.jpg "Security News This Week: DOGE Put Everyone’s Social Security Data at Risk, Whistleblower Claims")
Last week, the United Kingdom began requiring residents to verify their ages before accessing online pornography and other adult content, all in the name of protecting children. Almost immediately, things did not go as planned—although, they did go as expected.
As experts predicted, UK residents began downloading virtual private networks (VPNs) en masse, allowing them to circumvent age verification, which can require users to upload their government IDs, by making it look like they’re in a different country. The UK’s Online Safety Act is just one part of a wave of age-verification efforts around the world. And while these laws may keep some kids from accessing adult content, some experts warn that they also create security and privacy risks for everyone.
Russia’s state-backed hacking group Turla is known for its bold, creative attacks, such as masking their communications via satellite or piggybacking on other hackers’ attacks to avoid detection. The group, which is part of the Russian FSB intelligence agency, is now using its access to the country’s internet providers to trick foreign officials into downloading spyware that breaks encryption, allowing Turla’s hackers to access their private information.
And that’s not all. Each week, we round up the security and privacy news we didn’t cover in depth ourselves. Click the headlines to read the full stories. And stay safe out there.
Google is rolling out an AI-powered age-estimation system to apply content protections to Search and YouTube, even for users who haven’t provided their age. The system is launching in the EU, where digital safety regulations mandate that platforms take steps to protect minors from potentially harmful content.
Instead of relying solely on user-input data, Google says it will infer age using a “variety of signals” and other metadata to determine if a user should be shown restricted results. Privacy advocates say the move risks inaccuracies and raises questions about transparency and consent.
Google claims the changes align with regulatory expectations and will help protect younger users from inappropriate content. Still, the idea that platforms can algorithmically infer personal traits like age—and restrict content based solely on those assumptions—adds a new wrinkle to long-standing debates over moderation, censorship, and digital privacy.
Just 24 hours after naming Jen Easterly as West Point’s Distinguished Chair in Social Sciences, the Army rescinded the appointment following far-right criticism. The former Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) director and academy alum had been lauded for her decades of service. But backlash erupted online after activist Laura Loomer claimed Easterly had ties to the Biden-era Disinformation Governance Board.
Nina Jankowicz, who served as executive director of the board, denied having worked with Easterly in a post on BlueSky, calling the episode yet another example of how we’re all living in “the stupidest timeline.”
Nevertheless, Army secretary Dan Driscoll canceled Easterly’s contract and ordered a full review of West Point’s hiring policies. The Army also suspended the practice of allowing outside groups to help select faculty. The reversal marks the second high-profile clash involving former CISA leaders and political pressure following Donald Trump’s revocation of Chris Krebs’ security clearance earlier this year.
A bipartisan bill from US senators Amy Klobuchar and Ted Cruz could let lawmakers demand the removal of online posts showing their home addresses or travel plans, Rolling Stone reports. The proposal, which could pass by unanimous consent, is framed as a response to growing threats against public officials—especially after the assassination of Minnesota legislator Melissa Hortman last month.
Watchdogs joined dozens of media outlets in warning that the bill could chill reporting and enable selective censorship. While the legislation includes a nominal exemption for journalists, critics say it remains vague enough to allow members of Congress to sue outlets or demand takedowns of legitimate news stories.
