Welcome back, everyone,

to This Week in Privacy,

our weekly series where we discuss the

latest updates with what we're working on

within the Privacy Guides community,

and this week's top stories in the data

privacy and cybersecurity space,

including allegations that WhatsApp is not

end-to-end encrypted,

France in the UK restricting some online

tools for minors,

TikTok's new US ownership, and more.

I'm Jonah, and with me today is Nate.

How are you doing today, Nate?

I'm good.

I'm good.

How are you?

I'm doing excellent.

Thank you.

For those of you who don't know,

Privacy Guides is a nonprofit which

researches and shares privacy-related

information,

and we facilitate a community on our forum

and matrix where people can ask questions

and get advice about staying private

online and preserving their digital

rights.

Before we dive into our first WhatsApp

stories,

I want to give some quick updates with

what we've been working on at Privacy Guys

this week.

Why don't I start off by handing it

over to you, Nate,

to talk about the video side of things?

Sure.

There's not too much new with the videos.

Let's see,

the smartphone course for Android that

We're adding on to this,

so it's hard for me to know how

to describe it.

The smartphone course we're doing,

the intermediate tier,

the Android section is done.

And I believe we're just trying to work

out some technical issues with PeerTube.

Once it's on PeerTube,

we will be posting that for members.

The iOS version we're hoping to have done

next week.

And Jordan has begun editing the private

browsing video that I've been talking

about.

And that will hopefully also be coming out

here

soon and in the meantime i have moved

on to scripting a video about private

messaging so i'm excited to share that one

with you guys and um again we've just

been putting out a lot of clips we

started putting out um

horizontal clips as well,

like regular aspect ratio clips on the

Privacy Guide Shorts channel.

So I know a lot of you guys,

it's a really common thing when we do

these kind of news shows that people want

something where they can share it quickly

and easily in just that story with people.

So definitely check that out if that's

something that you would like.

nice um in other privacy guides news

things have been again being pretty active

on our forum lately lots of good

discussions going on i know that you nate

and freya as well have been working on

a lot of news brief articles lately um

so those have been coming out um other

stuff is still being worked on again

behind the scenes but i know i've been

talking to em about a big project that

She has been working on for the past

few weeks now,

and that's coming out relatively soon.

Hopefully,

within the next few weeks or so,

we'll have more updates to share with you

on the stream about that.

But yeah, lots of progress is being made,

lots of big plans for the site and

for the videos in twenty twenty six,

especially as we get into the new year.

I feel like a lot of people who

have been working on all this stuff have

been feeling pushed pretty hard lately.

We've been doing a lot of work,

but hopefully it all pays off and people

like it and we can reach new people

with all of this privacy stuff.

But in terms of specific updates,

I don't think we've pushed a new release

of the website on GitHub or anything like

that.

So no changes to the recommendations or

anything so far.

But yeah,

all of that stuff is still being worked

on in the background.

And if you are hoping to see something

in particular, definitely join our forum,

join the community and talk with us a

bit about what you want to see because

a lot of the stuff that we're doing

is really

built on this community and what you all

want to see and what would make the

most impact in the privacy rights space.

With all these updates out of the way,

I think we can move on to some

of the biggest news stories that we've

seen in privacy and security in the past

week.

I know you wanted to start off with

the headline story here,

so why don't I pass it off to

you, Nate, to talk about that.

Yeah.

Sounds good.

Let's talk about WhatsApp.

So, uh, WhatsApp for,

I'm sure most of our listeners know,

you know,

it's a encrypted messenger brought to you

from Meta,

the same people who make Facebook and

Instagram and well bought Instagram.

And, um,

Yeah, it's WhatsApp, as far as we know,

is end-to-end encrypted and it uses the

signal protocol.

So there are a lot of concerns about

the metadata collection of WhatsApp.

But up until now, we've always believed,

well, the content itself is encrypted,

which is better than nothing.

Although there is now a new lawsuit that

alleges that, no, actually,

that's not the case.

And they don't mean that in like a,

well,

technically kind of sort of like they mean

it literally like, no,

it is not end-to-end encrypted.

And this lawsuit claims that if you are

a meta or WhatsApp employee,

all you need to do to access the

messages is you send a task, which is,

I guess,

just what they call like their internal

tickets or requests and metas internal

systems.

You send a task to a meta engineer

and you just say, hey,

I need access to these users messages for

whatever reason.

And they say that the engineering team

will then grant access,

often without any scrutiny at all,

and the workers' workstation will then

have a new window or widget that they

can pull up any WhatsApp users' messages

based on the user's ID number.

which is a unique number.

And then once they have the access,

you can read messages.

They say there's no separate decryption

step.

It's just available right there,

which I'll come back to that, I guess.

They say that these messages are

commingled with additional messages from

unencrypted sources.

Not entirely sure what that means.

Maybe they're talking about the DMA.

I think WhatsApp now has to

federate or combine with other third-party

messengers as part of the DMA.

But I could be wrong about that.

I'm speculating.

They also say messages appear almost as

soon as they are communicated.

So this is essentially a real-time tool.

And they say the access is unlimited and

you are able to go back indefinitely in

time to view messages all the way back

to the user's first messages when they

open the account,

including messages the users believe they

have deleted.

So it is important to note that this

lawsuit does not provide any technical

details to back up these claims.

They say that there were some courageous

whistleblowers and –

Yeah, I mean, obviously,

Meta is disputing this.

They say that these claims are, quote,

categorically false and absurd.

And they even say WhatsApp has been

encrypted using the Signal protocol for a

decade.

So, yeah,

this is definitely a big if-true kind of

moment.

And it's very concerning because WhatsApp

is...

incredibly popular around the world here

in the U S not so much,

but in other parts of the world,

in Europe, in Asia,

it's incredibly popular.

And again, up until now,

I want to reiterate,

we have concerns with WhatsApp.

I'm not saying it's great and you should

use it, but at least it was like,

well, you know,

at least the messages themselves are

encrypted.

And that's something that's more than we

can say for SMS or anything like that.

And apparently we can't even say that now,

uh, potentially.

So yeah,

The only other thought I wanted to point

out is I mentioned the whole widget thing

where they say there's no separate

decryption step.

In theory,

that doesn't necessarily mean the messages

aren't encrypted because maybe the

decryption is happening within the widget.

However,

the whole point of end-to-end encryption

is that that shouldn't be possible

regardless,

whether they're being stored in plain

text,

whether they're being stored encrypted.

The whole point of end-to-end encryption

is that the only people who should have

access are the ends.

And the server is not supposed to be

one of those ends, cough, cough, Zoom.

Sorry,

I had to take a shot at them

for that one.

But yeah, like I said,

this really is big if true and would

really be bad because of WhatsApp's really

large user base.

I think that's a really good point you

just said about how the server shouldn't

be one of the ends,

especially because we know with WhatsApp

in particular,

but also with some other end-to-end

encrypted messengers,

Most notably, iMessage,

unless you have advanced data protection

enabled,

even if end-to-end encryption is working

perfectly fine,

very often they will have these backup

features which are not end-to-end

encrypted,

and that potentially acts as a backdoor

for service providers to get into it.

As far as I know,

that is the case with WhatsApp,

and that is a potential way that this

could be true without the...

end-to-end encryption of the transmission

itself being broken.

Maybe they have a way to access these

backups easily.

But again, that's speculation.

I think it's important to remember with

this story,

and actually one of our community members

just left a comment about this as well,

which is that this is...

a legal complaint right now it's not at

the stage where any evidence has been

presented at all there's no technical

evidence within the document that's been

shared that demonstrates any sort of back

door or that there's any sort of

compromise with the encryption of whatsapp

um so

That being said,

with an app like WhatsApp that's closed

source and completely under the control of

Facebook, this is always a danger,

especially because Facebook has this

history of extensive metadata collection,

extensive...

you know, just general data collection,

actually.

And they are a company that's built

entirely on this like data driven

advertising model where collecting as much

data as they can is really paramount to

their business.

That creates a situation where it's very

hard to trust that they've implemented

end-to-end encryption correctly,

that they're not trying to weaken it

behind the scenes,

or that this is completely impossible.

So I don't think that this is...

out of the question.

But again, this hasn't been proven.

This just goes to show, I think,

that encryption in these apps needs to be

completely verifiable.

It needs to be open source,

it needs to use standard protocols,

and it can't just be a matter of

trust in the publisher of these apps

themselves.

Compared to a messenger like

Signal, which is open source,

like if this story had come out about

Signal right now, many people,

security experts,

auditors could be pouring over that source

code,

trying to see if there's any way that

this could be true, right?

And that just isn't possible with

WhatsApp.

And that's the danger of using these

proprietary closed source applications

like this for your communications instead

of more secure alternatives.

Um,

the other thing I wanted to say about

this whole WhatsApp story is that even if

this isn't true,

even if they can't read your messages

themselves,

it's well known at this point that

WhatsApp is not doing anything in terms of

preventing the collection of metadata,

which is, um, you know,

data about who you're talking with data

about when you're using the app, um,

all of that stuff.

That's not like the message content

itself.

Right.

And so.

I mean,

there's this famous quote from a U.S.

government official where he goes like,

we kill people based on metadata, right?

Because they don't actually need the

content of your messages.

If people have access to this data,

they can infer a lot about you,

who you talk to.

says a lot about what you're probably

talking about,

especially if you're doing it on a regular

basis or anything like that.

And all of that can be determined without

breaking end-to-end encryption at all.

And that's part of why I think WhatsApp

is such a dangerous application to use

because none of that metadata is

protected.

And Facebook is the last company on earth

who I would trust with that metadata in

question.

So...

Even if it's not true,

I would really encourage people to not use

WhatsApp personally.

But yeah, if it is true,

that is even worse.

We will have to keep an eye on

this story for sure because it is a

big if true moment.

Absolutely.

Yeah,

I agree with everything you just said.

This is one of the reasons, like,

we know that open source is not the

end-all be-all.

It doesn't guarantee that something is

private or secure.

But like you said,

if this was an allegation made against,

like, Signal or SimpleX, like,

this wouldn't even really be a story

because we could, I mean,

I certainly could,

and I don't know enough code for that,

but

we as a community could easily just go

pour through the source code and be like

yeah that's not what's happening here we

can we can prove that's not happening um

but yeah and and um i i i

do thank that listener for pointing out

like yes these are allegations they

haven't presented any evidence i will be

really interested to see what sort of

evidence uh they present if any um

And yeah, it's, and like you said,

the metadata is so, so, so important.

The EFF has an amazing page where they

talk about the importance of metadata and

they use some examples, like, um,

some really sensitive examples.

Like if you call the suicide hotline and

sorry, I probably just got us demonetized,

but you know, you call the hall,

the hotline at two in the morning from

the golden gate bridge.

Do you really need the contents of the

phone call to know what was probably going

on there?

And

Yeah,

I forget who it was that said that

quote,

but that is a really famous quote you

can find very easily with a web search.

And that's what he was saying is exactly

that.

Metadata is so revealing that you can make

a really convincing argument without the

content.

And at that point,

you can authorize a military strike.

Like, yeah.

I mean,

is it possible that something else is

going on?

Sure, of course, but...

Yeah, it's pretty wild.

It's good enough for most people, I think.

For sure.

This is why we encourage things like

Signal, Simplex,

things that are metadata resistant,

are fully open source,

that go above and beyond to protect users

and their data, for sure.

Before we move on really quick,

we did get a question.

How do you convince your peers to stop

using WhatsApp?

Do you have any thoughts on that, Nate?

Send them this story.

I think – okay.

I mean there's – we get questions like

this all the time,

and they're great questions.

But unfortunately,

there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

If we had the one secret answer that

could get people to take their privacy

seriously, we would have used it by now.

But I think –

One thing,

so I'm thinking particularly in the

context of like Europeans and Asians,

like people where WhatsApp is like a

common way to connect with businesses and

stuff like that.

And it's, I hate to say it,

but it's quote unquote kind of a

necessity.

I think for those people, there's,

I forget where I heard this,

but somebody really floated the idea of

instead of trying to get people off

WhatsApp,

trying to get them onto something else in

the sense that like,

You can keep WhatsApp and you can use

it for when you have to contact a

business in Germany or something,

but all your friends are also on Signal

and we could use that too.

And then it turns into a thing where

like,

in my life, I still use SMS.

I still have some services.

I logged into a bank this morning that

texted me an SMS code,

not happy about it,

but there's nothing I'm going to do about

it.

So I still have to use SMS.

I can't stop using it,

but I've got ninety,

ninety five percent of my friends and my

family on signal.

And that's where I do most of my

work.

And so I think I think trying to

encourage people rather than like, oh,

stop using WhatsApp,

try to encourage people like, oh,

we're all over here on signal.

And sorry,

this just popped into my head real quick

while I was talking.

I have had amazing success by focusing on

features.

Like I hate to say it,

but let's be honest.

Most people don't care about privacy and

security enough that that's their driving

factor to move.

It's just kind of a happy bonus.

So my wife used to be a wizard

at this and I swear to God,

she should teach a class.

She was so good at getting people to

switch to signal and she never brought up

privacy and like, you know,

she'd mentioned like, yeah,

it's this encrypted messenger,

but like

It's got bigger, you know,

bigger attachment sizes and we're

comparing to SMS here.

So I don't know how it compares to

WhatsApp,

but like it's got bigger attachment sizes.

We can send gifts,

we can send reactions because this is

before RCS was a thing.

It's like all these amazing quality of

life features.

And I swear to God, five minutes later,

I would get a text from the person

she was talking to like, Hey,

I'm on signal now.

I'm like, damn,

I've been trying to get this person on

signal for two years.

How did you do this?

So, yeah,

I think that's probably unfortunately how

we're going to get like, quote unquote,

the average person to want to switch is

by showing them the quality of life

advantages.

And, you know, yeah, absolutely.

Figure out what signal does better than

WhatsApp.

I totally agree.

You kind of stole the thing that I

wanted to talk about,

so I won't spend too long on it,

but I mean, that is definitely my, my,

I truly believe that like all of these

private alternatives,

pretty much in most of these sectors,

if you really look at them and if

you really start to use them,

they are also quality of life improvements

because

I think people are fed up with technology

and all of this surveillance and all of

these anti-features that like all of our

computers are doing things that we didn't

ask them to do now or AI is

being jammed into them or that it's

popping up.

It was annoying decades ago in Microsoft

Word with Clippy and Copilot is just as

annoying now in all of those products.

People just want functional tools,

I think,

and focusing on that aspect

I think that's probably the best way to

drive adoption of these things because

it's just, it's simpler,

it's more reliable,

and it works better in my experience.

And finding ways that it works better than

WhatsApp and focusing on that rather than

trying to compare like the security

features that they already have,

like you said,

I think that that is the way to

go.

Moving on to our next story here.

This was reported by The Guardian.

French lawmakers vote to ban social media

use by under-fifteens.

So this starts out,

legislation which also bans mobile phones

in high schools would make France the

second country after Australia to take

such a step.

French lawmakers have passed a bill that

would ban social media use by

under-fifteens,

a move championed by President Emmanuel

Macron as a way to protect children from

excessive screen time.

The Lower National Assembly adopted the

text by a vote of one-thirty to twenty-one

in a lengthy overnight session from Monday

to Tuesday.

It will now go to the Senate,

France's upper house ahead of becoming

law.

The legislation,

which also provides a ban on mobile phones

in high schools,

which I think is a great idea personally

as a former educator,

would make France the second country to

take such a step following Australia's ban

for under-sixteens in school.

December.

Social media has grown,

so is concerned that too much screen time

is harming child development and

contributing to mental health models.

And so my big question coming out of

this, I think,

is how they plan to enforce this,

because we've talked a lot in the past

about age verification,

and I know this is a huge issue

in Australia right now,

as is

I mean, this article doesn't mention that,

but they're the first country to really

take an approach like this,

banning not only very young children,

but teenagers from social media.

That's very challenging to do without

these invasive age verification things

that we have always been very concerned.

against because age verification and ID

verification it's not just a matter of

like affecting children um it forces

everyone who's signing up for these

platforms to be verified which includes

adults so there's no opt-out process here

um and that's a very dangerous privacy

concern how these IDs are going to be

implemented in the first place I think and

also um

what data is going to be shared with

all of these platforms.

That's something that we'll have to keep

an eye on.

So I'm not seeing in this particular

article how the French plan to deal with

this question.

I know that this is a pretty common

issue with a lot of legislation like this,

where lawmakers kind of

put some arbitrary goal together without

any steps or plan on how to make

it happen in a reasonable, secure,

and private way.

But yeah,

that's my biggest question out of this

story.

Did you have a chance to look into

this story any more than that, Nate?

No, just the article itself that you read.

If I remember correctly,

I don't have it pulled up in front

of me like you do.

If I remember correctly,

they did say that towards the end,

what you said there, where it's like, oh,

they don't really have a plan for how

they're going to implement this.

That's something they're going to talk

about next week.

I do find that so funny.

Yeah.

My favorite example of this,

New York City did that a few years

ago where they banned the sale of internal

combustion engine cars.

And then like the next year they went,

hey,

where are we going to put all the

chargers for these electric vehicles?

And I'm just like, seriously,

nobody had that conversation.

Come on, guys.

So, you know, yeah,

it's and it goes to show.

just this is something I harp on a

lot personally.

It's like,

I think we need better tech literacy in

general worldwide.

And cause we, we have a lot of,

I know I've said this before,

but we have a lot of elderly people

who, you know, to their defense,

I get it.

Like a lot of them existed in the

days where like color TV was the newest,

fanciest thing.

And now we've got LLMs and that's,

that's a lot to wrap your head around.

But then on the other hand of this

end of the spectrum,

we've got these people who are,

I love to cruise r slash tales from

tech support on Reddit,

but it also really makes me facepalm

because on more than one occasion,

I've seen stories like my Wi-Fi isn't

working.

And then when they're like, okay, well,

are the lights on in the router?

And they're like,

I'm not at home right now.

Well, of course your Wi-Fi is not working.

Or, you know,

I've also seen the ones where they're

like, again, you know,

my computer won't turn on.

And it's like, okay, well,

is it plugged in?

I can't see under the desk.

The lights are off.

You don't say,

and I've seen those stories multiple

times.

And so it's like multiple people,

and that's just on Reddit,

multiple people are having this issue.

So I think my point being,

we need better tech literacy,

at least in the basics.

I'm not saying everybody needs to know how

to code and self-host their own

everything, but just to understand...

That like you were saying,

that's a big thing.

It's age verification.

No, it's not.

It's identity verification.

And just to give credit,

I got that one from Taylor Lorenz.

And, you know,

it's you're going to have to upload your

ID to people watching this in France,

regardless of your age and the UK,

which we'll talk about in a minute.

Like it's not just minors,

because how else are they supposed to know

that you're not a minor?

Yeah.

And a lot of these politicians just think

like, oh, that's a technical problem.

Just as one of my other friends likes

to say,

nerd harder and we'll find a solution.

And it's like, no, there is no solution.

There is no magic bullet.

Technology is not magic.

I feel like on this show,

we've talked quite a bit about age

verification and these ID verification

problems.

And I would definitely encourage people,

if you are unfamiliar with some of those

problems,

with some of this topic to check out

the interview that you did with Taylor

Lawrence,

because I think you really covered a lot

of good stuff that was more focused on

how that's going to affect the US and

some legislation that's going on.

But it really does apply to all of

this stuff going on around.

around the world.

We see it not just in France and

Australia, but the UK, for example,

has very strict ID verification laws.

It's becoming a real problem.

Ignoring the implementation side of this,

Do you have any opinions of your own

on this social media ban for children in

general?

Is that something you support just as a

general concept?

Or what do you think?

I mean,

I have some thoughts on this if you

don't,

but I'll pass it off to you first.

Oh, I have thoughts.

My thoughts... Honestly,

it's complicated because on the one

hand...

I, like most people,

I do not neatly fit into one particular

political label or another.

I have thoughts that are left-leaning and

thoughts that are right-leaning.

And one of my more libertarian thoughts is

that parents should be in charge of their

kids.

And I don't mean that in the sense

of like, well,

parents should just raise their kids.

I mean like parents should have the

autonomy and the freedom to decide if they

think their kids are ready to see a

movie, ready to play a game,

ready to engage with the internet.

I think parents should have that freedom.

But at the same time,

I think the internet is very distinctly

different from a movie or a video game.

Well, maybe not an online game,

but like an offline game in the sense

that the internet is a much,

much bigger place with much more

disturbing content on it.

I'm sure whatever the worst thing you've

seen in a horror movie is,

there's probably something worse on the

internet.

And I think it's a lot to ask

parents to constantly know,

even if it's the most well-behaved,

well-meaning, good kid,

that doesn't necessarily mean that the

people they're interacting with online are

also acting in good faith.

And I think that's a lot to put

parents in the position of having to

constantly try to monitor all of that.

Yeah.

It's tough because I don't want to take

away the autonomy of the parents to make

those choices,

but that's also a lot of work for

people who work full-time and may not

necessarily have the tech skills and

everything.

Um, just one more thing real quick.

Somebody here said in the comments that,

you know,

regulation is how we get clean water,

clean food, you know, safe food.

And it's obviously it's not perfect.

You know,

things get recalled all the time,

but I think we can all agree.

It's a lot better.

The term snake oil comes from the old

West days when people would literally roll

into town with literal snake oil and be

like, yeah,

this will cure your cancer and arthritis

and this, that,

and the other and everything.

And like,

just give me your money and I'm going

to be

Fifty miles away by the time you realize

I ripped you off and you don't have

a way to get me because of the

technology limitations at the time.

And so regulations aren't always bad,

but it's definitely – I don't know.

I think it's a mix.

I think there's pros and cons,

and I don't really know what the right

answer is.

That comment that you pointed out is a

good one because it does sum up a

bit of how I feel about social media,

which is –

If it's such a problem,

I think what we've seen in society is

that this isn't a problem that only

affects children.

And personally,

I don't think that children are...

significantly worse off than anyone else

who's constantly being exposed to these

social media algorithms.

And so from this perspective,

we have food regulation,

we have clean water regulation.

Could we have algorithmic regulation that

applies to all of these users of the

platform to protect ourselves in general

as a society against the harms of social

media?

I think that that could be

an approach because I think what people

don't think about or realize is that the

algorithms that make up something like

Facebook and Twitter are not

like they're not necessary for social

media to function um by the way facebook

you know from a user's perspective was

probably totally fine before they

implemented like the news feed and stuff

and people generally like twitter and the

chronological ordering of tweets from only

people that you follow before you know all

this discovery stuff was baked in and it

really tried to

get you into these bubbles and echo

chambers that I think is causing a lot

of people harm, not just children.

And I think we're focusing on children

because children are, you know,

growing up in this and it's preventing

them from like building the skills that

they need to survive in adult society,

unfortunately,

that most people like adults already have.

But

beyond that like i think the harms to

all people are pretty apparent by social

media and i think that some social media

platforms like um mastodon for example

demonstrate that building communities that

you can interact with in a more healthy

way um

It's possible.

And I think that regulation on that front,

which would make these big tech companies

more

like Mastodon, for example,

and Mastodon isn't the perfect social

media, by the way,

but it's a direction that we could go

in.

We need to, I think,

get back to the internet being a place

where we share information and we share

knowledge and make it less of a place

where we just consume whatever information

the overlords of the internet have put on

the screen in front of us, right?

It needs to be more intentional,

and I think that that's the sort of

thing which could be done through

legislation that doesn't involve age

verification or anything like that,

because I think

Banning algorithms like that is really a

lot like enforcing clean food and water

regulations and that sort of thing.

It's a public health issue at the end

of the day.

I also definitely agree with the sentiment

that I've seen from some people in the

chat and also in this article from some

people that they interviewed,

which is that bands like this,

they are overly simplistic,

as this group said in the article here.

But it's also a form of digital

paternalism.

I think that is true.

It's not really the government's place to

make these decisions, I think,

in terms of parenting children.

And you got into this before.

And it is hard.

Exactly like you said,

there is a balance because there's so much

going on in people's lives.

It's so common for both parents to be

working now.

Some people have to work two jobs.

Society is just crazy at the moment,

right?

And so...

Yes, it's hard,

but I don't think that that should be

an excuse for the government to step in

in this way.

The government should be stepping in and

making people's lives easier so that they

have time to parent their children

themselves, right?

That would be an ideal outcome here.

What if we all made enough money where

we had the time to educate our children

properly?

What if the government tried to do

something about that?

I don't know.

Just a thought.

So, yeah,

I don't think it's when somebody could

actually afford to stay home and be a

parent.

Right.

Now,

I especially I really agree with and Henry

used to say this a lot on surveillance

report to exactly what you just said that

the we keep focusing on like social media

is bad for kids social media is bad

for kids.

social media is bad for everyone.

Yeah.

Social media is bad for me.

I notice it even like when I spend

too much time on social media,

I start to get that FOMO and I

start to, you know,

it really starts to consume me.

And I,

I'm sure that some people are more

susceptible to that than others.

Like I know some people that their

relationship with Facebook is like my

relationship with my phone where like half

the time I'm like, where is it?

I don't even remember.

But

These are companies that are paid full

time to figure out how can we keep

people on the platform longer.

That is their job.

I really want to stress that.

However good you are at your job,

that's how good they are.

It's just not a fair fight is what

I'm getting at.

It's really unfortunate that we keep

focusing on...

This is bad for kids and ignoring the

fact that everyone is impacted by this.

And I think it would be,

to your point,

if we're going to regulate anything,

we need to regulate the companies and the

algorithms and make it less harmful for

everyone.

And then maybe we wouldn't need to resort

to these extreme measures.

The other thing I would say about this

ban is that we are in the...

really early days of the internet still if

you really think about it um and this

was i i didn't really think about this

a lot until i heard um i think

i was watching a hank green video where

he said something to this effect where

like in in terms of like society in

general like this many to many

communication system that we have with the

internet is extremely new and if you

really think about it like most people

have probably only been

in like the social media mass

communication landscape for maybe ten,

fifteen years.

I know like you've probably been on the

internet longer,

like some of us people who have been

into technology have been a bit longer

than that.

But for most people,

it's only been around like fifteen years

and like some whole countries even today

are still like just getting connected to

the internet and just getting phones and

it's just becoming a problem.

Like this is

an extremely new development in society

and I don't think that we know like

what works and what doesn't work right and

I don't think that we've given enough

thought into all of this stuff because

there are so many benefits to to be

honest there's so many benefits to even

social media if it's if it's done properly

um that outright banning it just doesn't

make a ton of sense to me but

clearly something has to be done and I

hope that

other governments outside France and in

Australia try and think about these more

nuanced approaches to how all of this

technology can be improved and a better

tool in like people's lives rather than

just like seeing the problems that these

especially these American big tech

companies have created on the internet and

like

quickly reacting to it and just banning it

outright.

I think there's some middle ground to be

found here that I would really try to

encourage.

Totally agree.

With that out of the way,

in a little bit,

we're going to talk about TikTok.

But first,

we're going to talk about stories from the

UK.

That is correct.

So keeping with the vein of age-gating the

internet,

the UK House of Lords has voted to

ban VPNs for children as the pressure on

privacy tools increases.

So this is...

I mean,

the headline kind of says it all.

The House of Lords,

I'm not intimately familiar with the UK's

legislative system,

but it's one part of their legislative

branch.

I believe they said the House of Commons

is the other one, if I remember correctly.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, yeah.

So basically,

the House of Lords has passed this.

Now it's going to go on to the

House of Commons.

And I may be mixing this one up

with France, but I want to say that...

The president or prime minister or whoever

has expressed support for this,

so if it passes the House of Commons,

that is probably not good.

But the good news is it says here

the labor government has a large majority

in the commons,

but it's not clear whether it will attempt

to overturn the amendment or support it.

So, yeah,

this may face scrutiny or it may just

fly right on through.

We don't know at this time.

But it says that the vote was passed

two oh seven to one fifty nine and

that within twelve months, VPNs,

let's see,

regulations which prohibit the provision

to the UK children of a relevant VPN

service must be enacted.

And this is specifically in response to

the Online Safety Act,

which has not gone well.

Within, God,

I think within days of the Online Safety

Act taking effect,

there were stories about how a VPN could

get around it.

People were using their parents' IDs.

I think some people were even using

screenshots from video games,

specifically the game Death Stranding.

So yeah, that did not go over well.

There was also, let me see,

if I remember here,

I think there was a second law.

Again,

I may be thinking of the France one.

I read all of these stories yesterday,

so they may have jumbled up in my

mind a little bit.

Um, yeah,

I'm not seeing anything about that.

So yeah, this is a, this is unfortunate.

This is kind of like we were just

saying it.

And I love when governments just pile

band-aids on top of each other.

Like we passed the online safety act.

Oh, that didn't work.

Well, let's, let's ban VPNs.

And then they're going to find a way.

Cause it's a cat and mouse.

They're going to find a way around VPNs.

And you know,

like we were just talking about a minute

ago,

the source of the issue is what harmful

content online.

Right.

So.

Why don't you address the content online?

And to their defense,

some of the stuff that's harmful,

if harmful at all,

is out of their reach.

If a website is based in another part

of the EU, India, America,

they can't really do anything about that.

But I don't know.

This just feels to me like, oh,

it didn't work.

We need to add a Band-Aid.

Yeah, it's a cat and mouse,

so I don't know where they think this

is going to end in its logical conclusion.

And it's not great,

because obviously VPNs are not a total

anonymity tool.

They definitely do get hyped up a little

bit too much,

especially in a lot of sponsor segments.

But they do still have a legitimate use

case, and they are...

I would say they're an easy way to

make some improvements to your privacy.

Like a lot of the VPN providers we

recommend have DNS block lists that will

block known trackers, known ads,

known malware.

It will change your IP address,

which is part of the way that companies

fingerprint you online.

And again, not perfect.

Definitely leaves a lot to be desired,

but it's a great start.

And especially if your threat model is

like you don't want your ISP selling your

internet history,

you don't want your ISP knowing where you

go online, which is totally fair.

Yeah, I do think they serve a purpose,

and it's really unfortunate to see them

losing a major benefit,

which is that you don't need to turn

over ID,

because that kind of defeats the whole

privacy thing, in my opinion.

I think that's about all I got on

that one.

Absolutely.

I saw this story earlier...

this week and I sent out some posts

on social media about it that have been

doing pretty popular.

But basically I was talking about these

VPN bans in

in general,

because I think that a lot of people,

and especially techie people in this

space, hear about bans on technology.

They hear about a VPN ban,

or they hear about a ban on end-to-end

encrypted messengers, like Signal,

if something like chat control were to be

rolled out.

And they think, like, oh,

I can still continue to use these tools,

and...

And I'll be fine.

Even if this affects other people,

I'm smart enough to know how to bypass

all of this stuff,

and it won't be an issue for me.

And that's what we've seen with age

verification rolling out.

A lot of people are just using VPNs,

right?

But I think...

The problem with banning and criminalizing

very common,

very mundane and very legitimately useful

technologies like VPNs, for example,

is that it makes crimes very easy to

commit and very commonplace.

And this is the first step in what

we see in these authoritarian regimes.

regimes where, you know,

they try to fill the books with as

many, you know,

potential crimes or violations as possible

so that even if you're doing something

completely unrelated to the crime at hand,

like if you're using a VPN and the

government decides they don't like it,

like if you're protesting your government,

for example, in the UK,

they can very easily like look at your

technology.

They can look at you

being a VPN user or using this end-to-end

encrypted tool or whatever,

if any of these laws pass,

and they can use that fact against you,

not only in the courts as a crime,

but also in the courts of public opinion,

so to speak,

where they can really label you as

something which you probably aren't.

And people will judge you for that.

And that comes from making these

legitimate tools

seem evil and villainizing them and really

just changing their reputation.

It affects people in a lot of ways,

and it affects people in non-technical

ways.

It's the big point that I wanted to

make here.

So I just... Yeah,

I would be worried about any...

This is the same argument that we had

with Shack Control a while ago,

which I'm sure will crop up again,

but with any of these total bans on

technology...

I just want people to remember that if

you live in these countries,

this is not just a technical issue.

And you need to be keeping an eye

on this stuff and keeping up with it

and speaking out against it because this

will end up affecting everyone.

It's a bit of a slippery slope argument,

but we're definitely at the top of some

slippery slopes right now.

Yeah.

And the other thing I want to add

onto that, that's,

that's all absolutely true.

And you're absolutely right.

A lot of the time we don't think

about the non-technical side of this,

but also I personally, I really hate that.

Like, Oh,

well I know how to get around this.

That's great.

A lot of people don't.

And privacy, you know,

privacy is a team sport and privacy is

a human right.

Like, right.

Like we have that in the merch store.

For those of you who don't know,

we have a merch store

shop.privacyguides.org.

And we have a shirt that's super awesome.

That has article twelve.

I don't,

God, I'm such a nerd.

I have this memorized.

It's the nineteen forty eight United

Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Article twelve says that everyone has a

right to privacy.

I don't have it memorized.

That's going to be my new project is

I'm going to memorize the actual article.

But it's like it says like this is

a human right.

We're talking about like water, food,

shelter, the right to live,

the right to education and also the right

to privacy.

And so if we're going to believe that,

if we're going to sit here and say,

yes, privacy is a right,

the government is infringing on my rights

by taking away my privacy,

then that's really messed up to say, oh,

well, this doesn't affect me, so meh.

No, everybody should have that right.

Even if you know how to get around

it, lots of people don't.

Yeah.

At this point,

I don't care what form your compassion

takes.

If you're like, well,

then I'm going to teach people how to

get around it.

There may be legal repercussions for that.

I'm not endorsing that.

You do you.

But whether that's I'm going to teach

people how to get around it,

whether that's I'm going to write my

politician, whatever it is,

don't just sit back and go, oh, well,

this doesn't affect me, so I don't care.

Because what's that classic poem about the

Holocaust?

First, they came for everyone else.

And by the time they came for me,

there was no one left.

And

I wouldn't be surprised if that happens in

some places because we keep saying it

doesn't affect me until it does,

and it's incredibly selfish,

and we need to get out of that.

Sorry.

While we're on the topic of these bans

of technology for children,

I saw this comment in our YouTube chat

where they said,

as far as I can tell,

EIDAS will be used for age verification

within the EU.

Basically,

these digital ID systems will allow

websites to request some sort of ID on

your phone or computer and only get

certain information about it in a

supposedly privacy-respecting way.

And I think we've talked a bit about

digital IDs in the past,

but I just want to reiterate.

This is certainly a better solution than

the current setup that a lot of websites

are doing where you have to scan your

face and you have to scan pictures of

your ID because that is

a privacy nightmare.

It's also a security nightmare.

We've already seen, I think,

multiple data breaches of all of these age

verification and ID databases being

leaked.

And now all of this public information is

out there.

That is a huge security problem.

It's an economic problem because there

will be identity theft,

like the government is enabling

extremely scary stuff by promoting these

technologies.

And in the US here,

I know that the government uses vendors

like real.me or all these other identity

verification companies.

ID.me?

Yes, thank you.

Something like that.

I'm confusing it with real ID,

which is separate.

But yeah,

they use these for official government

things instead of making their own ID and

login system.

And like,

that is extremely concerning from a

security perspective.

But,

The overall point that I want to make

with this is that it's not only about

the privacy of the individual transaction

being made here.

This is also a censorship issue because to

get this ID in the first place,

you need to give away a lot of

your information.

So that's a privacy issue right there.

Maybe in the EU,

a lot of people already have national ID

cards.

You might be used to it.

Here in the US,

that isn't necessarily commonplace.

I know that...

The current administration is really

pushing for it to be,

and they're really supporting everyone

getting a password and having digital IDs

on their phone,

which is a whole separate thing.

But the issue being created is that as

these governments try to age-gate as many

services and as many sites as possible,

as they can possibly justify –

um it really creates a wall around all

of these things that the government has

absolute control over whether you can

cross that wall and access that site and

they can do something like revoke your id

if they want to for whatever reason um

kick you off of practically half the

internet right um and we're seeing these

id verification

laws and directives expand far beyond

their original intent of like protecting

adult services.

Now we're talking about social media

sites.

Now we're talking about VPNs.

We've seen them affect in the UK,

potentially Wikipedia, for example,

which is just a knowledge sharing service.

That's something that should be

people should have a right to access that

frankly and it's crazy that the government

would step in and get in the middle

of that and that is what we're enabling

with these digital id concepts it is a

whole system that the government has sole

control over and it is really in my

opinion antithetical to

the internet and what computers and the

internet were made for.

We just cannot accept these restrictions

on the free flow of information sharing

and knowledge.

And so even with these like private and

zero knowledge digital ID solutions,

it creates a real danger to society that

I don't think we should tolerate using

this technology at all for gating access

to information especially.

Yeah, totally agree.

Great point.

Information longs to be free.

And there are many who argue that

information should, I mean,

I think that's why, um,

I don't know if this is the ethos

for privacy guides, but at the new oil,

like I've never charged for articles for

blog posts.

Like I'll do early access,

but then like a week later it goes

public, you know, but I,

there's no part of my website that is,

Oh,

you got to join a membership to access

this premium stuff.

It's like, no,

cause it's information and it should be

free.

And yeah,

to put up those barriers to information is

really scary for the potential.

Absolutely.

Going back to something you said a little

while ago now about the government just

constantly putting band-aids on their

current bad solutions,

we have this story here from Independent.

AI and facial recognition to be rolled out

as Britain's broken policing system faces

sweeping reforms.

Officials say using AI will free up six

million hours of police time,

the equivalent of three thousand officers

each year.

This article says the Home Secretary has

announced plans to ramp up the use of

AI in live facial recognition as she

unveils sweeping reforms to fix Britain's

broken policing system.

Shobana Mahmood,

sorry if I pronounced that wrong,

is investing a hundred forty million

pounds to roll out technology which she

hopes will free up six million police

hours each year,

the equivalent of three thousand officers,

as part of the biggest overhaul of a

quote,

outdated policing model designed for

another century.

AI technology will be deployed to rapidly

analyze CCTV, doorbell,

and mobile phone footage,

detect deepfakes,

carry out digital forensics,

and speed up administration such as form

filling, redaction, and transcription.

These measures are part of a bigger

overhaul to policing that it seems like

England is seeing right now.

But I think I saw somewhere in this

article.

Now I can't find it.

Well,

I think the overall point is that these

AI tools are well known already to be

quite unreliable, right?

We're going to see a lot of

Like when we've seen this ruled out in

other law enforcement jurisdictions,

and especially like even here in the US,

for example, recently,

we talked a lot about this last week.

These AI tools being ruled out,

they're not reliable.

They're making mistakes and people are...

taking the claims of these systems at face

value.

And I think it's a really dangerous

situation that the UK is putting

themselves in by enabling this technology.

So definitely something to be wary about,

I think.

When you were reading this article,

did you see any other points you wanted

to point out here?

I think just to back up what you're

saying, yeah,

I have a friend here in the US

who works in law enforcement.

He's not a cop,

but he's like a civilian employee.

And he sends me stories,

I swear to God,

a couple times a month where he's like,

oh, so one of our cops used AI.

And I'm pretty sure this is the official

sanctioned system they're allowed to use.

Like,

I don't even think this is somebody being

like, quote unquote,

lazy and going outside the system.

He's like,

yeah,

so this cop tried to use AI to

like do his police report and it just

got everything completely wrong.

Like you said,

it was a two in the morning and

just all these little things that like,

you know, don't sound that bad to us,

but it's like, yeah,

that means this case gets thrown out in

court because the prosecutor will

absolutely tear this apart.

And just, yeah,

they're completely unreliable.

And he sends me these stories all the

time.

And I'm assuming these are just the really

bad ones he sends me that are like,

wow, they got this really wrong.

But yeah, AI is,

so so bad yeah i found this article

i was looking for it was just one

sentence but um they're creating this

national center dedicated to using the new

technology called police ai despite just

recently in ai hallucination influencing

um a decision by one of their police

departments to ban um fans of uh israeli

uh

football team from a match in Birmingham

last year.

So they're already experienced with the

problems that this can cause and the

problems that you see when you really just

take these at face value.

People aren't giving this AI oversight and

it causes real problems.

And I cannot imagine that they've really

learned from these mistakes.

I think that this sort of thing

as we've seen, it's,

it's only going to become more frequent

and more of a problem.

I think that that is the biggest problem

with this, that I would,

that I would point out for sure.

It's crazy.

And it's such high stakes too.

It's one thing when like, you know,

I'm cause I've,

I've admitted to this before.

I'll use like Braves Leo.

If I'll go to the search engine first

and I'll be like, you know,

I'll type in the keywords or whatever I

think should pop up the thing I'm looking

for, but then I'll get like, Oh God,

actually, what was it?

Um,

I think it was with WhatsApp.

Yeah,

it was this whole WhatsApp thing that our

headline story, actually,

as I'm working on this script for private

messaging,

I was looking for a story about how

WhatsApp tried to change the terms of

service so that they could share data with

other meta properties like Instagram for

targeted advertising.

And everybody got really mad.

And so I went to Brave and I

typed in like, you know,

WhatsApp data sharing, whatever, whatever.

And all I got was this week's headline

story.

And I'm just like, oh my God, okay,

forget this.

And so I went to Leo and I

was like, hey, I'm looking for this story,

blah, blah, blah.

And it was like, oh,

you're thinking of this from twenty twenty

one or whatever.

And so, yeah,

but I've had these times where, like,

I ask Leo a question and it works.

And then ten minutes later,

I have the same problem.

So I ask it another question.

But for some reason,

it loops back into the original question

and just literally word for word answers

the first question.

And I'm like, no, that's.

all right,

let me close this window and start a

new one.

And just the point being that like,

it's amazing that they see that kind of

behavior and they're like, yeah,

this will be great for determining whether

people go to jail, have a criminal record,

possibly end up on death row.

I don't think they have death row in

the UK, but you know,

just like we can completely ruin

somebody's life.

And we know that this thing is not

perfect, but we're willing to do that.

That's wow.

That's insane.

Yeah.

No, the,

the other thing in answer to your question

that jumped out at me was the,

the facial recognition bands.

These are,

Yikes.

These have been covered extensively by

groups like...

I think they're called Big Brother Watch

in the UK.

And the police will just randomly take...

They have these mobile...

I don't even know what you want to

call them.

They're mobile facial recognition bands.

They'll go out to a public street out

of the blue and they'll set them up

and just scan everybody that walks by.

And the reason they're so problematic is

because they'll put signs up at the end

of the street that say, Hey,

we're using facial recognition because

legally they have to,

they have to put those signs up so

that you can quote unquote consent.

And the reason I put quote unquote is

because there've been so many stories of

people will like turn down the street and

see that sign and

And decide like, oh,

I don't want to go down the street.

So they'll turn and walk away.

And the police will go follow that person

and hunt them down and be like,

why'd you walk away?

What do you have to hide?

What's your name?

Show me your ID.

And sometimes they'll even facial

recognition them anyways.

And it's like, dude,

it's not consent if you're going to chase

me down the street and make me do

it anyways.

And so, yeah,

I think they're going from like ten of

those to like fifty of them.

Five zero.

It's completely insane.

And those things scare the crap out of

me.

Yeah, my...

My wife made a friend in the UK

last year and she was like,

we should go sometime.

And I was like, never.

No, I'm not going to the UK.

It is a bit of a scary place.

I just saw we got a comment from

a Wither lead here who said that these

cases are hilarious that the involved

people using them are too lazy to look

back at what really AI is generated for

them.

And I think that's very true.

And it's ridiculous,

but I think it really highlights a huge

problem that we see with AI right now,

which is that I don't think people...

When,

when we see AI used in these

circumstances,

it always needs to be done under like

the oversight of a real person with

experience and knowledge in this space,

because AI will lie to you straight to

your face without batting an eye because

it can't, it doesn't know any better.

And you know,

if you're going to use AI at all,

the only way to do it is to,

um,

be aware of that and be able to

catch AI and maybe

maybe i don't know in terms of police

but maybe some police officers can can do

that right now um like more experienced

ones they might be able to look at

this and say like oh that's not quite

right but what we're missing right now i

think is all these younger people the new

generations entering the workforce or in

college right now who are really reliant

on ai they're going to be using ai

more in their jobs and they aren't being

trained on how to

properly oversee AI.

I think we're losing a lot of that

knowledge and we're putting a lot of trust

in AI and that is simply not a

tenable

solution to this to this problem um we're

not properly training anybody who's using

these tools right now in my opinion to

be aware of this in a way that

makes sense we're kind of offloading a lot

of jobs to ai right now when that

is not something that ai can do it's

never really going to be something that ai

can do there are certainly like ai

optimists who can

argue, and they may be right,

that AI will be a big part of

people's jobs in the future,

but it'll always be under this human

supervision.

And it'll always be like a force

multiplier, basically,

but you have to

You have to have the ability to recognize

the problems with AI and control it.

And people simply don't right now.

I think that's a huge problem.

I think it's only going to become more

and more of a problem as more people

with real world experience retire and they

don't pass that knowledge down to new

trainees who are just doing everything

through AI.

So that worries me quite a bit about

AI, not just in policing,

but in pretty much any field where they're

trying to apply it right now.

And I think we really need to be

aware of that and we need to do

more about that to make it better.

Yeah,

and that kind of goes back to what

I said earlier about we have a low

level of tech literacy.

We have people who...

You know,

I just mentioned the issues that I have

with Braves Leo,

which somebody else said in the comments,

like Leo's pretty good.

And I agree.

I'm very happy with the results.

It cites its sources.

So I always double check it.

And I'm like, okay,

let me make sure this actually says what

you're telling me it says.

But even then it's still, you know,

it gets things wrong.

It repeats itself.

It does things.

And I don't understand how like,

like the whole AI girlfriend thing,

you know,

like some people are really thinking like,

oh, this,

and I'm sure they realize it's software,

but they're like,

this software is sentience and really

cares about me.

And it's like,

I have to imagine it has the same

glitches that Leo does.

And I don't understand how you can look

at that and still think that this is

the way to go.

And just that level of tech literacy to

not understand what's going on under the

hood and that it's just a prompt and

that it's just, you know, autocorrect.

And it's just,

It scares me that, yeah, like you said,

this is becoming such a – it's something

that people are relying on for such

important decisions.

And on top of it, like you said,

losing the ability to understand what it

is, what it does, the limitations,

things like that.

It's a tech literacy problem,

but it's also,

I think –

like an intentional deception issue.

And this almost ties back to what we

were talking about social media earlier,

where the way that AI companies,

in particular OpenAI, I think,

are treating their customers and are

designing these models is

becoming a legitimate public health hazard

more than anything.

And that's the sort of thing where, again,

we probably want to see more safeguards

and more regulation and more thought put

into how people interact with these

things.

Because I think people,

there are so many people out there,

I think,

who naturally just want to humanize and

anthropomorphize any technology they want.

They're going to be sucked into these

relationships like you were talking about,

for example,

or the advice that you're giving because

it can sound so human.

And I think that playing on that fact

to sell more subscriptions or to get more

users I think is really, really dangerous.

I think it is pretty much all of

the problems that we've seen with

algorithms and social media,

but like

ramped up to eleven,

it's bad stuff that I think really needs

to be thought of more carefully.

We're in a classic Silicon Valley move

fast and break things moment,

but the things that we're breaking right

now are extremely serious,

and that's not maybe the mentality we can

take when we're rolling out this sort of

technology nationwide or globally or

whatever.

It's crazy stuff.

Yeah, for sure.

All right.

I think in a little bit here,

we're going to talk about some of the

popular discussions on the forum and start

answering questions.

But first,

we're going to talk about TikTok on the

topic of public health crises and AI.

Yeah, so TikTok,

in case you guys haven't been paying

attention, which for the record,

I wouldn't blame you.

I don't really pay much attention to it

myself, if we're being honest.

But TikTok was sold.

Believe it or not,

the deal finally went through.

I know Trump's been trying to get that

pushed through for a couple of years now.

And finally,

I think the twenty second last week,

it like officially the deal closed.

It's all like the handoff has started.

And I know the handoff has started because

I overheard my wife and one of her

friends saying that that TikTok was

basically broken for like a week.

Well,

I think we've had a problem ourselves with

our own shorts, right?

We can't post.

We haven't been able to post.

Oh, that's right.

I forgot about that.

Yeah.

In case you guys are on TikTok,

our shorts stopped posting there because

of the technical issues they were having,

and it couldn't post for some reason.

And I actually went to go try and

look for the live and see if there

were any comments,

and I can't even see the live,

but that could be my phone.

So, yeah.

Who knows?

But...

Yeah, so anyways, TikTok sold.

And of course, when you open the app,

you have to accept the terms of service,

which I'm assuming you have to do even

if you want to delete it now,

which is a dark pattern that's not cool.

But anyways,

where we're going with this is there were

some privacy changes to TikTok.

Believe it or not, it got worse.

If you are one of the people who

didn't think it could, it did.

So this article from Wired here talks

about three of the biggest changes.

One of them is that TikTok is now

capable of precise location tracking.

Before this,

it did not collect precise data.

Yeah, precise location.

So now if you are a TikTok user

for whatever reason, like, you know,

we post stuff there,

make sure you double check and disable

that.

the precise location.

I mean, disabled location in general,

but especially precise location.

It now tracks your AI interactions,

which TikTok is loaded with AI slop,

but I guess there's also like AI tools

and I don't understand what those are

because I don't use them.

Again, like I show up,

I post a video, I check for comments,

I leave, I don't hang out there.

So I guess there are AI tools now

that formerly did not fall under the

privacy policy,

but now TikTok has started tracking

analytics and metadata from the usage of

those tools.

And if you're a video viewer,

you can see here,

it says the old privacy policy are not

explicitly mentioned,

the new privacy policy.

So that is one cool thing about this

article.

It shows you what the old privacy policy

says and what the new one says.

And then next up, not quite last,

because there's one more,

a couple more things we're going to talk

about.

But next up,

TikTok has expanded its ad network.

So

So previously, I want to say,

let me double check here.

So rather than using, well,

you use the app TikTok.

Yeah.

So now basically they're going to be able

to advertise to you in other places and

use the data from TikTok to advertise to

you in other places.

And I would assume collect that data from

other places to advertise to you on TikTok

because I know that TikTok does have its

own analytics tool like the Metapixel,

Google Analytics.

So yeah, that advertising has expanded.

Another privacy concern we should mention

that I have seen making the rounds.

Let me go ahead and change my tab

I'm sharing here.

This one comes from TechCrunch and it

says,

TikTok users freak out over apps

immigration status collection.

Here's what it means.

I don't like this article.

I'm gonna say that upfront.

Because basically there's – I guess

there's – again,

don't hang out there so I wouldn't know.

But I guess there's a lot of videos

going around TikTok about how TikTok now

is collecting your immigration status,

which is probably already being reported

to ICE.

I feel like I've reported on a story

about that before, but I could be wrong.

But anyways, according to this article,

TikTok has always done that.

The difference is that now with the

updated privacy policy,

because of the way that laws in California

are worded,

specifically with the CCPA and

California's Privacy Act,

now they have to specifically disclose it.

And it's – let me see if I

can find it here.

It's a very subtle, like, basically –

Yeah,

the policy specificity around types of

sensitive information has to do with state

privacy laws such as California's CPRA.

The latter, for instance, the CCPA,

requires businesses to inform consumers

when they collect sensitive information,

which the law defines as including the

following things.

And there's a...

Huge list of things here,

precise location, genetic data,

things that I think we would all agree

are sensitive information.

And it says, of note,

citizenship and immigration status were

specifically added to the category in

twenty twenty three.

Um,

so basically it was probably always

collecting this data.

It just didn't have to tell you that

before.

And the reason I don't like this article

is just the author's tone.

She takes this very like, guys, calm down.

They were always doing this.

It's not a big deal.

Now they're just being more honest about

it.

And I really don't like that tone because

it's like, no, it was bad then too.

It's still bad.

It was bad.

This is not a calm down moment just

because we know about it now.

So yeah, that, uh,

What's up?

Sorry,

my camera is apparently not working.

Maybe I have to fix this.

It's all good.

Well,

the only thing I was going to say

is I read this article and I was

thinking the exact same thing.

Like this TechCrunch article,

they really framed this as like, hey,

you know, it's actually not a big deal.

They have to put this in their privacy

policy because they're collecting it and

it's the law.

But that's not an excuse for them to

collect it in the first place, obviously.

I see we saw a question in here,

how did they determine immigration status?

I think when it comes to this and

also the other sensitive information that

was mentioned in this article,

like sexual life or sexual orientation,

I think that that stuff is kind of

being determined by algorithms,

most likely.

And it's probably a situation that we

see...

Similar to that stuff showing up in the

privacy policy of cars and vehicles,

for example, when we saw Mozilla's things.

A bit of it, I think,

is going to be overzealousness.

I think a lot of lawyers think we

should put everything in there just to...

cover our butts just in case something

happens.

But also I think they are collecting this

information and they're inferring it based

on not only the content you post,

but also the content that you consume.

And I think that they can probably get

a pretty good idea of all of this

information just based on the content you

consume alone.

And so

Yeah, ideally,

they wouldn't be collecting any of that

information at all.

I definitely don't think that just because

it's in state privacy laws,

that's an excuse to put it in there.

Ideally,

the algorithm wouldn't be able to know

that information.

And once again,

I think that's the theme of this episode.

That's the sort of thing where the social

media algorithms are overreaching and are

very dangerous and need to be reined in

a bit.

Yeah, for sure.

Yeah,

it would be nice if they just said,

here's how we determine that information.

But it's probably so many different ways.

Because like you said,

some people disclose it.

Some people upload a video where they're

like, hey,

I'm an immigrant here and I moved here

in

you know, but other people, yeah,

it's probably a lot of signals.

Like I would have to imagine if I

moved out of the U S it would

probably still be pretty easy to tell

based on the way I spell things,

the language.

I mean, there have been studies into like,

you know,

one of the most common examples is like

soda versus pop, right.

Depending on which phrase you use or Coke

or some specific things,

like depending on which word you use,

it's a pretty good indicator.

Like, Oh,

you're probably from up North or you're

probably from down South or something.

So

That's just when you add up enough of

those little signals,

you can start to reveal things that may

not be a hundred percent accurate,

but they're probably right more often than

they're wrong.

Exactly.

Like every single one of those pieces of

data, it's like a Venn diagram for like,

you just keep adding more circles.

And at the end of the day,

there's only going to be one person in

the middle of all of those circles, right?

You can get very specific with very broad

data.

Dude,

that is a really good way to put

it.

I like that.

That was good.

The next story in here I think answers

Jordan's question in the chat.

Does this affect the U.S.

only or the whole world?

Do you have that story pulled up on

your screen here?

Let me see.

I do, yeah.

So this is just kind of rounding off

our trio of TikTok stories.

So because TikTok – and I'll be honest.

I don't even know the full answer to

this story myself.

I am very unclear.

Did –

all of TikTok just get sold to a

bunch of US and one UAE investment

companies or did only part of it?

It is only the American one.

Only American TikTok is sold to this.

The worldwide TikTok continues to be owned

by ByteDance.

But how this affects TikTok, I think,

is still a good question and it's unclear.

And I think that that is the point

of this story here.

It's like Canada is now looking into this.

I think especially because I would imagine

just proximity to the US could get like

some Canadian users lumped into this

American version of the platform because

of, I don't know,

geolocation settings of their phone or

whatever.

I don't know how exactly this split works.

The whole TikTok and especially like

America,

the American TikTok being its own thing

doesn't make a lot of sense to me

because it's unclear whether it federates

with like the global TikTok.

Do you see the same thing?

content?

Is it just a different algorithm?

Can people outside the US see American

TikToks?

I unfortunately don't know enough about

TikTok.

But anyways, going back to this story,

and you can share more about it.

I think that that is the question that

Canada is asking right now.

I think it's unclear to everyone.

Yeah,

you asked a whole bunch of questions that

are scary.

Yeah,

and that's the headline for audio

listeners.

It says,

Canada's privacy czar seeks answers on

TikTok policy updates.

I don't know when we started calling

everybody a czar.

I don't know when that took off,

and I don't like it,

to be totally honest with you.

But yeah, it's Canada's, oh my God,

what are they?

The Office of Privacy,

the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of

Canada, the OPC.

And yeah, like you said,

I know this is way more common in

Europe, but even here in the U.S.,

I don't know about nowadays,

but historically, we've had areas,

especially in the south,

where people will be right on the border

of Mexico and some state,

and people will come back and forth.

Maybe they live in Mexico,

but they work in the US or vice

versa.

I don't know how that works,

but I do know it's a thing,

and I'm sure it was probably a thing

in Canada.

I've known a few Canadians who,

growing up –

Went to school or maybe not went to

school,

but like went to church in Seattle and

maybe not Seattle.

That was probably pretty far down for

them.

But, you know,

like they were back and forth pretty

regularly and they were almost like dual

citizens because they're just so close to

the border that they have a lot of

friends and connections in the other

country.

And so, yeah,

Canada is rightfully so trying to

understand with all this.

this sale going through now,

what does that mean for Canadians?

Will they get looped into this stuff?

Will their privacy rights still be

respected if they get looped in?

Is TikTok going to make any effort to

separate Canadian users and American

users?

Yeah,

so we don't really have much on this

story because this is just kind of the

initial announcement that, hey,

we're asking these questions.

But I think they are very good questions.

And like Jonah said,

there's so many questions right now.

We're trying to figure out how any of

this is going to work.

What are people going to see?

I know Trump said that he wanted the

algorithm to be retrained once America

bought it.

So yeah,

there's a lot of things that are kind

of up in the air right now.

I also, real quick,

I appreciate the people in the comments

when I asked about sodas.

And somebody said, we call it soft drink.

And someone else said,

we call it by its chemical compounds.

So thank you, guys.

But I believe Jonah is trying to fix

his camera right now.

And in a minute,

we will start taking some viewer

questions.

And Jonah will return to us very shortly.

Yes.

Oh, he's back.

He's back.

All right.

Did you have anything you wanted to add

to the TikTok story or are you ready

to move on to forum updates?

No,

I think I could point out this comment.

Jordan just mentioned this really quick.

I don't think we talked about it too

much,

but I definitely have seen a lot of

stories about how the algorithm is

changing.

There's definitely been allegations of the

American version of TikTok now censoring

posts that are critical of the American

government and that sort of thing.

Yeah, very concerning for Americans.

I don't think that it was the right

move to sell TikTok to Larry Ellison,

of all people,

and to Saudi Arabian private equity

companies and all that stuff.

To be fair, they are Emirati,

not Saudi Arabian.

Oh, sorry.

I did a little bit of digging.

It turns out we're actually really good

allies with the United Arab Emirates.

so is china so you know it's like

i don't like you but i like your

best friend which i don't know if that

makes you really mature or i don't know

i i'm just asking questions yeah

So yeah, as you were saying,

we're going to get into questions that we

see on our forum.

We'll also get into questions that we've

seen in the chat.

I know there's some questions.

We've answered some questions as they've

come up,

but I've seen some questions that we've

moved on and we'll get back to those.

So stay tuned for that.

But yeah, in the meantime,

let's talk about a couple top posts that

we've seen in our community and on our

forum.

I think the...

Big one for this week is, of course,

it's Data Privacy Week,

which is always an exciting time for all

of us in privacy.

Oh yeah, you have it pulled up here.

We had a Data Privacy Day post,

but basically on Wednesday the

twenty-eighth,

it was International Data Privacy Day.

Kind of just

A yearly event that a lot of organizations

in the privacy space,

both on the business and consumer side,

really try to focus on personal privacy

improvements and switching to private

alternatives and all of that sort of

stuff.

And so we've been posting some things

throughout the week on our social media

channels about

Data Privacy Day and Data Privacy Week,

ways that people can get into switching to

more private alternatives.

And we talked a bit about on our

forum, I think,

as Nate looks through that,

about how people are preparing for for

twenty twenty six and how and.

Yeah,

what people are doing to be more private,

which is super cool.

So I don't know if there's any specific

posts you wanted to highlight,

but

Well, I do love that hail privacy one.

That cracks me up.

But yeah, I mean, no, there's, I mean,

it runs the gamut here, right?

Like,

let me scroll back to the top here.

You know,

one person said one goal for twenty twenty

six is to fully move over to ProtonMail,

which, you know, whether it's Proton,

Tudor, something else.

What is it?

Mailbox?

Is that the other one we recommend?

Um, whether it's one of those services,

whichever one it's, it's, you know,

it's no small feat to move email.

And fortunately that is something you can

do yourself.

You know, it's not like a signal,

which thankfully signal is getting really

common, but it's still,

you have to have other people to talk

to you.

Right.

We talked about that earlier with the

WhatsApp story.

Email, you can move that by yourself.

Nobody's stopping you,

but it is still a lot of work.

And actually, uh,

many years ago I moved from Yahoo to

Gmail and I spent years still getting like

this account that I forgot about that's

went to Yahoo instead of Gmail.

So, you know, it's, it's, um,

it's a lot of work and, uh,

Yeah.

One person gave the advice about the

rabbit hole is very deep and it's

understandable temptation to give up,

but don't start with the low hanging fruit

and work your way up the privacy tree

one step at a time.

So, um, yeah,

they talked about smart TVs and they're

trying to replace it with something that's

a little bit more privacy friendly.

Um,

Yeah, they talked about, let's see,

just kind of harm reduction.

I know that's a big thing for me

is they said that their partner has

certain disabilities.

So unfortunately,

they can't really get away from like a

normal phone and stuff.

But they said they're researching a way to

run some old Linux computers and get the

same television programming with more

privacy.

And so, yeah, pretty cool stuff.

We can get into some viewer questions.

I think it's about that time.

First one I saw in the chat,

this was for you, Nate.

What ThinkPad are you using right now and

why?

I am using a ThinkPad X-TX because it

was a gift.

And it was free and I run cubes

on it.

So I'm actually reading the chat from a

cubes computer from,

I have a little VM just for my

work in privacy guides.

And yeah, I mean, I like it.

It's a little bit slow.

I think the processor is,

I think this computer is from like, so,

you know,

this processor struggles a little bit,

but yeah, but you know, it's not bad.

And it's definitely like, I couldn't,

I can never do any kind of video

editing or gaming.

And also, the screen's a little bit small.

But it's great when I travel.

I went to Europe late last year.

And last week,

you guys saw me with the,

what did I call it earlier?

I called my other computer something.

It's like a billboard or something.

I don't know.

But yeah,

my other computer is massive and covers my

whole face.

And this guy's like fourteen inches.

So it sat right in front of me

on the plane.

Nice and and nice and neat.

And that was really, really handy.

And it's a little slow,

but it runs everything just fine.

And it's great for surfing the web and

writing.

And so, yeah, I mean,

I'm going to use it until the day

it stops booting or something.

So, yeah.

Let's see.

I'm looking through here.

We didn't seem to get any chats on

the forum, which is unfortunate.

There's a couple more chats in here.

And yeah,

if anyone's watching and has questions,

this is a good time to leave them

in the chat.

Got another one here from Dread Pirate

Roberts.

Do you guys think that all of these

bad laws like chat control,

ID verification,

facial recognition are done in bad faith

to gain more control over the population

or just bumbling politicians making these

mistakes?

That one I think I did answer a

bit, I guess,

when I pulled up our recent tweet about

that.

I do think that the direction that a

lot of Western countries are going in

right now is towards more authoritarian

practices and towards more control over

their own citizens,

which I think is really unfortunate.

I think that that is a driving factor

behind a lot of them.

So, yeah, I don't think it's great.

Did you have any additional thoughts on

that, Nate?

I think in answer to the actual question,

I think it's both because, you know,

something that one of the podcasts I

listen to,

something the host says a lot is

everybody's the hero of their own story,

right?

Like, nobody...

nobody thinks they're the bad guy.

Even,

even when they are doing objectively evil

things in their mind, it's like, well,

this is a means to an end, right?

Like this is going to make the world

a better place in the long run.

And I have to literally kill people to

do it, but you know, that's their logic.

And I think there are a lot of

politicians who want to protect children

and just don't understand that this is not

the best way to do it.

You know,

whether that's technical misunderstanding

or whatever.

And don't get me wrong.

There's definitely a lot of politicians

that are also just like, hey, man,

whatever lines my pocket,

whatever makes me more powerful,

more prestigious, whatever.

I don't want to let those guys off

the hook.

But yeah, I mean,

even the people who are genuinely doing

this because they're like, oh,

this will make me more powerful.

I think in their head, they're like,

this will make me more powerful and I

can make the world a better place by

my definition,

which unfortunately means a lot of other

people tend to suffer along the way.

So, yeah.

Yeah.

One I did see here that I wanted

to kind of touch on a little bit.

I think this was right before the one

you shared.

Computer's going slow here.

Um, this captain haddock said, uh,

surely mass level awareness and

educational privacy is necessary.

Majority public simply don't have the

capacity to understand how privacy works

in a technical sense.

I disagree.

Um, I mean, I don't,

I don't want to get too pedantic here.

I mean, people are smart, right?

Well,

to borrow the line from men in black,

a person is smart.

I will agree with that.

But, um, you know, I don't,

I don't think anybody is incapable of

learning this stuff,

but I do agree that I,

I think most people don't want to learn

this stuff and it's very, um,

Some of this stuff is really hard to

wrap your head around,

even for those of us who are interested

in it and really passionate about it.

So yeah, I mean,

I just wanted to point that out.

I think when we discredit people,

that's not helpful personally.

But yeah, I mean, people can learn.

It's hard stuff to learn.

What else?

We talked about regulation a little bit.

we did talk about the slippery slope i

know there's one user here who mentioned

uh you know i see this as a

stepping stone towards banning and

restricted more of the internet i agree

that kind of goes back to what i

said about some nobody thinks they're the

bad guy but sorry i see you were

trying to pull one up there

I was trying to pull up this question

about VPN bans.

I realized they're probably not asking us,

but other people in the chat,

because that is our own tweet that blew

up about VPN bans.

But yeah,

it is interesting which of our posts

become popular and which ones...

not so much seems kind of random to

me at times unfortunately but you know

that's uh that's the problem with social

media and these algorithms they're

unpredictable and they're not really i

don't think a lot of the times they

get um our message out in front of

people who are interested in reading it

but sometimes it works out so social media

Yeah.

Here's one from culpable six, seven, five,

zero.

And they said,

do you think privacy has been getting

harder and harder to achieve over the past

couple of years,

as well as getting more inconvenient?

For example,

I keep trying to use Movad browser,

but there's no dark mode on most websites

and it hurts my eyes,

which is minor for me,

but it impacts people.

I gotta be honest.

I think it's both.

I think on the one hand we have

a proliferation of

of user-friendly tools like Signal,

like the Brave browser, like ProtonMail.

And I realize that in a lot of

cases,

these tools still have shortcomings.

Like I think...

I'm a Tudor user,

but I will objectively admit that I think

Proton is the better user experience.

I hate saying that.

So where I'm going with that is I

think we can all admit that a lot

of these tools may still leave some things

to be desired.

Oh, right, where I was going with that.

And even Proton is still missing things

compared to Gmail or Google or Apple or

Linux users.

Anyways, but on the other hand, you know,

there's also like you mentioned you want

to use Mulvad browser,

which I think is perfectly legit.

Mulvad browser is great.

I have Mulvad.

Mulvad is fantastic.

And so on the one hand,

it could be like, well, use Brave.

Brave has dark mode,

but maybe Mulvad has things like maybe you

agree with their definition.

Their privacy method of trying to make

everybody look the same like the whole Tor

browser thing does.

Maybe you just don't like Brave as a

company,

which is a totally valid take as well,

in my opinion.

It sucks that we don't have more really

good options.

When you're in mainstream technology,

you have so many options that you can

almost pick any of them in the work.

And it sucks that we don't have that

same freedom of choice with privacy

issues.

um,

that we would as with the mainstream

stuff.

But also the other thing is it's,

I think when we're going up against the

more high level threats,

I definitely worry that our privacy is not

as easily achieved there.

Like,

I think it's really easy to opt out

of the, um, the, uh, targeted advertising,

mass surveillance, automated stuff.

It's when you get up into the more,

you know, like, um,

Oh, what was that company called?

Augury, I think.

This was like five years ago.

There was a company that was basically AI

correlating traffic

Years ago,

this is probably actually why Mulvad

rolled out data,

that was their whole selling point was

they would sell to the DOD and the

military and law enforcement,

like federal law enforcement.

And they're like, yeah,

we can even unmask people that are using

VPNs.

We can correlate the traffic and figure

out where everybody's going.

And pretty much your only defense was like

a multi-hop VPN or Tor.

And I think when you're talking about

data,

That level of cutting edge,

I think it's getting more competitive and

more difficult.

But also, that's probably, to be fair,

just the cat and mouse of it.

They invent that, Mulvan invents data.

And then they invent something else,

and Mulvan invents something else.

So I don't know.

I try to focus on what's within our

ability to control and defend against.

And I try to be grateful that we

do have so many good options,

even if they're not perfect.

Yeah.

Really quick, not a question,

but somebody said ByteDance is still

keeping around twenty percent of the

U.S.-based TikTok, but most of its U.S.

ops are sold.

Yeah.

I don't know.

It's the whole thing is like clearly not

about getting ByteDance out of TikTok

either.

Like it's just a pure political thing

going on.

So I'm pretty sure that is true.

I think I have I have heard that.

And like the fact that it's all working

together and they're maintaining this this

ownership,

but they're also just like

partially being taken over by all these US

companies.

It makes no sense.

And I don't know.

The TikTok thing is crazy because I don't

know how much you got into this in

your interview with Taylor Lorenz,

but I know she's been talking about this

lately.

I know other people have pointed it out

on social media.

The whole TikTok thing was started

and really pushed for by the Democrats

during Biden's administration.

And I think a lot of people like

people in our position at the time were

saying like, oh, if we let this happen,

if we let the Democrats

do this and push this forward this is

going to obviously be misused by some

government in the future and then lo and

behold you know a few years later that

is exactly what is happening right we I

don't know it's that could be a whole

political discussion but yeah it we're

really I think that the American the state

of America right now is just concerning

because um

A lot of people are working towards like

all of the problems that we're seeing now.

It's not just like the current

administration right now decided to do

this, right?

This was a long time in the making.

It was a bipartisan effort to take over

TikTok.

And now we're seeing the results of that.

And I think that that's really

unfortunate.

Exactly like Jordan,

one of our producers just said,

seems like they wanted to control the

algorithm.

Yeah,

that was pretty much the only goal with

all this TikTok stuff, which...

I don't know.

It shouldn't be in control of any of

these governments,

you can definitely argue.

It wasn't great in China's hands either,

but we haven't improved the situation for

sure.

And this is, yeah,

just to agree with you, this is why...

I love the analogy of Kerry Parker from

Firewall's Don't Stop Dragons.

He refers to personal data as like

radioactive waste.

And he's like,

you want as little of it as possible

because you can't handle it safely.

And the stakes are too high if something

goes wrong.

And it drives me insane that America has

such this attitude of like, well,

it's okay if

Facebook collects all this data.

Nevermind that there's literally a

Wikipedia page full of their data breaches

and privacy scandals.

But, you know, it's like, oh,

it's okay when we do it,

but when China does it, it's bad.

And it's like, or...

We could just outlaw this entirely and

it'll stop being a problem.

I know this is really not the best

example,

but just because it's morally not okay.

But I remember after Epstein's death,

somebody did an investigation.

Some reporter pulled all the location

tracking data for all the cell phones that

went in and out of his private island.

And every single one of them that went

back to Europe,

as soon as they hit European airspace,

the tracking data disappeared because of

GDPR.

And it's like, okay, yes,

not a great example because it's not great

that bad people got away with bad things,

but that proves that GDPR works.

And it's like, why can't we do that?

Why can't we just get rid of the

data?

And then China can't use it either.

Nobody can use it because it's not there.

And for the record, yes,

I know there will always be espionage and

people who flout the rules,

but it'll drop so significantly.

And it would be at very least a

huge step towards fixing the problem,

if not a perfect solution.

And it drives me insane.

Absolutely.

I think I don't want to bring up

this whole the Epstein case and the

morality of that situation.

And like, obviously, you know,

could somebody argue that GDPR is not

really helping in that case?

Maybe.

I don't know.

But yeah.

I've talked about this.

I don't remember in a post or another

video a while ago.

Basically, I think in the privacy space,

in the security space,

something we have to keep in mind is

that we see a lot of stories in

the news like that one that you just

talked about, for example,

where we're talking about criminal

activity and how either, you know,

they had an OPSEC failure and they were

caught because they weren't private

enough,

or how privacy laws are protecting

criminals.

You see both sides of this, right?

And that is the most abundant form of

coverage about privacy in general.

I think it's talking about how criminals

are impacted because that's the most

probably newsworthy stuff.

But just like how you're talking about how

it proves that GDPR is effective.

Did GDPR maybe hinder this one specific

case?

Yes.

But all of that data that was being

used,

is very commonly behind the scenes and

perfectly legally being used by all of

these big tech companies and all of these

other organizations to do all sorts of

things that aren't catching criminals,

like sell you ads or try and implement

algorithmic pricing or trying to just

influence your opinions in general,

especially on social media.

And GDPR also helps prevent all of those

things.

But you don't hear about those stories in

the news because it's not newsworthy right

now, unfortunately.

You only hear about these criminal cases.

And so I just want to remind people

I think because there is this association

between privacy rights and

internet freedoms and digital rights and

all this stuff and criminals.

It's like just because you see it in

the context of like all of these things

being proven in court cases or in criminal

trials or in like law enforcement

investigations,

that doesn't mean it's the only place it's

happening.

It just means that's the only place that

the mainstream news media wants to write

about it in.

But you can look at all of these

cases and you can extrapolate

into like regular everyday life,

how people can improve their privacy.

You can learn from the opposite mistakes

of these criminals,

but also how these laws can impact and

protect you in other situations that

aren't

related to crime right gdpr protecting all

of that data certainly hinders all of

these bad things that i just talked about

happening um even if it's not widely

reported on and so i always just want

to make that reminder because when we talk

about criminal activity a lot i think that

always comes up it's like why are you

just defending criminals and that's not

that's not the case but they just have

the best cases to learn from

Yeah, it's like that whole,

like you were saying,

news by definition is out of the ordinary.

Like we don't talk about how, you know,

the ten thousand people today use graphene

and went to work and went home and

were completely normal law abiding

citizens.

It's you know, it's when it's, oh,

this guy was arrested and he was using

this weird phone that erases itself.

And it's like, OK, cool.

Yeah.

Like, obviously, that's interesting,

but that's not reflective of reality.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Let's get to our last few questions here.

Here's one from DQ.

Sorry, I think I clicked on one.

Sorry, you can do yours first then.

That's fine.

Okay, sorry.

Real quick.

Yeah, Dread Pirate Roberts said,

as more and more services block VPNs,

are there any solutions to be able to

have privacy without being blocked?

Again, VPNs aren't everything,

but I think we will see like,

I know Proton and I think Mulvad and

I think a couple others also do.

They have obfuscation to try and make it

so you can use it and it won't

be blocked.

And I know when India started requiring

VPNs to keep logs,

they did some kind of trickery where they

were able to move servers out of the

country,

but somehow address them in a way where

they looked like they were in the country.

So basically Indian users could still use

proton and be in India,

quote unquote in India,

but proton wasn't in India.

So they didn't have to comply with the

laws.

I don't know.

That's way over my head, but yeah,

I think we'll still see, and you know,

we'll still have things like tour now

until they outlaw that too.

I mean, I,

It's a cat and mouse.

I think we'll have options.

But yeah,

it will definitely get harder and be more

difficult.

Just to reply to the residential IP aspect

of this really quick,

I want to say you're correct that the

residential IP and proxy space is very

shady.

I definitely wouldn't support it even if

it does work because a lot of these

residential IP proxy brokers,

they are basically running criminal

organizations and they are

tricking people into installing malware on

their computers or tricking people into

buying like these cheap Amazon or not

Amazon but Android TV boxes on Amazon and

other marketplaces to connect to their

networks and that's how they get all these

residential IPs right and funding those

operations it puts a lot of like regular

people in danger because like law

enforcement goes after those people all

the time because they're hosting like

basically an exit node for a VPN that's

handling all sorts of crazy traffic right

and it's

Not an ideal situation for anyone

involved,

so it's definitely not something that I

would pursue personally if I were you.

I would avoid the whole residential IP

space because it's pretty much all malware

that's driving that,

and that's not something that should be

really supported, I think.

Real quick on a personal note,

Dread Pirates Roberts said there's a

documentary from Vice that shows the

facial recognition capabilities in China

six years ago,

and the people I've shown it to have

been very receptive.

Please send that my way because I want

to watch that.

That sounds cool.

All right, what's the next one?

I think you had a question lined up.

I think this will be our last question

of the show here,

but this is from DQ.

They asked,

have you come across the OPSEC Bible by

Nihilist?

First of all, just stopping there,

have you heard of this?

Because I actually have not,

unfortunately.

I'm not sure if you're familiar.

I don't think so.

I want to say it sounds familiar,

but I could be making that up.

If I've heard of it,

I've definitely never read it.

Okay,

that's definitely something I will have to

look into.

But continuing your message,

I'd love to hear your thoughts on its

extreme all-or-nothing privacy philosophy,

especially since the guide criticizes the

closed-source recommendations that appear

on privacy guides.

It seems to push a very different approach

from the more mainstream privacy advice

you usually promote.

And just based on that...

That is a pretty common thing that we

see with a lot of privacy guides out

there,

especially ones that are published

anonymously or are catered towards a more

hardcore audience.

It's definitely a different audience than

we're going for.

I think that the biggest thing that we

try to do at Privacy Guides is try

to find all of these tools in different

categories that can really

raise the bar for privacy as a whole.

We can't solve every problem at once.

And I think this ties into a lot

of the things that we were talking about

earlier in the show as far as convincing

people to switch from WhatsApp to Signal,

for example.

People are using

things that are crazy for your privacy and

extremely privacy invasive.

People are using Windows, for example,

which I think is not something people

should be doing in twenty twenty six.

Like that's the state that most people who

aren't who haven't heard of any of this

are are at right now.

And so switching I mean,

even switching from Windows to Mac OS is

not

ideal and it's not like you know if

somebody comes up to me it's like what's

the most private operating system mac os

is far behind what the actual like better

ones are by by a wide margin but

compared to what people are coming from

which is Windows in this case,

it's a huge advantage and people are more

apt to switch to it.

And I think that encouraging people

switching to, in some cases,

some proprietary systems over time is

better than the situation that I think

privacy guides like the OPSEC Bible in

this case probably

I personally think the outcome of a guide

like that,

if I put it in the hands of

a normal person,

is that they will not follow any of

the advice.

Because we see this even in our forum,

but definitely less so recently.

And we've made some changes to improve

this.

But it's a very common complaint, I think,

in the privacy community where people feel

burned out because they...

need to switch like all of these things

all at once and they feel the need

to switch like completely cut off less

private alternatives or things that their

friends are using and they feel socially

isolated and that's not really the goal of

being private like privacy i think um

gives like,

it's a right that you should have,

you should be able to exercise this,

but it's not like you need to be

completely private in all aspects of your

life.

Some people still need to,

everyone still needs to have a social life

and interact with other people and that

sort of thing.

And yeah, at the end of the day,

When we recommend something like one

password, for example,

it's because we've looked at that and

we've decided that compared to what other

people are using,

which is either no password manager at all

or something like LastPass,

which has notoriously a ton of data

breaches and security issues,

solid proprietary tools that respect your

privacy relatively well are acceptable to

us.

And we would rather people switch to that

than not follow the advice at all.

And for people who are looking for more

advanced or more customized

recommendations or for any of that,

I think we have the form which is

going to be able to answer those sorts

of questions for people who have moved

beyond the general advice that we have on

our site and who don't need an approach

that we take for the general population

where we try to balance privacy, security,

and user experience.

And you can really hone in on a

good situation for you

through these discussions.

And I think that that's the value of

the privacy guides community form that

none of these guides are going to be

able to provide.

Because at the end of the day,

all of this tailored advice is going to

be better in general than any of these

guides, to be honest.

So that's my thoughts on that.

Yeah, you kind of said what I'm thinking,

so I'll keep this quick.

But I think in addition to – y'all

are going to get tired of hearing me

say the words harm reduction.

In addition to the harm reduction mindset,

which I'm a huge, huge fan of,

I think there's also the idea that two

things can be real.

I really don't like the idea –

or I don't like the narrative that some

people push where it's like,

if you're not doing privacy my way and

you're not going a hundred percent,

then you're wrong.

Because the fact of the matter is they're

wrong too.

Like the only way to really be private

is to just like throw away your computer,

never get on the internet,

go live in a cabin in the woods,

which I would like to reiterate.

That's not foolproof either because they

did find Ted Kaczynski.

So yeah,

I don't know.

I really reject that whole extreme all or

nothing.

This is the only way to do it.

I think it's really arrogant.

I think it's really disrespectful.

Again, I want to reiterate,

I haven't read this Bible,

so I'm not passing judgment on nihilists.

I'm just in general.

I think when people do that,

it's really...

I don't know, like Jonah was saying,

like people have,

I've seen people look at certain guides

and websites and just be like, yeah,

I'm not doing, and straight up say that,

like, I'm not doing that.

And I would rather people make small steps

that do something, even if nothing.

And I think some people,

not all of them,

but I think some people will take those

small steps and go, oh,

that wasn't so bad.

That was actually kind of fun.

What else can I do?

And they'll go above and beyond.

Like, I don't need to be using cubes.

That is not part of my threat model.

I like it.

I think it's fun.

So,

and I think kind of going back to

what I said about like two things can

be real.

I think it's great that there are these

really hardcore guides

For the people who want to be hardcore

or even like when Michael Basil was doing

his podcast, I would listen all the time.

And I still read his books,

his extreme privacy books,

because I like the thought experiment.

That's what I'm looking for.

I like the thought experiment.

I like the like knowing how deep the

rabbit hole goes and just knowing what the

options are.

Even though ninety percent of the time I

walked away going,

I'm not going to do any of that.

But it's really cool to know that that's

a thing, and it's really interesting,

and it's fun to learn about.

And, you know, some people would do it,

and there were some things that I would

listen to and be like, oh,

I think I might want to try that,

actually.

So I don't think it's a bad thing

that this stuff is out there.

I think it's really cool,

as long as they're not adapting that

attitude of like, well,

this person's wrong.

I mean, unless somebody's actually wrong,

then like, hey, please,

if you think we're wrong,

open a thing on the forum.

Like, let us know.

But...

It's, you know,

it's respecting that there's different

priorities,

there's different threat models,

there's different resources.

Like, you know,

somebody posted in the forum recently

talking about they disagree with our

Android recommendations because not

everybody can,

lives in a country where they can get

a pixel or not everybody can afford one.

And, you know,

that's true of these more extreme privacy

things too.

So, yeah.

Yeah.

Again, haven't read it,

but if he's coming at it from the

perspective of like,

this is how I think you can get

the maximum level of privacy, then great.

I think that's really cool that there are

those guides,

but I don't think that invalidates things

like privacy guides where we say,

this is probably good enough for most

people.

And I think both of those things can

exist.

And DQ, thanks for sharing in the chat.

I'll link to this.

I want to reiterate,

nothing that I was saying before is any

judgment of this guide in particular,

because again, I haven't read it.

Neither of us have read it.

I was going to say,

he might have been talking to me.

It certainly could have...

Good advice.

Right.

Uh, and, and I'll definitely check it out.

So thanks again for sharing.

Um, I just want to, that's,

that's just my experience based on other

guides and based on like what you,

how you described it.

Um,

I I've definitely seen guys like that

where yes,

that it's probably not the target audience

that we are trying to go for.

Um,

I kind of have a philosophy that like

being accessible and also

sort of being like a more public face

when it comes to all of this,

like obviously do this under my name,

for example,

and not a pseudonym like this.

I think that that is a difference in

approach and it reaches different people.

And I think that guides like that and

projects like Privacy Guides both serve

their own purpose.

But yeah,

for anything more than like just the basic

stuff that we have on our site,

that is the point of our form.

Because, yeah,

I really don't know if any of these

guides can really be everything for

everyone, right?

But I'm sure for a certain group of

people, that guide could be very good.

And I will definitely take a look at

it because I like to read other guides

out there.

Yeah,

I produced some of the articles on the

website.

I didn't go straight to the Bible.

I went to the Root website.

Some of it is pretty extreme,

like which countries don't have

extradition laws.

Which, no offense to this guy,

but if that's my threat model,

I'm not going to trust a random website

on the internet.

I'm going to talk to an actual lawyer.

But then others were like,

how to get started with ITP,

which I don't really have strong opinions

on ITP, but I don't know.

I'll peruse it.

I'll check it out later this weekend.

Some light reading for the weekend.

Yes.

Yes.

Well, Nate,

I think this probably about wraps things

up here.

As a quick reminder to everyone,

PrivacyGuides is a nonprofit.

We're dedicated to protecting our digital

rights.

If you want to support the show and

our mission,

a donation at privacyguides.org would be

much appreciated.

I want to thank Nate for joining me

this week.

Before we wrap up this broadcast here,

I want to deliver a quick message as

the program director of Privacy Guides

about the current state of the United

States of America.

As a Minnesotan and a resident of the

city of Minneapolis myself,

this is a very important issue to me.

We're only one month into twenty twenty

six right now.

And already this year,

ICE agents of the federal government of

the United States are responsible for the

extrajudicial killings of two American

citizens right here in my city for

exercising their constitutional rights.

This happened as part of a larger ICE

campaign to terrorize my neighbors and

this country,

which is a campaign that I know many

Minnesotans protested in force last week,

and I know many American patriots are

protesting today.

Our mission at Privacy Guides has always

been to support the right of privacy for

all people,

regardless of political views or the

country that people live in.

It's also our mission to speak out against

government overreach,

particularly when it comes to surveillance

and especially when government agencies

are being pitted against the very

taxpayers and citizens that they are meant

to protect and serve.

Here in the United States,

that's meant recently speaking out against

the Democrats who aim to increase

surveillance and censorship through bills

like COSA or the planned repeals of

Section two thirty.

But now against republican certainly in

our government,

who are weaponizing the state surveillance

systems and law enforcement bodies like

ice to target their perceived political

enemies and immigrant members of our

communities,

without respect to their legal residency

status or any due process.

this weaponization of ice by the trump

administration is not happening in a

vacuum it's fueled by the very

surveillance data and the lack of digital

boundaries that we have been fighting

against for years laws which were enacted

within my lifetime like the patriot act

and loopholes like the continued lack of

regulations against commercial data

brokers which allow the government to

bypass the fourth amendment entirely by

purchasing our own GPS and social media

data from tech companies to map out our

neighborhoods for raids.

Minneapolis has also become the testing

ground for invasive and inaccurate facial

recognition apps like Mobile Fortify,

where AI glitches,

just like we talked about in this episode,

can lead to unlawful detentions of

innocent people and the sort of

state-sponsored surveillance that took the

lives of Renee Nicole Goode and Alex

Peretti.

In times of overreach,

our greatest defense is our community and

our refusal to be intimidated into

silence.

And I've seen how powerful that this can

be firsthand.

The reality is that how ICE is operating

within the borders of the US is

unjustifiable.

So we here recognize the significance of

this unprecedented situation,

and we stand alongside everyone who's

protesting in support of the protection of

our neighbors and for American rights,

which is something that I think all

Americans should support.

Thank you all for tuning in.

I hope you all have an excellent weekend.