Search This Blog

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Labels

Footer About

Footer About

Labels

Showing posts with label Digital Privacy. Show all posts

2026 Digital Frontiers: AI Deregulation to Surveillance Surge

 

Digital technology is rapidly redrawing the boundaries of politics, business and daily life, and 2026 looks set to intensify that disruption—from AI-driven services and hyper-surveillance to new forms of protest organised on social platforms. Experts warn that governments and companies will find it increasingly difficult to balance innovation with safeguards for privacy and vulnerable communities as investment in AI accelerates and its social side-effects become harder to ignore.

One key battleground is regulation. Policymakers are tugged between pressures to “future-proof” oversight and demands from large technology firms to loosen restrictions that could slow development. In Europe, the European Commission is expected to ease parts of its year-old privacy and AI framework, including allowing firms to use personal data to train AI models under “legitimate interest” without seeking consent.

In the United States, President Donald Trump is considering an executive order that could pre-empt state AI laws—an approach aimed at reducing legal friction for Big Tech. The deregulatory push comes alongside rising scrutiny of AI harms, including lawsuits involving OpenAI and claims linked to mental health outcomes.

At the same time, countries are experimenting with tougher rules for children online. Australia has introduced fines of up to A$49.5 million for platforms that fail to take reasonable steps to block under-16 users, a move applied across major social networks and video services, and later extended to AI chatbots. France is also pushing for a European ban on social media for children under 15, while Britain’s Online Safety Act has introduced stringent age requirements for major platforms and pornography sites—though critics argue age checks can expand data collection and may isolate vulnerable young people from support communities.

Another frontier is civic unrest and the digital tools surrounding it. Social media helped catalyse youth-led protests in 2025, including movements that toppled governments in Nepal and Madagascar, and analysts expect Gen Z uprisings to continue in response to corruption, inequality and joblessness. Governments, meanwhile, are increasingly turning to internet shutdowns to suppress mobilisation, with recent examples cited in Tanzania, Afghanistan and Myanmar.

Beyond politics, border control is going digital. Britain plans to use AI to speed asylum decisions and deploy facial age estimation technology, alongside proposals for digital IDs for workers, while Trump has expanded surveillance tools tied to immigration enforcement. Finally, the climate cost of “AI everything” is rising: data centres powering generative AI consume vast energy and water, with Google reporting 6.1 billion gallons of water used by its data centres in 2023 and projections that US data centres could reach up to 9% of national electricity use by 2030.

Apple’s Digital ID Tool Sparks Privacy Debate Despite Promised Security

 

Apple’s newly introduced Digital ID feature has quickly ignited a divide among users and cybersecurity professionals, with reactions ranging from excitement to deep skepticism. Announced earlier this week, the feature gives U.S. iPhone owners a way to present their passport directly from Apple Wallet at Transportation Security Administration checkpoints across more than 250 airports nationwide. Designed to replace the need for physical identity documents at select travel touchpoints, the rollout marks a major step in Apple’s broader effort to make digital credentials mainstream. But the move has sparked conversations about how willing society should be to entrust critical identity information to smartphones. 

On one side are supporters who welcome the convenience of leaving physical IDs at home, believing Apple’s security infrastructure offers a safer and more streamlined travel experience. On the other side are privacy advocates who fear that such technology could pave the way for increased surveillance and data misuse, especially if government agencies gain new avenues to track citizens. These concerns mirror wider debates already unfolding in regions like the United Kingdom and the European Union, where national and bloc-wide digital identity programs have faced opposition from civil liberties organizations. 

Apple states that its Digital ID system relies on advanced encryption and on-device storage to protect sensitive information from unauthorized access. Unlike cloud-based sharing models, Apple notes that passport data will remain confined to the user’s iPhone, and only the minimal information necessary for verification will be transmitted during identification checks. Authentication through Face ID or Touch ID is required to access the ID, aiming to ensure that no one else can view or alter the data. Apple has emphasized that it does not gain access to passport details and claims its design prioritizes privacy at every stage. 

Despite these assurances, cybersecurity experts and digital rights advocates are unconvinced. Jason Bassler, co-founder of The Free Thought Project, argued publicly that increasing reliance on smartphone-based identity tools could normalize a culture of compromised privacy dressed up as convenience. He warned that once the public becomes comfortable with digital credentials, resistance to broader forms of monitoring may fade. Other specialists, such as Swiss security researcher Jean-Paul Donner, note that iPhone security is not impenetrable, and both hackers and law enforcement have previously circumvented device protections. 

Major organizations like the ACLU, EFF, and CDT have also called for strict safeguards, insisting that identity systems must be designed to prevent authorities from tracking when or where identification is used. They argue that without explicit structural barriers to surveillance, the technology could be exploited in ways that undermine civil liberties. 

Whether Apple can fully guarantee the safety and independence of digital identity data remains an open question. As adoption expands and security is tested in practice, the debate over convenience versus privacy is unlikely to go away anytime soon. TechRadar is continuing to consult industry experts and will provide updates as more insights emerge.

Elon Musk Unveils ‘X Chat,’ a New Encrypted Messaging App Aiming to Redefine Digital Privacy

 

Elon Musk, the entrepreneur behind Tesla, SpaceX, and X, has revealed a new messaging platform called X Chat—and he claims it could dramatically reshape the future of secure online communication.

Expected to roll out within the next few months, X Chat will rely on peer-to-peer encryption “similar to Bitcoin’s,” a move Musk says will keep conversations private while eliminating the need for ad-driven data tracking.

The announcement was made during Musk’s appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, where he shared that his team had “rebuilt the entire messaging stack” from scratch.
“It’s using a sort of peer-to-peer-based encryption system,” Musk said. “So, it’s kind of similar to Bitcoin. I think, it’s very good encryption.”

Musk has repeatedly spoken out against mainstream messaging apps and their data practices. With X Chat, he intends to introduce a platform that avoids the “hooks for advertising” found in most competitors—hooks he believes create dangerous vulnerabilities.

“(When a messaging app) knows enough about what you’re texting to know what ads to show you, that’s a massive security vulnerability,” he said.
“If it knows enough information to show you ads, that’s a lot of information,” he added, warning that attackers could exploit the same data pathways to access private messages.

He emphasized that his approach to digital safety views security on a spectrum rather than a binary system. The goal, according to Musk, is to make X Chat “the least insecure” option available.

When launched, X Chat is expected to rival established encrypted platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram. However, Musk insists that X Chat will differentiate itself by maintaining stricter privacy boundaries.

While Meta states that WhatsApp’s communications use end-to-end encryption powered by the Signal Protocol, analysts note that WhatsApp still gathers metadata—details about user interactions—which is not encrypted. Additionally, chat backups remain unencrypted unless users enable that setting manually.

Musk argues that eliminating advertising components from X Chat’s architecture removes many of these weak points entirely.

A beta version of X Chat is already accessible to Premium subscribers on X. Early features include text messaging, file transfers, photos, GIFs, and other media, all associated with X usernames rather than phone numbers. Audio and video calls are expected once the app reaches full launch. Users will be able to run X Chat inside the main X interface or download it separately, allowing messaging, file sharing, and calls across devices.

Some industry observers believe X Chat could influence the digital payments space as well. Its encryption model aligns closely with the principles of decentralization and data ownership found in blockchain ecosystems. Analysts suggest the app may complement bitcoin-based payroll platforms, where secure communication is essential for financial discussions.

Still, the announcement has raised skepticism. Privacy researchers and cryptography experts are questioning how transparent Musk will be about the underlying encryption system. Although Musk refers to it as “Bitcoin-style,” technical documentation and details about independent audits have not been released.

Experts speculate Musk is referring to public-key cryptography—the same foundational technology used in Bitcoin and Nostr.

Critics argue that any messaging platform seeking credibility in the privacy community must be open-source for verification. Some also note that trust issues may arise due to past concerns surrounding Musk-owned platforms and their handling of user data and content moderation.

WhatsApp’s “We See You” Post Sparks Privacy Panic Among Users

 

WhatsApp found itself in an unexpected storm this week after a lighthearted social media post went terribly wrong. The Meta-owned messaging platform, known for emphasizing privacy and end-to-end encryption, sparked alarm when it posted a playful message on X that read, “people who end messages with ‘lol’ we see you, we honor you.” What was meant as a fun cultural nod quickly became a PR misstep, as users were unsettled by the phrase “we see you,” which seemed to contradict WhatsApp’s most fundamental promise—that it can’t see users’ messages at all. 

Within minutes, the post went viral, amassing over five million views and an avalanche of concerned replies. “What about end-to-end encryption?” several users asked, worried that WhatsApp was implying it had access to private conversations. The company quickly attempted to clarify the misunderstanding, replying, “We meant ‘we see you’ figuratively lol (see what we did there?). Your personal messages are protected by end-to-end encryption and no one, not even WhatsApp, can see them.” 

Despite the clarification, the irony wasn’t lost on users—or critics. A platform that has spent years assuring its three billion users that their messages are private had just posted a statement that could easily be read as the opposite. The timing and phrasing of the post made it a perfect recipe for confusion, especially given the long-running public skepticism around Meta’s privacy practices. WhatsApp continued to explain that the message was simply a humorous way to connect with users who frequently end their chats with “lol.” 

The company reiterated that nothing about its encryption or privacy commitments had changed, emphasizing that personal messages remain visible only to senders and recipients. “We see you,” they clarified, was intended as a metaphor for understanding user habits—not an admission of surveillance. The situation became even more ironic considering it unfolded on X, Elon Musk’s platform, where he has previously clashed with WhatsApp over privacy concerns. 

Musk has repeatedly criticized Meta’s handling of user data, and many expect him to seize on this incident as yet another opportunity to highlight his stance on digital privacy. Ultimately, the backlash served as a reminder of how easily tone can be misinterpreted when privacy is the core of your brand. A simple social media joke, meant to be endearing, became a viral lesson in communication strategy. 

For WhatsApp, the encryption remains intact, the messages still unreadable—but the marketing team has learned an important rule: never joke about “seeing” your users when your entire platform is built on not seeing them at all.

Deepfakes Are More Polluting Than People Think

 


Artificial intelligence, while blurring the lines between imagination and reality, is causing a new digital controversy to unfold at a time when ethics and creativity have become less important and the digital realm has become a much more fluid one. 

With the advent of advanced artificial intelligence platforms such as OpenAI's Sora, deepfake videos have been able to flood social media feeds with astoundingly lifelike representations of celebrities and historic figures, resurrected in scenes that at times appear sensational but at other times are deeply offensive, thanks to advanced artificial intelligence platforms.

In fact, the phenomenon has caused widespread concern amongst families of revered personalities such as Dr Martin Luther King Jr. Several people are publicly urging technology companies to put more safeguards in place to prevent the unauthorised use of their loved ones' likenesses.

However, as the debate over the ethical boundaries of synthetic media intensifies, there is one hidden aspect of the issue that is quietly surfacing, namely, the hidden environmental impact that synthetic media has on the environment. 

The creation of these hyperrealistic videos requires a great deal of computational power, as explained by Dr Kevin Grecksch, a professor at the University of Oxford. They also require a substantial amount of energy and water to maintain the necessary cooling systems within the data centres. Despite appearing as a fleeting piece of digital art, it has a significant environmental cost hidden beneath it, adding an unexpected layer of concerns surrounding the digital revolution that is a growing concern. 

As social media platforms have grown, there has been an increasing prevalence of deepfake videos, whose uncanny realism has captured audiences while blurring the line between truth and fabrication, while also captivating them. 

As AI-powered tools such as OpenAI's Sora have become more widely available, these videos have become viral as a result of being able to conjure up lifelike portraits of individuals – some of whom have long passed away – into fabricated scenes that range from bizarre to deeply inappropriate in nature. 

Several families who have been portrayed in this disturbing trend, including that of Dr Martin Luther King Jr., have raised alarm over the trend and have called on technology companies to prevent unauthorised digital resurrections of their loved ones. However, there is much more to the controversy surrounding deepfakes than just issues of dignity and consent at play. 

Despite the convincingly rendered nature of these videos, Dr Kevin Grecksch, a lecturer at Oxford University, has stressed that these videos have a significant ecological impact that is often overlooked. Generating such content is dependent upon the installation of powerful data centres that consume vast amounts of electricity and water to cool, resources that contribute substantially to the growing environmental footprint of this technology on a large scale. 

It has emerged that deep fakes, a form of synthetic media that is rapidly advancing, are one of the most striking examples of how artificial intelligence is reshaping digital communication. By combining complex deep learning algorithms with a massive dataset, these technologies can convincingly replace or manipulate faces, voices, and even gestures with ease. 

The likeness of one person is seamlessly merged with the likeness of another, creating a seamless transition from one image to the next. Additionally, shallow fakes, which are less technologically complex but equally important, are also closely related, but they rely on simple editing techniques to distort reality to an alarming degree, blurring the line between authenticity and fabrication. The proliferation of deepfakes has accelerated rapidly at an unprecedented pace over the past few years. 

A new report suggests that the number of such videos that circulate online has doubled every six months. It is estimated that there will be 500,000 deepfake videos and audio clips being shared globally by 2023, and if current trends hold true, this number is expected to reach almost 8 million by 2025. Using advanced artificial intelligence tools and the availability of publicly available data, experts attribute this explosive growth to the fact that these tools are widely accessible and there is a tremendous amount of public data, which creates an ideal environment for manipulated media to flourish. 

As a result of the rise of deepfake technology, legal and policy circles have been riddled with intense debate, underscoring the urgency of redefining the boundaries of accountability in an era in which synthetic media is so prevalent. With hyper-realistic digital forgeries created by advanced deep learning algorithms, which are very realistic, it poses a complex challenge that goes well beyond the technological edge. 

Legal scholars have warned that deep fakes pose a significant threat to privacy, intellectual property, and dignity, while also undermining public trust in the information they provide. A growing body of evidence suggests that these fabrications may carry severe social, ethical, and legal consequences not only from their ability to mislead but also from their ability to influence electoral outcomes and facilitate non-consensual pornography, all of which carry severe social, ethical, and legal consequences. 

In an effort to contain the threat, the European Union is enforcing legislation such as its Artificial Intelligence Act and Digital Services Act, which aim to assign responsibility for large online platforms and establish standards for the governance of Artificial Intelligence. Even so, experts contend that such initiatives remain insufficient due to the absence of comprehensive definitions, enforcement mechanisms, and protocols for assisting victims. 

Moreover, the situation is compounded by a fragmented international approach: although many states in the United States have enacted laws addressing fake media, there are still inconsistencies across jurisdictions, and countries like Canada continue to face challenges in regulating deepfake pornography and other forms of synthetic nonconsensual media. 

Social media has become an increasingly important platform for spreading manipulated media, which in turn increases these risks. Scholars have advocated sweeping reforms, which range from stricter privacy laws to recalibrating free speech to preemptive restrictions on deepfake generation, to mitigate future damage that is likely to occur. This includes identity theft, fraud, and other harms that existing legal systems are incapable of dealing with. 

It is important to note that ethical concerns are also emerging outside of the policy arena, in unexpected circumstances, such as the use of deep fakes in grief therapy and entertainment, where the line between emotional comfort and manipulation becomes dangerously blurred during times of emotional distress. 

The researchers, who are calling for better detection and prevention frameworks, are reaching a common conclusion: ideepfakes must be regulated in a manner that strikes a delicate balance between innovation and protection, ensuring that technological advances do not take away truth, justice, or human dignity as a result. This era of synthetic media has provoked a heated debate within legal and policy circles concerning the rise of deepfake technology, emphasising the importance of redefining the boundaries of accountability in a world where deep fakes have become a common phenomenon.

The hyper-realistic digital forgeries produced by advanced deep learning algorithms pose a challenge that goes well beyond the novelty of technology. There is considerable concern that deepfakes may threaten the integrity of information, as well as undermine public trust in it, while also undermining the core principles of privacy, intellectual property, and personal dignity. 

As a result of the fabrications' ability to distort reality, it has already been reported that they are capable of spreading misinformation, influencing elections, and facilitating nonconsensual pornography, all of which can have serious social, ethical, and legal repercussions. In an effort to contain the threat, the European Union is enforcing legislation such as its Artificial Intelligence Act and Digital Services Act, which aim to assign responsibility for large online platforms and establish standards for the governance of Artificial Intelligence.

Even so, experts contend that such initiatives remain insufficient due to the absence of comprehensive definitions, enforcement mechanisms, and protocols for assisting victims. Inconsistencies persist across jurisdictions, which further complicates the situation. While some U.S. states have enacted laws to address false media, there are still inconsistencies across jurisdictions, and countries such as Canada are still struggling with how to regulate non-consensual synthetic materials, including deepfake pornography and other forms of pseudo-synthetic material. 

Social media has become an increasingly important platform for spreading manipulated media, which in turn increases these risks. Scholars have advocated sweeping reforms, which range from stricter privacy laws to recalibrating free speech to preemptive restrictions on deepfake generation, to mitigate future damage that is likely to occur. This includes identity theft, fraud, and other harms that existing legal systems are incapable of dealing with. 

Additionally, ethical concerns are emerging beyond the realm of policy as well, in unexpected contexts such as those regarding deepfakes' use in grief therapy and entertainment, where the line between emotional comfort and manipulative behaviours becomes a dangerous blur to the point of becoming dangerously indistinguishable. 

Research suggests that more robust detection and prevention frameworks are needed to detect and prevent deepfakes. One conclusion becomes increasingly evident as a result of these findings: the regulation of deepfakes requires a delicate balance between innovation and protection, so that progress in technology does not trample upon truth, justice, and human dignity in its wake. 

A growing number of video generation tools powered by artificial intelligence have become so popular that they have transformed online content creation, but have also raised serious concerns about the environmental consequences of these tools. Data centres are the vast digital backbones that make such technologies possible, and they use large quantities of electricity and fresh water to cool servers on a large scale. 

The development of applications like OpenAI’s Sora has made it easy for users to create and share hyperrealistic videos quickly, but social media platforms have also seen an increase in deepfake content, which has helped such apps rise to the top of the global download charts. Within just five days, Sora had over one million downloads within just five days, cementing its position as the dominant app in the US Apple App Store. 

In the midst of this surge of creative enthusiasm, however, there is a growing environmental dilemma that has been identified by DDrKevin Grecksch of the University of Oxford in his recently published warning against ignoring the water and energy demands of AI infrastructure. He urged users and policymakers alike to be aware that digital innovation has a significant ecological footprint, and that it takes a lot of water to carry out, and that it needs to be carefully considered when using water. 

It has been argued that the "cat is out of the sack" with the adoption of artificial intelligence, but that more integrated planning is imperative when it comes to determining where and how data-centric systems should be built and cooled. 

A warning he made was that even though the government envisions South Oxfordshire as a potential hub for the development of artificial intelligence, insufficient attention has been paid to the environmental logistics, particularly where the necessary water supply will come from. Since enthusiasm for the development of generative technologies continues to surge, experts insist that the conversation regarding the future of AI needs to go beyond innovation and efficiency, encompassing sustainability, resource management, and long-term environmental responsibility. 

There is no denying that the future of artificial intelligence demands more than admiration for its brilliance as it stands at a crossroads between innovation and accountability, but responsibility as to how it is applied. Even though deepfake technology is a testament to human ingenuity, it should be governed by ethics, regulation, and sustainability, as well as other factors.

There is a need to collaborate between policymakers, technology firms, and environmental authorities in order to develop frameworks which protect both digital integrity as well as natural resources. For a safer and more transparent digital era, we must encourage the use of renewdatacentresin datacentress, enforce stricter consent-based media laws, and invest in deepfake detection systems in order to ensure that deepfake detection systems are utilised. 

AI offers the promise of creating a world without human intervention, yet its promise lies in our capacity to control its outcomes - ensuring that in a world increasingly characterised by artificial intelligence, progress remains a force for truth, equity, and ecological balance.

EU’s Child Sexual Abuse Regulation Risks Undermining Encryption and Global Digital Privacy

 

The European Union’s proposed Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR)—often referred to as Chat Control—is being criticized for creating an illusion of safety while threatening the very foundation of digital privacy. Experts warn that by weakening end-to-end encryption, the proposal risks exposing users worldwide to surveillance, exploitation, and cyberattacks. 

Encryption, which scrambles data to prevent unauthorized access, is fundamental to digital trust. It secures personal communications, financial data, and medical records, forming a critical safeguard for individuals and institutions alike. Yet, several democratic governments, including those within the EU, have begun questioning its use, framing strong encryption as an obstacle to law enforcement. This false dichotomy—between privacy and public safety—has led to proposals that inadvertently endanger both. 

At the center of the EU’s approach is client-side scanning, a technology that scans messages on users’ devices before encryption. Critics compare it to having someone read over your shoulder as you type a private letter. While intended to detect child sexual abuse material (CSAM), the system effectively eliminates confidentiality. Moreover, it can be easily circumvented—offenders can hide files by zipping, renaming, or converting them to other formats, undermining the entire purpose of the regulation. 

Beyond its inefficiency, client-side scanning opens the door to mass surveillance. Once such systems exist, experts fear they could be repurposed to monitor political dissent, activism, or journalism. By introducing backdoors—intentional weaknesses that allow access to encrypted data—governments risk repeating mistakes like those seen in the Salt Typhoon case, where a Chinese state-sponsored group exploited backdoors originally built for U.S. agencies. 

The consequences of weakened encryption are vast. Journalists would struggle to protect sources, lawyers could no longer guarantee client confidentiality, and businesses risk exposure of trade secrets. Even governments rely on encryption to protect national security. For individuals—especially victims of domestic abuse or marginalized groups—encrypted communication can literally be a matter of life and death. 

Ironically, encryption also protects children. Research from the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office found that encrypted environments make it harder for predators to access private data for grooming. Weakening encryption, therefore, could expose children to greater harm rather than prevent it. 

Public opposition to similar policies has already shifted outcomes elsewhere. In Australia, controversial encryption laws passed in 2018 have yet to be enforced due to political backlash. In the UK, public resistance to the Online Safety Act led major tech companies to threaten withdrawal rather than compromise encryption.  

Within the EU, member states remain divided. Poland, Finland, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic have opposed the CSAR for privacy and security reasons, while France, Denmark, and Hungary support it as a necessary tool against abuse. Whatever the outcome, the effects will extend globally—forcing tech companies to either weaken encryption standards or risk losing access to the European market. 

As the world marks Global Encryption Day, the debate surrounding CSAR highlights a broader truth: safeguarding the internet means preserving both safety and privacy. Rather than imposing blanket surveillance, policymakers should focus on targeted investigations, rapid CSAM takedown measures, and support for victims.  
Encryption remains the cornerstone of a secure, trustworthy, and free internet. If the EU truly aims to protect children and its citizens, it must ensure that this foundation remains unbroken—because once privacy is compromised, safety soon follows.

Chatbots and Children in the Digital Age


The rapid evolution of the digital landscape, especially in the area of social networking, is likely to have an effect on the trend of children and teens seeking companionship through artificial intelligence. This raises some urgent questions about the safety of these interactions. 

In a new report released on Wednesday by Common Sense Media, the nonprofit organisation has warned that companion-style artificial intelligence applications pose an unacceptable risk to young users, especially as they relate to mental health, privacy, and emotional well-being. 

Following the suicide of a 14-year-old boy whose final interactions with a chatbot on the platform Character.AI last year, concerns about these bots gained a significant amount of attention. It was in that case that conversational AI apps became the focus of attention, which sparked further scrutiny of how they affect young people's lives and prompted calls for greater transparency, accountability, and safeguards to keep vulnerable users safe from the darker sides of digital companionship. 

Artificial intelligence chatbots and companion apps have become increasingly commonplace in children's online experiences, offering entertainment, interactive exchanges, and even learning tools. Although these technologies are appealing, experts say that they can also come with a range of risks that should not be overlooked, as well as their appeal. 

In spite of platforms' routine collection and storage of user data, often without adequate protection for children, privacy remains a central issue. Despite the use of filters, chatbots may produce unpredictable responses, resulting in harmful or inappropriate content being displayed to young users.  A second concern that researchers have is the emotional dependence some children may develop on these AI companions, a bond that, according to researchers, may interfere with their real-world relationships and social development. 

Similarly, there is the risk of misinformation because AI systems do not always provide accurate answers, leaving children vulnerable to receiving misleading advice. It is difficult for children to navigate digital companionship in light of these factors, including persuasive design features, in-app purchases and strategies aimed at maximising their screen time, which combine to create a complex and sometimes troubling environment. 

Several advocacy groups have intensified their criticism of such platforms, highlighting that prolonged interactions with AI chatbots may lead to psychological consequences. Common Sense Media's recent risk assessment, carried out in conjunction with Stanford University School of Medicine researchers, was conducted with input from these researchers. It concluded that conversational agents are increasingly being integrated into video games and popular social media platforms, such as Instagram and Snapchat, in an effort to mimic human interaction in ways that require greater oversight. 

The flexibility that makes these bots so engaging is also the risk of emotional entanglement that they pose, from casual friends to romantic partners and even a digital replacement for a deceased loved one, yet the very nature of the bots that makes them so engaging also makes them so risky. It was particularly evident that the dangers of such chatbots were highlighted when Megan Garcia filed a lawsuit against Character.

AI to claim that her 14-year-old son, Sewell Setzer, committed suicide after developing a close relationship with a chatbot. It has been reported by the Miami Herald that, although the company has denied responsibility, asserted that safety is of utmost importance, and asked a Florida judge to dismiss the lawsuit based on free speech, the case has heightened broader concerns. 

In response to his comments, Garcia has emphasised the importance of adopting protocols to manage conversations around self-harm, as well as reporting annual safety reports to the Office of Suicide Prevention in California. Separately, Common Sense Media urged companies to conduct risk assessments of systems marketed to children, and to ban the use of emotionally manipulative bots, initiatives strongly supported by the organisation. 

There is a major problem with the anthropomorphic nature of AI companions that is at the heart of these disagreements. AI companions are designed to imitate human speech, personality, and conversational style. A person with such realistic features can create an illusion of trust and genuine understanding for a child or teenager, since they have a vivid imagination and less developed critical thinking skills. 

It has already led to troubling results when the line between humans and machines is blurred. As an example, a nine-year-old boy who had his screen time restricted turned to a chatbot for guidance, only for it to be informed that it could understand why a child might harm their parents in response to “abuse” in his situation. 

Another case is of a 14-year-old who developed romantic feelings for a character he created in a role-playing app and ended up taking his own life as a result of this connection. It has been highlighted that these systems can create a sense of empathy and companionship, but they are unable to think, feel, or create the stable, nurturing relationships that are essential for healthy childhood development. 

Rather than fostering “parasocial” relationships, children may become attached emotionally to entities that are incapable of genuine care, leaving them vulnerable to manipulation, misinformation, and exposure to sexual content and violent images. 

There is no doubt in my mind that these systems can have a profoundly destabilising effect on those already struggling with trauma, developmental difficulties, or mental health struggles, thus emphasising the urgent need for regulation, parental vigilance, and enhanced industry accountability. It is emphasised by experts that while AI chatbots pose real risks to children, parents can take practical steps to safeguard their children at the current time to reduce these risks. 

Keeping children safe online is one of the most important measures, so AI companions need to be treated exactly like strangers online, and children shouldn't be left alone to interact with them without guidance. Establishing clear boundaries and, when possible, co-using the technology can assist in creating safer environment. 

Open dialogue is equally important, too. A lot of experts recommend that, instead of policing, parents should encourage children to engage in conversation with chatbots by asking about the exchanges they are having with them and then using this exchange to encourage curiosity while also keeping an eye out for potential troubling responses. 

In addition to using technology as part of the solution, parents can also use parental control and monitoring tools in order to keep track of their children's activities and to find out how much time they spend with their artificial intelligence companions. Fact-checking is also an integral part of safe use. Like an obsolete encyclopedia, chatbots can be useful for providing insight, but they are sometimes inaccurate as well. 

Children need to be taught the importance of questioning answers and verifying other sources as soon as possible, according to experts. It is also important, however, to create screen-free spaces that reinforce real human connections and counterbalance the pull of digital companionship. For instance, family dinners, car rides, and other daily routines without screens should be carved out as soon as possible. 

It is important to ensure these safeguards are implemented, given the growing mental health problems among children and teenagers. The theory of artificial intelligence being able to support emotional well-being is gaining popularity lately, but specialists caution that current systems do not have the capacity to deal with crises like self-harm or suicidal thoughts as they happen. 

Currently, mental health professionals believe more collaboration with technology companies is crucial, but for the time being, the oldest and most reliable form of prevention is the one that is most effective and most reliable: human care and presence. In addition to talking with their children, parents need to pay attention to their digital interactions with their children, and they need to intervene if their children's dependence on artificial intelligence companions starts overtaking healthy relationships. 

In one expert's opinion, a child who appears unwilling to put down their phone or is absorbed in chatbot conversations may require a timely intervention. AI companies are also being questioned by regulators about how they handle massive amounts of data that their users generate. Questions have been raised about privacy, commercialisation, and accountability as a result. 

There are also issues under review with regard to monetisation of user engagements, sharing the personal data collected from chatbot conversations, and monitoring for potential harm associated with their products. In their investigation of the companies that are collecting data from children under 13 years of age, the Federal Trade Commission has emphasised how they are ensuring they are complying with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. 

In addition to the risks in the home, there are also concerns over whether AI is being used properly in the classroom, where the growing pressure to incorporate artificial intelligence into education has raised concerns over compliance with federal education privacy laws. FERPA was passed in 1974 and protects the rights of children and parents in the educational system. 

Fourteen years later, Amelia Vance, the president of the Public Interest Privacy Centre, warned schools that they may sometimes inadvertently violate the federal law if they are not vigilant regarding data sharing practices and if they rely on commercial chatbots like ChatGPT. Families who have not explicitly opted out of the use of chat queries to train AI systems raise questions about how this is handled, since many AI companies reserve the right to do so unless they specifically opt out. 

Although policymakers and education leaders have emphasised the importance of AI literacy among young people, Vance highlighted that schools are not permitted to instruct students to use consumer-facing services whose data is processed outside of institutional control until parental consent has been obtained. The Act protects the privacy of students by safeguarding the information provided in FERPA, which is neither intended to compromise student privacy nor to breach it. 

There are legitimate concerns about safety, privacy, and emotional well-being, but experts also acknowledge that artificial intelligence chatbots are not inherently harmful and can be useful for children when handled responsibly. Using these tools, children can be inspired to write stories, gain language and communication skills, and even practice social interactions in a controlled environment using low-stakes practice. 

The potential of chatbots to support personalised learning has been highlighted by educators as they offer students instant explanations, adaptive feedback, and playful engagement, all of which will keep them motivated in the classroom. However, these benefits must be accompanied by a structured approach, thoughtful parental involvement, and robust safeguards that minimise the risk of harmful content or emotional dependency. 

A balanced opinion emerging from child development researchers and experts has stated that AI companions, much like televisions and video games in years gone by, should not be regarded as replacing human interaction, but rather as supplements to it. By providing a safe environment, ethical guidelines and integrating them into healthy routines, children may be able to explore and learn in new ways when guided by adults. 

Nevertheless, without oversight, the very same qualities that make these tools appealing—constant availability, personalisation, and human-like interaction—are also the ones that magnify potential risks. Considering these realities, children must be protected from harm from innovation through measured regulation, transparent industry practices, and proactive digital literacy education. This dual reality underscores the importance of ensuring children receive the benefits of innovation while remaining protected from its harm. 

Children and adolescents are increasingly experiencing the benefits of artificial intelligence as it becomes a part of their daily lives, but they must maximise the benefits while minimising the risks. AI chatbots can indeed be used responsibly in order to inspire creativity, enhance learning, and facilitate the possibility of low-risk social experimentation, while complementing traditional education and fostering the development of skills as they go. 

This suggests that there is no doubt that these tools can be dangerous for young users as a result of exposing them to privacy breaches, misinformation, manipulation of emotions, and psychological vulnerabilities, as has been demonstrated by the cases highlighted in recent reports on this topic. It is recommended that for children's digital experiences to be safeguarded, a multilayered approach is necessary. 

In addition to parent involvement, educators should incorporate artificial intelligence thoughtfully into structured learning environments, and policymakers should enforce transparent industry standards to safeguard children's digital experiences. Various strategies can be implemented to help reinforce healthy digital habits in children, including encouraging critical thinking skills, fact-checking, and screen-free family time, while ongoing dialogue about online interactions can help children negotiate the blurred boundaries between humans and machines. 

Family and institutional policies can make sure that Artificial Intelligence becomes a constructive tool for growth rather than a source of harm by fostering awareness, setting clear boundaries, and cultivating supportive real-life relationships that support the exploration, learning, and innovation of children in a digital age that is free from harm.

How Age Verification Measures Are Endangering Digital Privacy in the UK



A pivotal moment in the regulation of the digital sphere has been marked by the introduction of the United Kingdom's Online Safety Act in July 2025. With the introduction of this act, strict age verification measures have been implemented to ensure that users are over the age of 25 when accessing certain types of online content, specifically adult websites. 

Under the law, all UK internet users have to verify their age before using any of these platforms to protect minors from harmful material. As a consequence of the rollout, there has been an increase in circumvention efforts, with many resorting to the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) in an attempt to circumvent these controls. 

As a result, a national debate has arisen about how to balance child protection with privacy, as well as the limits of government authority in online spaces, with regard to child protection. A company that falls within the Online Safety Act entails that they must implement stringent safeguards designed to protect children from harmful online material as a result of its provisions. 

In addition to this, all pornography websites are legally required to have robust age verification systems in place. In a report from Ofcom, the UK's regulator for telecoms and responsible for enforcing the Child Poverty Act, it was found that almost 8% of children aged between eight and fourteen had accessed or downloaded a pornographic website or application in the previous month. 

Furthermore, under this legislation, major search engines and social media platforms are required to take proactive measures to keep minors away from pornographic material, as well as content that promotes suicide, self-harm, or eating disorders, which must not be available on children's feeds at all. Hundreds of companies across a wide range of industries have now been required to comply with these rules on such a large scale. 

The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act came into force on Friday. Immediately following the legislation, a dramatic increase was observed in the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) and other circumvention methods across the country. Since many users have sought alternative means of accessing pornographic, self-harm, suicide, and eating disorder content because of the legislation, which mandates "highly effective" age verification measures for platforms hosting these types of content, the legislation has led some users to seek alternatives to the platforms. 

The verification process can require an individual to upload their official identification as well as a selfie in order to be analysed, which raises privacy concerns and leads to people searching for workarounds that work. There is no doubt that the surge in VPN usage was widely predicted, mirroring patterns seen in other nations with similar laws. However, reports indicate that users are experimenting with increasingly creative methods of bypassing the restrictions imposed on them. 

There is a strange tactic that is being used in the online community to trick certain age-gated platforms with a selfie of Sam Porter Bridges, the protagonist of Death Stranding, in the photo mode of the video game. In today's increasingly creative circumventions, the ongoing cat-and-mouse relationship between regulatory enforcement and digital anonymity underscores how inventive circumventions can be. 

Virtual private networks (VPNs) have become increasingly common in recent years, as they have enabled users to bypass the United Kingdom's age verification requirements by routing their internet traffic through servers that are located outside the country, which has contributed to the surge in circumvention. As a result of this technique, it appears that a user is browsing from a jurisdiction that is not regulated by the Online Safety Act since it masks their IP address. 

It is very simple to use, simply by selecting a trustworthy VPN provider, installing the application, and connecting to a server in a country such as the United States or the Netherlands. Once the platform has been active for some time, age-restricted platforms usually cease to display verification prompts, as the system does not consider the user to be located within the UK any longer.

Following the switch of servers, reports from online forums such as Reddit indicate seamless access to previously blocked content. A recent study indicated VPN downloads had soared by up to 1,800 per cent in the UK since the Act came into force. Some analysts are arguing that under-18s are likely to represent a significant portion of the spike, a trend that has caused lawmakers to express concern. 

There have been many instances where platforms, such as Pornhub, have attempted to counter circumvention by blocking entire geographical regions, but VPN technology is still available as a means of gaining access for those who are determined to do so. Despite the fact that the Online Safety Act covers a wide range of digital platforms besides adult websites that host user-generated content or facilitate online interaction, it extends far beyond adult websites. 

The same stringent age checks have now been implemented by social media platforms like X, Bluesky, and Reddit, as well as dating apps, instant messaging services, video sharing platforms, and cloud-based file sharing services, as well as social network platforms like X, Bluesky, and Reddit. Because the methods to prove age have advanced far beyond simply entering the date of birth, public privacy concerns are intensified.

In the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, a number of mechanisms have been approved for verifying the identity of people, including estimating their facial age by uploading images or videos, matching photo IDs, and confirming their identity through bank or credit card records. Some platforms perform these checks themselves, while many rely on third-party providers-entities that will process and store sensitive personal information like passports, biometric information, and financial information. 

The Information Commissioner's Office, along with Ofcom, has issued guidance stating that any data collected should only be used for verification purposes, retained for a limited period of time, and never used to advertise or market to individuals. Despite these safeguards being advisory rather than mandatory, they remain in place. 

With the vast amount of highly personal data involved in the system and its reliance on external services, there is concern that the system could pose significant risks to user privacy and data security. As well as the privacy concerns, the Online Safety Act imposes a significant burden on digital platforms to comply with it, as they are required to implement “highly effective age assurance” systems by the deadline of July 2025, or face substantial penalties as a result. 

A disproportionate amount of these obligations is placed on smaller companies and startups, and international platforms must decide between investing heavily in UK-specific compliance measures or withdrawing all services altogether, thereby reducing availability for British users and fragmenting global markets. As a result of the high level of regulatory pressure, in some cases, platforms have blocked legitimate adult users as a precaution against sanctions, which has led to over-enforcement. 

Opposition to this Act has been loud and strong: an online petition calling for its repeal has gathered more than 400,000 signatures, but the government still maintains that there are no plans in place to reverse it. Increasingly, critics assert that political rhetoric is framed in a way that implies tacit support for extremist material, which exacerbates polarisation and stifles nuanced discussion. 

While global observers are paying close attention to the UK's internet governance model, which could influence future internet governance in other parts of the world, global observers are closely watching it. The privacy advocates argue that the Act's verification infrastructure could lead to expanded surveillance powers as a result of its comparison to the European Union's more restrictive policies toward facial recognition. 

There are a number of tools, such as VPNs, that can help individuals protect their privacy if they are used by reputable providers who have strong encryption policies, as well as no-log policies, which are in place to ensure that no data is collected or stored. While such measures are legal, experts caution that they may breach the terms of service of platforms, forcing users to weigh privacy protections versus the possibility of account restrictions when implementing such measures. 

The use of "challenge ages" as part of some verification systems is intended to reduce the likelihood that underage users will slip through undetected, since they will be more likely to be detected if an age verification system is not accurate enough. According to Yoti's trials, setting the threshold at 20 resulted in fewer than 1% of users aged 13 to 17 being incorrectly granted access after being set at 20. 

Another popular method of accessing a secure account involves asking for formal identification such as a passport or driving licence, and processing the information purely for verification purposes without retaining the information. Even though all pornographic websites must conduct such checks, industry observers believe that some smaller operators may attempt to avoid them out of fear of a decline in user engagement due to the compliance requirement. 

In order to take action, many are expected to closely observe how Ofcom responds to breaches. There are extensive enforcement powers that the regulator has at its disposal, which include the power to issue fines up to £18 million or 10 per cent of a company's global turnover, whichever is higher. Considering that Meta is a large corporation, this could add up to about $16 billion in damages. Further, formal warnings, court-ordered site blocks, as well as criminal liability for senior executives, may also be an option. 

For those company leaders who ignore enforcement notices and repeatedly fail to comply with the duty of care to protect children, there could be a sentence of up to two years in jail. In the United Kingdom, mandatory age verification has begun to become increasingly commonplace, but the long-term trajectory of the policy remains uncertain as we move into the era. 

Even though it has been widely accepted in principle that the program is intended to protect minors from harmful digital content, its execution raises unresolved questions about proportionality, security, and unintended changes to the nation's internet infrastructure. Several technology companies are already exploring alternative compliance methods that minimise data exposure, such as the use of anonymous credentials and on-device verifications, but widespread adoption of these methods depends on the combination of the ability to bear the cost and regulatory endorsement. 

It is predicted that future amendments to the Online Safety Act- or court challenges to its provisions-will redefine the boundary between personal privacy and state-mandated supervision, according to legal experts. Increasingly, the UK's approach is being regarded as an example of a potential blueprint for similar initiatives, particularly in jurisdictions where digital regulation is taking off. 

Civil liberties advocates see a larger issue at play than just age checks: the infrastructure that is being constructed could become a basis for more intrusive monitoring in the future. It will ultimately be decided whether or not the Act will have an enduring impact based on not only its effectiveness in protecting children, but also its ability to safeguard the rights of millions of law-abiding internet users in the future.