention. Apparently, the system analyses unshared media directly on the users' devices, identifying what the company refers to as "hidden gems," which would have otherwise remained undiscovered. 

As much as the feature is intended to promote more frequent and visually captivating posts through convenience, it also reignites long-standing discussions about data access, user consent, and the increasingly blurred line between personal privacy and algorithmic assistance that has become commonplace in the era of social media. During a move that has both sparked curiosity and unease, Meta quietly rolled out new Facebook settings that will allow the platform to analyse images stored within users' camera rolls-even those images that have never been uploaded or shared online—in a move that has sparked both intrigue and unease. 

With the advent of artificial intelligence, the feature is billed as “camera roll sharing suggestions,” which is intended to help people generate personalised recommendations such as travel highlights, thematic albums, and collages based on their private photos using the camera roll. According to Meta, the feature operates only with the consent of the user and is turned off by default, emphasising the user's complete control over whether or not he or she chooses to participate. Nevertheless, the emerging reports indicate a very different story. 

Many users claim that the feature is already active within their Facebook application despite having no memory of enabling it to begin with, indicating that it is an opt-in feature. It is for this reason that a growing number of people are starting to become sceptical of data permissions and privacy management, which has heightened ongoing concerns. As a result of these silent activations, there is still a broader issue at play-users might easily overlook background settings which grant extensive access to their personal information. 

The privacy advocacy community is therefore urging users to reexamine their Facebook privacy settings and to ensure their access to local photo libraries aligns with their expectations of digital privacy and comfort levels. By tapping Allow on a pop-up message labelled "cloud processing," Facebook users are in effect agreeing to Meta's AI Terms of Service, in which the platform will be able to analyse their stored media and even facial characteristics through artificial intelligence. 

After activating the feature, the user's camera roll will be continuously uploaded to Meta's cloud infrastructure, allowing Facebook to uncover so-called "hidden gems" within their photos, and select a collage, an AI-driven collage, a themed album, or create an edit tailored to individual moments. These settings were first introduced to select users as part of testing phases last summer, but they are now gradually appearing across the platform, hidden deep within the app's configuration menus under options such as "personalised creative ideas" and "AI-powered suggestions". 

According to Meta, the purpose of the tool is to improve the user experience by providing private, shareable recommendations of content based on the user's own device, all of which are created by Meta. Despite the fact that the company insists that the suggestions are only visible to those with an account, they are not used for targeted advertising. These suggestions are based on parameters such as time, location, and people or objects present. However, the quiet rollout has sparked the discomfort of some users who claim that they have never knowingly agreed to be notified about the service. 

There have been many reports of people finding the feature already activated, despite having no memory of granting consent, raising renewed concerns about transparency and informed user choice. Privacy advocates have said that although the tool may appear harmless and a simple way to simplify creative posting, it actually reveals a larger and more complex issue: the gradual normalisation of deep access to personal data under the guise of convenience, which has been occurring in recent years.

Keeping in mind the fact that Meta continues to expand its generative AI initiatives, the company's ability to mine personal images unposted for algorithmic insights enables Meta to pursue its technological ambitions in a way that often goes against the clear awareness of its users. Such features serve as a reminder of the delicate balance that exists between innovation and individual privacy in the digital age, as the race to dominate the AI ecosystem intensifies. 

In response to growing privacy concerns over Meta's data practices, many users are taking advantage of Meta's "Off-Facebook Activity" controls to limit the amount of personal information the company can collect and use beyond the platform's own application, as privacy concerns have intensified. In addition to being available on Facebook and Instagram, this feature allows users to view, manage, and delete the data that is shared with Meta by third-party services and websites. 

In the Facebook account's settings and privacy settings, users can select Off-Facebook Activity under "Your Facebook Information" so that they will be able to see what platforms have transmitted their data to, clear their history, and disable future tracking. Additionally, similar tools can be found under the Ads and Data & Privacy sections of Instagram under the Ads tab.

It is important to note that by disabling these options, Meta will not be able to store and analyse any activity that occurs outside of its ecosystem - ranging from e-commerce interactions to app usage patterns - reducing the personalisation of ads and limiting data flow between Meta and external platforms.

Despite the fact that the company maintains that this information assists in improving user experiences and providing relevant content, many critics believe that the practice violates one's privacy rights. Additionally, the controversy has reached the social media arena, where users continue to express their frustrations with Meta's pervasive tracking systems. In one viral TikTok video that has accumulated over half a million views, the creator described disabling the feature as a "small act of defiance," encouraging others to do the same to reclaim control of their digital footprint. 

While experts are warning that, despite the fact that Meta remains able to function properly, certain permissions needed for its functionality remain active, which means that complete data isolation remains elusive even after turning off tracking. However, privacy advocates assert that clearing off-Facebook Activity and preventing future tracking remain among the most effective methods users can use to significantly reduce Meta's access to their personal information. 

Despite growing concerns that Meta is utilising personal data in an increasingly expansive way in an effort to protect it, companies like Proton are positioning themselves as secure alternatives to Meta that emphasise transparency and user control. In response to the recent controversy over Meta's smart glasses - criticised for the potential to be turned into facial recognition and surveillance tools - calls have become more urgent for stronger safeguards against the abuse of private media. 

Unlike many of its peers, Proton advocates a fundamentally different approach: limiting data collection completely rather than attempting to manage it after it has been exposed. With Proton Drive, a cloud-based storage service that is encrypted, users can securely store their camera rolls and private folders without being concerned about third parties accessing them or harvesting their data. Regardless of the size of each file, including its metadata, all files are encrypted end-to-end, so that no one - not even Proton - can access or analyse the content of users. 

By encrypting photographs, people prevent the extraction of sensitive data, such as geolocation information and patterns, that can reveal personal routines and locations, through this level of security. With Proton Drive, users can store and retrieve their files anywhere using an app for both iOS and Android. Furthermore, users can control their privacy completely with a mobile app for both iOS and Android. In contrast to the majority of social media and tech platforms that monetise user data for advertising or model training, Proton's business model is entirely subscription-based, which eliminates the temptation to exploit the personal data of users. 

A five-gigabyte storage allowance is currently offered by the company, which is enough for about 1,000 high-resolution images, so that users are encouraged to safeguard their digital memories through a platform that prioritises confidentiality over commercialisation. Advocates for privacy are considering this model as a viable option in an era where technology is increasingly clashing with the right to personal security, a conflict that is becoming more prevalent. 

With the advancement of the digital age, the line between personalisation and intrusion becomes increasingly blurred, encouraging users to take an active role in managing their own data. The ongoing issues surrounding Meta's use of artificial intelligence to analyse photos, off-platform tracking, and secret data collection serve as a stark reminder that convenience is not always accompanied by privacy concerns. 

According to experts, reviewing app permissions, clearing connected data histories on a regular basis, and disabling non-essential tracking features can all help to significantly reduce the amount of unnecessary data exposed to the outside world. In addition, storing sensitive information in an encrypted cloud service like Proton Drive can also offer a safer environment while maintaining access to sensitive information. 

The power to safeguard our online privacy lies with the ability to be aware and act upon it. By remaining informed about new app settings, by reading consent disclosures carefully, and by being selective about the permissions users grant, every individual can regain control of their digital lives.

As artificial intelligence continues to redefine the limits of technology in our age, securing personal information has become more than a matter of protecting oneself from identity theft; it has become a form of digital self-defence that ensures users can remain innovative and preserve their basic right to privacy at the same time.
Read more »
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)