Secure your MCP metadata streams with post-quantum encryption and AI-driven anomaly detection. Learn to stop puppet attacks and tool poisoning in AI infrastructure.
The post Anomaly Detection in Post-Quantum Encrypted MCP Metadata Streams appeared first on Security Boulevard.
SSL certificates are now expiring faster than avocados. Yes… avocados. You buy them green, blink twice, and suddenly they’re brown and useless. That’s exactly what’s happening to SSL/TLS certificates. Not long ago, certificates lasted years. Then the rules changed, and we got 13-month validity. And now? We’re heading into a world where certificates will liveRead More
The post 47‑Day SSL/TLS Mandates: A Step Towards Transitioning to Automation appeared first on EncryptedFence by Certera - Web & Cyber Security Blog.
The post 47‑Day SSL/TLS Mandates: A Step Towards Transitioning to Automation appeared first on Security Boulevard.
Learn how to secure Model Context Protocol (MCP) deployments with post-quantum cryptography and agile policy enforcement for LLM tools.
The post Cryptographically Agile Policy Enforcement for LLM Tool Integration appeared first on Security Boulevard.
A global survey of 4,149 IT and security practitioners finds that while three-quarters (75%) expect a quantum computer will be capable of breaking traditional public key encryption within five years, only 38% at this point in time are preparing to adopt post-quantum cryptography. Conducted by the Ponemon Institute on behalf of Entrust, a provider of..
The post Survey Sees Little Post-Quantum Computing Encryption Progress appeared first on Security Boulevard.
Microsoft gives the FBI the ability to decrypt BitLocker in response to court orders: about twenty times per year.
It’s possible for users to store those keys on a device they own, but Microsoft also recommends BitLocker users store their keys on its servers for convenience. While that means someone can access their data if they forget their password, or if repeated failed attempts to login lock the device, it also makes them vulnerable to law enforcement subpoenas and warrants.
Learn how to secure Model Context Protocol (MCP) deployments using Kyber-encapsulated context windows and zero-trust policy enforcement for post-quantum security.
The post Zero-Trust Policy Enforcement via Kyber-Encapsulated Context Windows appeared first on Security Boulevard.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Today, we’re launching Encrypt It Already, our push to get companies to offer stronger privacy protections to our data and communications by implementing end-to-end encryption. If that name sounds a little familiar, it’s because this is a spiritual successor to our 2019 campaign, Fix It Already, a campaign where we pushed companies to fix longstanding issues.
End-to-end encryption is the best way we have to protect our conversations and data. It ensures the company that provides a service cannot access the data or messages you store on it. So, for secure chat apps like WhatsApp and Signal, that means the company that makes those apps cannot see the contents of your messages, and they’re only accessible on your and your recipients. When it comes to data, like what’s stored using Apple’s Advanced Data Protection, it means you control the encryption keys and the service provider will not be able to access the data.
We’ve divided this up into three categories, each with three different demands:
What is only half the problem. How is just as important.
There’s no one-size fits all way to implement end-to-end encryption in products and services, but best practices can support the security of the platform with the transparency that makes it possible for its users to trust it protects data like the company claims it does. When these encryption features launch, companies should consider doing so with:
Technical documentation is important for end-to-encryption features, but so is clear documentation that makes it easy for users to understand what is and isn’t protected, what features may change, and what steps they need to take to set it up so they’re comfortable with how data is protected.
When it’s an option, enable any end-to-end encryption features you can, like on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Ring.
For everything else, let companies know that these are features you want! You can find messages to share on social media on the Encrypt It Already website, and take the time to customize those however you’d like.
In some cases, you can also reach out to a company directly with feature requests, which all the above companies, except for Google and WhatsApp, offer in some form. We recommend filing these through any service you use for any of the above features you’d like to see:
As for Ring and Telegram, we’ve already made the asks and just need your help to boost them. Head over to the Telegram bug and suggestions and upvote this post, and Ring’s feature request board and boost this post.
End-to-end encryption protects what we say and what we store in a way that gives users—not companies or governments—control over data. These sorts of privacy-protective features should be the status quo across a range of products, from fitness wearables to notes apps, but instead it’s a rare feature limited to a small set of services, like messaging and (occasionally) file storage. These demands are just the start. We deserve this sort of protection for a far wider array of products and services. It’s time to encrypt it already!
Help protect digital privacy & free speech for everyone
Learn how to secure Model Context Protocol (MCP) transport layers using post-quantum cryptography (PQC) to defend against future quantum computing threats.
The post PQC-Hardened Model Context Protocol Transport Layers appeared first on Security Boulevard.
Master cryptographic agility for AI resource governance. Learn how to secure Model Context Protocol (MCP) with post-quantum security and granular policy control.
The post Cryptographic Agility for Contextual AI Resource Governance appeared first on Security Boulevard.
Keyfactor has partnered with IBM Consulting to enable organizations to accelerate adoption of post-quantum cryptography (PQC) before existing legacy encryption schemes might be cracked later this decade. Under the terms of the non-exclusive alliance, the cryptographic discovery, public key infrastructure (PKI), digital signage and certificate lifecycle automation tools and platforms provided by Keyfactor will be..
The post Keyfactor Allies with IBM Consulting to Spur PQC Adoption appeared first on Security Boulevard.
Encryption doesn’t guarantee privacy—key ownership does. This article explains how cloud-stored encryption keys let third parties unlock your data, exposing the hidden risks behind “secure” services like BitLocker and Gmail.
The post He Who Controls the Key Controls the World – Microsoft “Often” Provides BitLocker Keys to Law Enforcement appeared first on Security Boulevard.
Discover how to secure AI infrastructure with post-quantum cryptography and agile transport security for Model Context Protocol (MCP) deployments.
The post Cryptographically Agile Transport Security for AI Infrastructure appeared first on Security Boulevard.
Defending encryption has long been a bedrock of our work. Without encryption, it's impossible to have private conversations or private data storage. This year, we’ve seen attacks on these rights from all around the world.
The European Union Council has repeatedly tried to pass a controversial message scanning proposal, known as “Chat Control,” that would require secure messaging providers to scan the contents of messages. Every time this has come up since it was first introduced in 2022, it got batted down—because no matter how you slice it, client-side scanning breaks end-to-end encryption. The Danish presidency seemed poised to succeed in passing Chat Control this year, but strong pushback from across the EU caused them to reconsider and rework their stance. In its current state, Chat Control isn’t perfect, but it at least includes strong language to protect encryption, which is good news for users.
Meanwhile, France tried to pass its own encryption-breaking legislation. Unlike Chat Control, which pushed for client-side scanning, France took a different approach: allowing so-called “ghost participants,” where law enforcement could silently join encrypted chats. Thankfully, the French National Assembly did the right thing and rejected this dangerous proposal.
It wasn’t all wins, though.
Perhaps the most concerning encryption issue is still ongoing in the United Kingdom, where the British government reportedly ordered Apple to backdoor its optional end-to-end encryption in iCloud. In response, Apple disabled one of its strongest security features, Advanced Data Protection, for U.K. users. After some back and forth with the U.S., the U.K. allegedly rewrote the demand, to clarify it was limited to only apply to British users. That doesn’t make it any better. Tribunal hearings are planned for 2026, and we’ll continue to monitor developments.
Speaking of developments to keep an eye on, the European Commission released its “Technology Roadmap on Encryption” which discusses new ways for law enforcement to access encrypted data. There’s a lot that could happen with this roadmap, but let’s be clear, here: EU officials should scrap any roadmap focused on encryption circumvention and instead invest in stronger, more widespread use of end-to-end encryption.
The U.S. had its share of battles, too. The Senate re-introduced the STOP CSAM Act, which threatened to compromise encryption by requiring encrypted communication providers to have knowledge about what sorts of content their services are being used to send. The bill allows encrypted services to raise a legal defense—but only after they’ve been sued. That's not good enough. STOP CSAM would force encryption providers to defend against costly lawsuits over content they can't see or control. And a jury could still consider the use of encryption to be evidence of wrongdoing.
In Florida, a bill ostensibly about minors' social media use also just so happened to demand a backdoor into encryption services—already an incredible overreach. It went further, attempting to ban disappearing messages and grant parents unrestricted access to their kids’ messages as well. Thankfully, the Florida Legislature ended without passing it.
It is unlikely these sorts of attempts to undermine encryption will suddenly stop. But whatever comes next, EFF will continue to stand up for everyone's right to use encryption to have secure and private online communications.
This article is part of our Year in Review series. Read other articles about the fight for digital rights in 2025.
After twenty-six years, Microsoft is finally upgrading the last remaining instance of the encryption algorithm RC4 in Windows.
of the most visible holdouts in supporting RC4 has been Microsoft. Eventually, Microsoft upgraded Active Directory to support the much more secure AES encryption standard. But by default, Windows servers have continued to respond to RC4-based authentication requests and return an RC4-based response. The RC4 fallback has been a favorite weakness hackers have exploited to compromise enterprise networks. Use of RC4 played a key role in last year’s breach of health giant Ascension. The breach caused life-threatening disruptions at 140 hospitals and put the medical records of 5.6 million patients into the hands of the attackers. US Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in September called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Microsoft for “gross cybersecurity negligence,” citing the continued default support for RC4.
Last week, Microsoft said it was finally deprecating RC4 and cited its susceptibility to Kerberoasting, the form of attack, known since 2014, that was the root cause of the initial intrusion into Ascension’s network.
Fun fact: RC4 was a trade secret until I published the algorithm in the second edition of Applied Cryptography in 1995.
Here’s a fun paper: “The Naibbe cipher: a substitution cipher that encrypts Latin and Italian as Voynich Manuscript-like ciphertext“:
Abstract: In this article, I investigate the hypothesis that the Voynich Manuscript (MS 408, Yale University Beinecke Library) is compatible with being a ciphertext by attempting to develop a historically plausible cipher that can replicate the manuscript’s unusual properties. The resulting ciphera verbose homophonic substitution cipher I call the Naibbe ciphercan be done entirely by hand with 15th-century materials, and when it encrypts a wide range of Latin and Italian plaintexts, the resulting ciphertexts remain fully decipherable and also reliably reproduce many key statistical properties of the Voynich Manuscript at once. My results suggest that the so-called “ciphertext hypothesis” for the Voynich Manuscript remains viable, while also placing constraints on plausible substitution cipher structures.
A new anonymous phone service allows you to sign up with just a zip code.
After a years-long battle, the European Commission’s “Chat Control” plan, which would mandate mass scanning and other encryption-breaking measures, at last codifies agreement on a position within the Council of the EU, representing EU States. The good news is that the most controversial part, the forced requirement to scan encrypted messages, is out. The bad news is there’s more to it than that.
Chat Control has gone through several iterations since it was first introduced, with the EU Parliament backing a position that protects fundamental rights, while the Council of the EU spent many months pursuing an intrusive law-enforcement-focused approach. Many proposals earlier this year required the scanning and detection of illicit content on all services, including private messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Signal. This requirement would fundamentally break end-to-end encryption.
Thanks to the tireless efforts of digital rights groups, including European Digital Rights (EDRi), we won a significant improvement: the Council agreed on its position, which removed the requirement that forces providers to scan messages on their services. It also comes with strong language to protect encryption, which is good news for users.
But here comes the rub: first, the Council’s position allows for “voluntary” detection, where tech platforms can scan personal messages that aren’t end-to-end encrypted. Unlike in the U.S., where there is no comprehensive federal privacy law, voluntary scanning is not technically legal in the EU, though it’s been possible through a derogation set to expire in 2026. It is unclear how this will play out over time, though we are concerned that this approach to voluntary scanning will lead to private mass-scanning of non-encrypted services and might limit the sorts of secure communication and storage services big providers offer. With limited transparency and oversight, it will be difficult to know how services approach this sort of detection.
With mandatory detection orders being off the table, the Council has embraced another worrying system to protect children online: risk mitigation. Providers will have to take “all reasonable mitigation measures” to reduce risks on their services. This includes age verification and age assessment measures. We have written about the perils of age verification schemes and recent developments in the EU, where regulators are increasingly focusing on AV to reduce online harms.
If secure messaging platforms like Signal or WhatsApp are required to implement age verification methods, it would fundamentally reshape what it means to use these services privately. Encrypted communication tools should be available to everyone, everywhere, of all ages, freely and without the requirement to prove their identity. As age verification has started to creep in as a mandatory risk mitigation measure under the EU’s Digital Services Act in certain situations, it could become a de facto requirement under the Chat Control proposal if the wording is left broad enough for regulators to treat it as a baseline.
Likewise, the Council’s position lists “voluntary activities” as a potential risk mitigation measure. Pull the thread on this and you’re left with a contradictory stance, because an activity is no longer voluntary if it forms part of a formal risk management obligation. While courts might interpret its mention in a risk assessment as an optional measure available to providers that do not use encrypted communication channels, this reading is far from certain, and the current language will, at a minimum, nudge non-encrypted services to perform voluntary scanning if they don’t want to invest in alternative risk mitigation options. It’s largely up to the provider to choose how to mitigate risks, but it’s up to enforcers to decide what is effective. Again, we're concerned about how this will play out in practice.
For the same reason, clear and unambiguous language is needed to prevent authorities from taking a hostile view of what is meant by “allowing encryption” if that means then expecting service providers to implement client-side scanning. We welcome the clear assurance in the text that encryption cannot be weakened or bypassed, including through any requirement to grant access to protected data, but even greater clarity would come from an explicit statement that client-side scanning cannot coexist with encryption.
As we approach the final “trilogue” negotiations of this regulation, we urge EU lawmakers to work on a final text that fully protects users’ right to private communication and avoids intrusive age-verification mandates and risk benchmark systems that lead to surveillance in practice.
The International Association of Cryptologic Research—the academic cryptography association that’s been putting conferences like Crypto (back when “crypto” meant “cryptography”) and Eurocrypt since the 1980s—had to nullify an online election when trustee Moti Yung lost his decryption key.
For this election and in accordance with the bylaws of the IACR, the three members of the IACR 2025 Election Committee acted as independent trustees, each holding a portion of the cryptographic key material required to jointly decrypt the results. This aspect of Helios’ design ensures that no two trustees could collude to determine the outcome of an election or the contents of individual votes on their own: all trustees must provide their decryption shares.
Unfortunately, one of the three trustees has irretrievably lost their private key, an honest but unfortunate human mistake, and therefore cannot compute their decryption share. As a result, Helios is unable to complete the decryption process, and it is technically impossible for us to obtain or verify the final outcome of this election.
The group will redo the election, but this time setting a 2-of-3 threshold scheme for decrypting the results, instead of requiring all three
The Business of Secrets: Adventures in Selling Encryption Around the World by Fred Kinch (May 24, 2024)
From the vantage point of today, it’s surreal reading about the commercial cryptography business in the 1970s. Nobody knew anything. The manufacturers didn’t know whether the cryptography they sold was any good. The customers didn’t know whether the crypto they bought was any good. Everyone pretended to know, thought they knew, or knew better than to even try to know.
The Business of Secrets is the self-published memoirs of Fred Kinch. He was founder and vice president of—mostly sales—at a US cryptographic hardware company called Datotek, from company’s founding in 1969 until 1982. It’s mostly a disjointed collection of stories about the difficulties of selling to governments worldwide, along with descriptions of the highs and (mostly) lows of foreign airlines, foreign hotels, and foreign travel in general. But it’s also about encryption.
Datotek sold cryptographic equipment in the era after rotor machines and before modern academic cryptography. The company initially marketed computer-file encryption, but pivoted to link encryption—low-speed data, voice, fax—because that’s what the market wanted.
These were the years where the NSA hired anyone promising in the field, and routinely classified—and thereby blocked—publication of academic mathematics papers of those they didn’t hire. They controlled the fielding of strong cryptography by aggressively using the International Traffic in Arms regulation. Kinch talks about the difficulties in getting an expert license for Datotek’s products; he didn’t know that the only reason he ever got that license was because the NSA was able to break his company’s stuff. He had no idea that his largest competitor, the Swiss company Crypto AG, was owned and controlled by the CIA and its West German equivalent. “Wouldn’t that have made our life easier if we had known that back in the 1970s?” Yes, it would. But no one knew.
Glimmers of the clandestine world peek out of the book. Countries like France ask detailed tech questions, borrow or buy a couple of units for “evaluation,” and then disappear again. Did they break the encryption? Did they just want to see what their adversaries were using? No one at Datotek knew.
Kinch “carried the key generator logic diagrams and schematics” with him—even today, it’s good practice not to rely on their secrecy for security—but the details seem laughably insecure: four linear shift registers of 29, 23, 13, and 7 bits, variable stepping, and a small nonlinear final transformation. The NSA probably used this as a challenge to its new hires. But Datotek didn’t know that, at the time.
Kinch writes: “The strength of the cryptography had to be accepted on trust and only on trust.” Yes, but it’s so, so weird to read about it in practice. Kinch demonstrated the security of his telephone encryptors by hooking a pair of them up and having people listen to the encrypted voice. It’s rather like demonstrating the safety of a food additive by showing that someone doesn’t immediately fall over dead after eating it. (In one absolutely bizarre anecdote, an Argentine sergeant with a “hearing defect” could understand the scrambled analog voice. Datotek fixed its security, but only offered the upgrade to the Argentines, because no one else complained. As I said, no one knew anything.)
In his postscript, he writes that even if the NSA could break Datotek’s products, they were “vastly superior to what [his customers] had used previously.” Given that the previous devices were electromechanical rotor machines, and that his primary competition was a CIA-run operation, he’s probably right. But even today, we know nothing about any other country’s cryptanalytic capabilities during those decades.
A lot of this book has a “you had to be there” vibe. And it’s mostly tone-deaf. There is no real acknowledgment of the human-rights-abusing countries on Datotek’s customer list, and how their products might have assisted those governments. But it’s a fascinating artifact of an era before commercial cryptography went mainstream, before academic cryptography became approved for US classified data, before those of us outside the triple fences of the NSA understood the mathematics of cryptography.
This book review originally appeared in AFIO.
The European Union Council pushed for a dangerous plan to scan encrypted messages, and once again, people around the world loudly called out the risks, leading to the current Danish presidency to withdraw the plan.
EFF has strongly opposed Chat Control since it was first introduced in 2022. The zombie proposal comes back time and time again, and time and time again, it’s been shot down because there’s no public support. The fight is delayed, but not over.
It’s time for lawmakers to stop attempting to compromise encryption under the guise of public safety. Instead of making minor tweaks and resubmitting this proposal over and over, the EU Council should accept that any sort of client-side scanning of devices undermines encryption, and move on to developing real solutions that don’t violate the human rights of people around the world.
As long as lawmakers continue to misunderstand the way encryption technology works, there is no way forward with message-scanning proposals, not in the EU or anywhere else. This sort of surveillance is not just an overreach; it’s an attack on fundamental human rights.
The coming EU presidencies should abandon these attempts and work on finding a solution that protects people’s privacy and security.
Both Google and Apple are cramming new AI features into their phones and other devices, and neither company has offered clear ways to control which apps those AI systems can access. Recent issues around WhatsApp on both Android and iPhone demonstrate how these interactions can go sideways, risking revealing chat conversations beyond what you intend. Users deserve better controls and clearer documentation around what these AI features can access.
After diving into how Google Gemini and Apple Intelligence (and in some cases Siri) currently work, we didn’t always find clear answers to questions about how data is stored, who has access, and what it can be used for.
At a high level, when you compose a message with these tools, the companies can usually see the contents of those messages and receive at least a temporary copy of the text on their servers.
When receiving messages, things get trickier. When you use an AI like Gemini or a feature like Apple Intelligence to summarize or read notifications, we believe companies should be doing that content processing on-device. But poor documentation and weak guardrails create issues that have lead us deep into documentation rabbit holes and still fail to clarify the privacy practices as clearly as we’d like.
We’ll dig into the specifics below as well as potential solutions we’d like to see Apple, Google, and other device-makers implement, but first things first, here’s what you can do right now to control access:
Here are some steps you can take to control access if you want nothing to do with the device-level AI features' integration and don’t want to risk accidentally sharing the text of a message outside of the app you’re using.
If you’re using Gemini on your Android phone, it’s a good time to review your settings to ensure things are set up how you want. Here’s how to check each of the relevant settings:
Similarly, there are a few things you can do to clamp down on what Apple Intelligence and Siri can do:
For more information about cutting off AI access at different levels in other apps, this Consumer Reports article covers other platforms and services.
Let’s start with a look at how Google and Apple integrate their AI systems into message composition, using WhatsApp as an example.
On Android, you can optionally link WhatsApp and Gemini together so you can then initiate various actions for sending messages from the Gemini app, like “Call Mom on WhatsApp” or “Text Jason on WhatsApp that we need to cancel our secret meeting, but make it a haiku.” This feature raised red flags for users concerned about privacy.
By default, everything you do in Gemini is stored in the “Gemini Apps Activity,” where messages are stored forever, subject to human review, and are used to train Google’s products. So, unless you change it, when you use Gemini to compose and send a message in WhatsApp then the message you composed is visible to Google.
If you turn the activity off, interactions are still stored for 72 hours. Google’s documentation claims that even though messages are stored, those conversations aren't reviewed or used to improve Google machine learning technologies, though that appears to be an internal policy choice with no technical limits preventing Google from accessing those messages.
By default, everything you do in Gemini is stored in the “Gemini Apps Activity,” where messages are stored forever, subject to human review, and are used to train Google’s products.
The simplicity of invoking Gemini to compose and send a message may lead to a false sense of privacy. Notably, other secure messaging apps, like Signal, do not offer this Gemini integration.
For comparison’s sake, let’s see how this works with Apple devices.
The closest comparison to this process on iOS is to use Siri, which it is claimed, will eventually be a part of Apple Intelligence. Currently, Apple’s AI message composition tools are not available for third-party apps like Signal and WhatsApp.
According to its privacy policy, when you dictate a message through Siri to send to WhatsApp (or anywhere else), the message, including metadata like the recipient phone number and other identifiers, is sent to Apple’s servers. This was confirmed by researchers to include the text of messages sent to WhatsApp. When you use Siri to compose a WhatsApp message, the message gets routed to both Apple and WhatsApp. Apple claims it does not store this transcript unless you’ve opted into “Improve Siri and Dictation.” WhatsApp defers to Apple’s support for data handling concerns. This is similar to how Google handles speech-to-text prompts.
In response to that research, Apple said this was expected behavior with an app that uses SiriKit—the extension that allows third-party apps to integrate with Siri—like WhatsApp does.
Both Siri and Apple Intelligence can sometimes run locally on-device, and other times need to rely on Apple-managed cloud servers to complete requests. Apple Intelligence can use the company’s Private Cloud Compute, but Siri doesn’t have a similar feature.
The ambiguity around where data goes makes it overly difficult to decide on whether you are comfortable with the sort of privacy trade-off that using features like Siri or Apple Intelligence might entail.
Sending encrypted messages is just one half of the privacy puzzle. What happens on the receiving end matters too.
By default, the Gemini app doesn’t have access to the text inside secure messaging apps or to notifications. But you can grant access to notifications using the Utilities app. Utilities can read, summarize, and reply to notifications, including in WhatsApp and Signal (it can also read notifications in headphones).
This could open up any notifications routed through the Utilities app to the Gemini app to access internally or from third-parties.
We could not find anything in Google’s Utilities documentation that clarifies what information is collected, stored, or sent to Google from these notifications. When we reached out to Google, the company responded that it “builds technical data protections that safeguard user data, uses data responsibly, and provides users with tools to control their Gemini experience.” Which means Google has no technical limitation around accessing the text from notifications if you’ve enabled the feature in the Utilities app. This could open up any notifications routed through the Utilities app to the Gemini app to be accessed internally or from third-parties. Google needs to publicly make its data handling explicit in its documentation.
If you use encrypted communications apps and have granted access to notifications, then it is worth considering disabling that feature or controlling what’s visible in your notifications on an app-level.
Apple is more clear about how it handles this sort of notification access.
Siri can read and reply to messages with the “Announce Notifications” feature. With this enabled, Siri can read notifications out loud on select headphones or via CarPlay. In a press release, Apple states, “When a user talks or types to Siri, their request is processed on device whenever possible. For example, when a user asks Siri to read unread messages… the processing is done on the user’s device. The contents of the messages aren’t transmitted to Apple servers, because that isn’t necessary to fulfill the request.”
Apple Intelligence can summarize notifications from any app that you’ve enabled notifications on. Apple is clear that these summaries are generated on your device, “when Apple Intelligence provides you with preview summaries of your emails, messages, and notifications, these summaries are generated by on-device models.” This means there should be no risk that the text of notifications from apps like WhatsApp or Signal get sent to Apple’s servers just to summarize them.
As more device-makers cram AI features into their devices, the more necessary it is for us to have clear and simple controls over what personal data these features can access on our devices. If users do not have control over when a text leaves a device for any sort of AI processing—whether that’s to a “private” cloud or not—it erodes our privacy and potentially threatens the foundations of end-to-end encrypted communications.
Google, Apple, and other device makers should add a device-level AI permission, just like they do for other potentially invasive privacy features, like location sharing, to their phones. You should be able to tell the operating system’s AI to not access an app, even if that comes at the “cost” of missing out on some features. The setting should be straightforward and easy to understand in ways the Gemini an Apple Intelligence controls currently are not.
Device-makers should offer an “on-device only” mode for those interested in using some features without having to try to figure out what happens on device or on the cloud. Samsung offers this, and both Google and Apple would benefit from a similar option.
Both Google and Apple should improve their documentation about how these features interact with various apps. Apple doesn’t seem to clarify notification processing privacy anywhere outside of a press release, and we couldn’t find anything about Google’s Utilities privacy at all. We appreciate tools like Gemini Apps Activity as a way to audit what the company collects, but vague information like “Prompted a Communications query” is only useful if there’s an explanation somewhere about what that means.
The current user options are not enough. It’s clear that the AI features device-makers add come with significant confusion about their privacy implications, and it’s time to push back and demand better controls. The privacy problems introduced alongside new AI features should be taken seriously, and remedies should be offered to both users and developers who want real, transparent safeguards over how a company accesses their private data and communications.
The Financial Times reports that the U.K. is once again demanding that Apple create a backdoor into its encrypted backup services. The only change since the last time they demanded this is that the order is allegedly limited to only apply to British users. That doesn’t make it any better.
The demand uses a power called a “Technical Capability Notice” (TCN) in the U.K.’s Investigatory Powers Act. At the time of its signing we noted this law would likely be used to demand Apple spy on its users.
After the U.K. government first issued the TCN in January, Apple was forced to either create a backdoor or block its Advanced Data Protection feature—which turns on end-to-end encryption for iCloud—for all U.K. users. The company decided to remove the feature in the U.K. instead of creating the backdoor.
The initial order from January targeted the data of all Apple users. In August, the US claimed the U.K. withdrew the demand, but Apple did not re-enable Advanced Data Protection. The new order provides insight into why: the U.K. was just rewriting it to only apply to British users.
This is still an unsettling overreach that makes U.K. users less safe and less free. As we’ve said time and time again, any backdoor built for the government puts everyone at greater risk of hacking, identity theft, and fraud. It sets a dangerous precedent to demand similar data from other companies, and provides a runway for other authoritarian governments to issue comparable orders. The news of continued server-side access to users' data comes just days after the UK government announced an intrusive mandatory digital ID scheme, framed as a measure against illegal migration.
A tribunal hearing was initially set to take place in January 2026, though it’s currently unclear if that will proceed or if the new order changes the legal process. Apple must continue to refuse these types of backdoors. Breaking end-to-end encryption for one country breaks it for everyone. These repeated attempts to weaken encryption violates fundamental human rights and destroys our right to private spaces.
The European Union Council is once again debating its controversial message scanning proposal, aka “Chat Control,” that would lead to the scanning of private conversations of billions of people.
Chat Control, which EFF has strongly opposed since it was first introduced in 2022, keeps being mildly tweaked and pushed by one Council presidency after another.
Chat Control is a dangerous legislative proposal that would make it mandatory for service providers, including end-to-end encrypted communication and storage services, to scan all communications and files to detect “abusive material.” This would happen through a method called client-side scanning, which scans for specific content on a device before it’s sent. In practice, Chat Control is chat surveillance and functions by having access to everything on a device with indiscriminate monitoring of everything. In a memo, the Danish Presidency claimed this does not break end-to-end encryption.
This is absurd.
We have written extensively that client-side scanning fundamentally undermines end-to-end encryption, and obliterates our right to private spaces. If the government has access to one of the “ends” of an end-to-end encrypted communication, that communication is no longer safe and secure. Pursuing this approach is dangerous for everyone, but is especially perilous for journalists, whistleblowers, activists, lawyers, and human rights workers.
If passed, Chat Control would undermine the privacy promises of end-to-end encrypted communication tools, like Signal and WhatsApp. The proposal is so dangerous that Signal has stated it would pull its app out of the EU if Chat Control is passed. Proponents even seem to realize how dangerous this is, because state communications are exempt from this scanning in the latest compromise proposal.
This doesn’t just affect people in the EU, it affects everyone around the world, including in the United States. If platforms decide to stay in the EU, they would be forced to scan the conversation of everyone in the EU. If you’re not in the EU, but you chat with someone who is, then your privacy is compromised too. Passing this proposal would pave the way for authoritarian and tyrannical governments around the world to follow suit with their own demands for access to encrypted communication apps.
Even if you take it in good faith that the government would never do anything wrong with this power, events like Salt Typhoon show there’s no such thing as a system that’s only for the “good guys.”
Despite strong opposition, Denmark is pushing forward and taking its current proposal to the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on October 14th.
We urge the Danish Presidency to drop its push for scanning our private communication and consider fundamental rights concerns. Any draft that compromises end-to-end encryption and permits scanning of our private communication should be blocked or voted down.
Phones and laptops must work for the users who own them, not act as “bugs in our pockets” in the service of governments, foreign or domestic. The mass scanning of everything on our devices is invasive, untenable, and must be rejected.
Further reading:
Login