Google has issued a critical privacy alert for its 1.5 billion Google Photos users following accusations of using personal images to train AI models without consent. The controversy erupted from privacy-focused rival Proton, which speculated that Google's advanced Nano Banana AI tool scans user libraries for data. Google has quickly denied the claims, emphasizing robust safeguards for user content.
Fears have mounted as Google rapidly expands artificial intelligence in Photos to include features such as Nano Banana, which turns any image into an animation. Using the feature is fun, but critics note that it processes photos via cloud servers, which raises concerns about data retention and possible misuse. Incidents like last year's Google Takeout bug, which made other people's videos appear in the exports of those downloading their data, have fed skepticism about the security of the platform.
Google explained that, unless users explicitly share photos and videos, the company does not use personal photos or videos to train generative AI models like Gemini. It also acknowledged that Photos does not have end-to-end encryption but instead conducts automated scans for child exploitation material and professional reviews. This transparency aims at rebuilding trust as viral social media trends amplify Nano Banana's popularity.
According to security experts, users are seeing wider impacts as the AI integration expands across Google services, echoing recent Gmail data training refusals. Proton and experts advise caution, suggesting users check their privacy dashboards and limit what they upload to the cloud. With billions of images on the line, this cautionary tale highlights the push and pull between innovation and data privacy in cloud storage.
To mitigate risks, enable two factor authentication, use local backups, or consider encrypted options like Proton Drive. While Google is still patching vulnerabilities, users should still be vigilant as threats continue to evolve and become more AI-driven. In the face of increasing scrutiny, this incident serves as a stark reminder of the necessity for clearer guidelines in an age of ubiquitous AI-powered photo processing.
