标签：#privacy

The City Attorney’s Office sent the tech giants cease-and-desist letters this week telling them to stop profiting from 13 “face-swap” apps that are overwhelmingly used to target women and girls.

Ask any engineering manager whether their team pastes code into ChatGPT and you'll get a nervous laugh. The honest answer is constantly — a stack trace here, a config file there, "just cleaning up this SQL." Most of it is harmless. Some of it carries an AWS key, a database password, or a customer's PII straight to a third-party model. I've spent the last while looking at how teams try to control this, and most of the common approaches quietly fail. Here's what doesn't work, what does, and why. Why this isn't a normal DLP problem Traditional DLP watches email, file shares, and cloud storage. An AI prompt leak skips all of them: the data goes from a browser tab to an AI provider's API over HTTPS and never touches the channels legacy DLP inspects. It's also invisible after the fact. Once a prompt is sent there's no sent-mail copy, no uploaded-file record. If you didn't catch it at the moment of submission, you have no idea it happened. Prevention has to live in the browser , or it doesn't happen at all. The approaches that don't hold up Blocking AI tools outright. Employees just switch to their phone or a personal laptop. You lose the productivity and keep the risk. Network proxies / CASBs. They can see the domain but struggle to inspect encrypted prompt content without heavy MITM infrastructure — and they don't understand a DOCX dropped into a chat window. Policy + training. Sets expectations, stops nothing in the moment. Post-hoc SaaS scanners. Find the exposure after the data already left. Good for audit, useless for prevention. What actually works: intercept in the browser The only place you can reliably read a prompt is where it's typed. A managed browser extension can patch the page's network calls, read the prompt (and any attached files) before they send, scan against your DLP rules, and block anything that matches — all client-side, in well under a second, with no proxy and no rerouted traffic. That's the model I've become convinced is right, and it's the appr

One period tracker app tested by Mozilla was 'squeaky clean,' while another app was seen sharing users' health data with an analytics company, underscoring vast differences in user privacy among these apps.

Your Test Data May Be More Dangerous Than Your Production Database Most organizations protect production databases carefully. Access is restricted, activity is logged, and security teams monitor unusual behavior. Then a copy of the same data is exported into a test environment, sent to an analytics team, or shared with an outside service provider. At that moment, the protection model often becomes much weaker. The copied database may contain customer names, phone numbers, account details, identification numbers, medical information, transaction histories, or internal employee records. Developers may need realistic data structures, but they rarely need to see the real identities behind them. Operations teams may need to investigate a production issue, but they do not always require full access to sensitive fields. This is where data masking becomes a practical security control. It allows useful data to remain available while reducing the exposure of the people and organizations represented inside it. The Real Risk Begins When Data Starts Moving Sensitive data rarely stays in one place. It flows from production into testing, development, quality assurance, reporting, analytics, migration projects, outsourced support, and third party platforms. Every new copy expands the attack surface. A production database may have strong access controls, but a test database may be managed by a broader team. A temporary migration environment may remain online longer than planned. A dataset shared for analytics may contain fields that were not necessary for the project. The security problem is therefore larger than database access. It is about controlling what information remains visible as data moves through the organization. Data masking changes sensitive values while preserving their structure and usefulness. A masked phone number can still look like a phone number. A substituted customer name can still support application testing. A shuffled account value can preserve distribution

GDPR Compliance Fails When It Exists Only in Policy Documents Many organizations can produce a privacy policy, a data processing register, and a set of security procedures. The harder question is whether their infrastructure can actually protect, recover, trace, and report personal data when something goes wrong. GDPR compliance is often discussed as a legal project. In practice, many of its most difficult requirements depend on everyday IT operations. Can the organization recover personal data after a destructive incident? Can it identify who restored, copied, accessed, or deleted a backup? Can it detect suspicious activity quickly enough to support an investigation? Can it demonstrate that protection controls are applied across on premises, cloud, and hybrid environments? Policies explain intent. Operational controls provide evidence. Availability Is a Privacy Requirement Too Privacy discussions often focus on unauthorized access and disclosure. Data loss and prolonged unavailability matter as well. Personal data may become unavailable because of ransomware, storage failure, accidental deletion, database corruption, software defects, or a regional outage. If the organization cannot restore that data, it may be unable to serve customers, respond to data subject requests, or maintain essential business processes. A GDPR aligned protection strategy should therefore include reliable backup, offsite copies, tested recovery, and resilience across multiple failure scenarios. The backup architecture should support the systems that actually contain personal data, including databases, virtual machines, file servers, object storage, cloud workloads, and large data platforms. Protecting only the most visible applications leaves hidden gaps. Encryption Is Necessary, but It Is Not the Whole Answer Encryption protects data during transmission and storage, especially when backup copies move across networks or are stored outside the production environment. However, encrypted data

Daniel Solove argues in the Wall Street Journal (alternate link ) that giving people control of their personal data is not an effective way to regulate privacy in this era. Instead, we need to hold companies accountable for their actions, similar to what we do with food and drug companies. Measures such as rigorous data minimization, fiduciary duties, liability for negligent or reckless technological design, liability for algorithms that cause harm, and multi-stakeholder review of technologies will be far more effective. Paper .

Today on Decoder, we’ve got the first of a two-part series on the systems that run the world: I’m talking with Bart Butler, the CTO of Proton, the company that makes private and secure productivity software. You probably know it best for Proton Mail, which is encrypted by default, but the company also has docs, […]

Hi DEV community! 👋 I'm Widodo, an independent web and mobile app developer. In my day-to-day workflow—whether I am developing mobile apps, structuring databases, or setting up serverless continuous integration pipelines—I constantly rely on quick online utilities. Things like formatting code, generating QR codes, or stripping metadata from images. But I realized a massive flaw in the current ecosystem of free online tools: Privacy and Performance. If you search for a "Free EXIF Data Remover" or "JSON Formatter," 90% of the top results force you to upload your sensitive files to their remote servers just to perform a basic operation. Not only is this a massive privacy risk, but it also introduces unnecessary latency. Since my core development philosophy has always leaned towards offline-first architectures and minimal server dependencies, I decided to build my own solution. Enter Ic2Share.com . It is a growing directory of web utilities built on a strict zero-server-upload architecture. Everything executes instantly within the user's browser. Here is a breakdown of how I built some of the tools and the client-side APIs powering them. Secure EXIF & Metadata Stripper (Canvas API) Most EXIF strippers use backend libraries (like PHP's exif_read_data or Python's Pillow). I wanted this to happen entirely offline so users wouldn't have to upload their personal photos. The solution? HTML5 Canvas Re-rendering. When a user drops an image, the browser reads it via the FileReader API. I then draw that image onto a hidden element. When you export the canvas back to a Blob using canvas.toBlob(), the browser automatically discards all original EXIF headers (including the exact GPS coordinates and camera models). It is fast, secure, and costs $0 in server compute. The Online Teleprompter (requestAnimationFrame) I built an auto-scrolling teleprompter for video creators. Initially, I thought about using CSS transitions or setInterval for the scrolling text. However, CSS can cause jit

Since WIRED reported on Meta’s NameTag face recognition system, company executives have made confusing and conflicting remarks about its very existence.

When a form asks for an image under 100KB, the obvious reaction is to search for an online compressor and upload the file. That works, but it also adds an unnecessary privacy decision: does this image need to leave the device at all? A simpler workflow For ID photos, screenshots, receipts, and other personal images, I prefer tools that do the work locally in the browser. The browser reads the file, resizes or recompresses it, and gives the result back without sending the original to a remote server. My practical process is: Start with the original JPG, PNG, or WebP. Set the required maximum size rather than guessing a quality percentage. Keep the aspect ratio unless the destination specifies exact dimensions. Preview the result at normal size, especially around text and faces. Save the new file under a different name so the original remains untouched. Why target size matters A generic “compress” button may produce a smaller file, but not necessarily one that meets a strict upload limit. A target-size workflow is more useful because it can adjust dimensions and quality together. For many document portals, a visually clean 80–95KB result is safer than a 99.9KB result that may fail after metadata is added. PNG is excellent for flat graphics and screenshots, while JPG is often better for photos. WebP can be efficient, but some older upload forms still accept only JPG or PNG. The destination's rules should decide the output format. The tool I use I built Resize Image around this browser-local approach. It is useful when I need a quick image under a specific size and do not want the original uploaded as part of the resizing process. The link is included for context and disclosure: I am the maker. Local processing does not remove every privacy concern—you should still review the downloaded result and the site where you eventually upload it—but it reduces one unnecessary transfer. The larger lesson is simple: for lightweight image work, the browser is already capable enough

An increasing number of people seem to agree the internet is terrible for children - allegedly addictive, destructive to self-esteem, possibly a portal to predators. Over the past year, several countries have started requiring stringent age verification or outright bans for minors. At the end of June in the US, the House of Representatives passed […]

For the last few months, I’ve been obsessed with a specific problem: the friction between privacy and utility in modern AI tools. Most "private" AI solutions still rely on a local LLM running on your CPU or GPU via a heavy desktop application. They require installation, constant background processes, and often struggle with performance on older hardware. I wanted to see if we could do better. I wanted to see if we could run a capable language model entirely within the browser, using only the device’s hardware acceleration, with zero data leaving the machine. The result is PrivateScribe, a tool I built to handle note summarization, email drafting, and rewriting. But more importantly, it’s an experiment in what’s possible when you treat the browser not just as a display layer, but as a compute engine. The Wedge: WebGPU and True Offline The core constraint that drove this project was simple: nothing leaves the device. In the current landscape, "on-device AI" often means "installed on your device." This is fine for desktop apps, but it creates silos. You can’t easily share a workflow across a Chromebook, a Windows machine, and an iPad without installing three different native applications. By leveraging WebGPU, PrivateScribe runs entirely in the browser. This unlocks a few critical advantages: Zero Installation: Users open a URL and start working. No downloads, no permission dialogs for file system access beyond what’s needed for the session. Hardware Acceleration: WebGPU allows the browser to tap directly into the GPU. This is crucial for inference speed. A small model that runs in your browser can process text significantly faster than a CPU-bound implementation, especially on modern laptops with integrated graphics. True Offline Capability: Because the model weights are loaded locally via WebAssembly and the inference happens on-device, the app works completely offline. If you lose your internet connection in the middle of drafting an email, the AI doesn’t stop. It c

Plus: The Pentagon is training amateurs to become part of its hacker army, a Flock license plate reader error led to cops surrounding a car reviewer, and more.

On July 9, 2026, the European Parliament reauthorized a law that lets tech companies scan your private messages without a warrant. Here is the part that should worry you: a majority of lawmakers voted against it. 314 MEPs voted to kill the law. 276 voted to keep it. The law passed anyway. How? The rejection required an "absolute majority" of 361 votes out of 720 MEPs. Every absent MEP effectively counted as a yes. The vote was scheduled for the last day before summer recess, when many MEPs had already left Strasbourg. The European People's Party, Parliament's largest group, used a rarely invoked urgency procedure (Rule 170) to force the vote onto the floor on July 7. Two days later, the deed was done. What Chat Control 1.0 Actually Does The law is technically called the ePrivacy derogation. It allows tech companies to voluntarily scan private, unencrypted messages and emails for known child sexual abuse material (CSAM), without a warrant or prior suspicion. Platforms affected: Instagram DMs, Discord, Snapchat, Skype, Xbox messages, Gmail, and iCloud. Platforms not affected: WhatsApp and Signal, because they use end-to-end encryption. Parliament did adopt an E2EE exemption amendment with 369 votes, excluding "communications to which end-to-end encryption is, has been or will be applied" from the scanning scope. But here is the catch. Providers of E2EE services were not scanning messages anyway. The exemption preserves the status quo. It does not create new protections. The scanning is limited to "known" CSAM material, meaning previously identified photos and videos. It does not detect new or unknown material. And it remains in effect until 2028, or until a permanent regulation is agreed. The Numbers That Should Make You Doubt This Law The EU Commission's own evaluation report gives Chat Control a very poor assessment: Only 0.00000077% of messages scanned in the EU actually contained illegal material ( heise online ) False positive rates of filter technologies reach u

In the near future, AI -powered surveillance systems will be able to track everything we do in public, and much of what we do in private. And if we do something wrong—shoplift, litter, jaywalk, you name it—the system will notice, retain it, tie it to your official government record, communicate that fact to you, and provide real-time alerts to any relevant authorities… and maybe also to the general public. Think of these systems as automated speed cameras, but on steroids. Only they’ll enforce not just speed limits, but any other rule you can imagine. And you won’t receive a ticket weeks later by mail; you’ll be informed about and fined for your violation immediately...

The dirty secret of online dev tools Every dev tool lives on a different website. jwt.io for JWT decoding. regex101 for regex testing. Some random site for JSON formatting. Another for diff checking. Another for curl → code. Another for SQL formatting. You end up with 10 bookmarks, 10 different UIs, and 10 different servers that just received your most sensitive data — and you never think twice about it. I didn't either. Until I did. What actually happens when you use these tools Let's take jwt.io as an example. Your JWT contains: Your auth algorithm Your user ID Your roles and permissions Your token expiry Sometimes your email, name, org ID When you paste it into jwt.io — it hits their server. It's in their request logs. Maybe forever. The same goes for regex101. Your regex patterns often encode business logic — validation rules, data formats, internal naming conventions. That goes to their database. And every online JSON formatter, diff checker, SQL tool, .env checker you've ever used? Same story. You're not just sharing data. You're sharing the shape of your system. Most of the time nothing bad happens. But "most of the time" is a terrible security posture for a developer who knows better. I got tired of it The more I thought about it, the more it bothered me. I was pasting production JWTs. Real API keys. Actual .env files with database URLs. Into random websites I knew nothing about. So I built DevTab - devtab.in One tab. 110+ dev tools. Zero server calls. Everything runs 100% in your browser via client-side JavaScript and WebAssembly. Open DevTools → Network while using it. Nothing fires. That's not a marketing claim. It's verifiable in 10 seconds. What's inside JSON tools JSON formatter & validator — real-time, error highlighting with line numbers JSON minifier JSON stringify & parse JSON → TypeScript / Pydantic / Go / Zod types Auth & security JWT decoder — header, payload, expiry countdown, issued-at in human time. Zero network requests. .env diff checker —

What Is Data Masking? Data masking is a technique that replaces sensitive information with realistic but fictitious data, preserving the format and structure of the original while removing its identifiable meaning. The goal is to keep data usable for development, testing, analytics, or sharing — without exposing real personally identifiable information (PII). Common masking techniques include: Substitution — Replace a real value with a plausible fake (e.g., Alice Smith → Jane Doe ). Masking (partial obscuring) — Show only a portion of the value (e.g., 4111-1111-1111-1234 → ****-****-****-1234 ). Redaction — Remove the value entirely. Hashing — Replace with a cryptographic hash. Irreversible, but deterministic when salted. Data masking is widely used in non-production environments, analytics pipelines, data marketplaces, and any scenario where real PII is not needed but structural fidelity is. What Is Dynamic Data Masking? Static data masking (SDM) applies transformations to data at rest — you clone a production database, mask it, and ship the masked copy to a lower environment. The masking happens once, and the result is a permanent dataset. Dynamic data masking (DDM) applies transformations on the fly , at query or API time, based on who is asking. The original data stays untouched; the masking rules are applied in the response layer. This means: Different roles see different levels of detail (e.g., support agents see the last 4 digits of a credit card; auditors see the full number). No masked copies to maintain — one source of truth, many views. Masking policies are centralized and enforceable without application changes. Veramask implements a DDM-style model over an API: you send a request with payload and settings, and receive back the transformed result in real time. No data is persisted on the server — each call is independent and stateless. Anonymizing PII with the Veramask API Veramask exposes two endpoints for dynamic PII masking: Endpoint Input Use Case PO

Companies will once again be allowed to scan citizens’ personal texts, emails, and social media messages via the “Chat Control” bill to find child abuse material online.

A few hours after checking into a hotel in New York City, David Streever woke up to a call from the front desk saying someone was looking for him. Streever had just landed on a return trip from Finland, where he'd vacationed with his daughter. Though Streever didn't know it yet, while he'd been away, […]

A government report claims DOGE didn’t access sensitive systems. It also says the agency deleted records that would show if they had.