Search This Blog

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Labels

Footer About

Footer About

Labels

Showing posts with label Meta. Show all posts

What Happens When Spyware Hits a Phone and How to Stay Safe

 



Although advanced spyware attacks do not affect most smartphone users, cybersecurity researchers stress that awareness is essential as these tools continue to spread globally. Even individuals who are not public figures are advised to remain cautious.

In December, hundreds of iPhone and Android users received official threat alerts stating that their devices had been targeted by spyware. Shortly after these notifications, Apple and Google released security patches addressing vulnerabilities that experts believe were exploited to install the malware on a small number of phones.

Spyware poses an extreme risk because it allows attackers to monitor nearly every activity on a smartphone. This includes access to calls, messages, keystrokes, screenshots, notifications, and even encrypted platforms such as WhatsApp and Signal. Despite its intrusive capabilities, spyware is usually deployed in targeted operations against journalists, political figures, activists, and business leaders in sensitive industries.

High-profile cases have demonstrated the seriousness of these attacks. Former Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos and Hanan Elatr, the wife of murdered Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi, were both compromised through Pegasus spyware developed by the NSO Group. These incidents illustrate how personal data can be accessed without user awareness.

Spyware activity remains concentrated within these circles, but researchers suggest its reach may be expanding. In early December, Google issued threat notifications and disclosed findings showing that an exploit chain had been used to silently install Predator spyware. Around the same time, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency warned that attackers were actively exploiting mobile messaging applications using commercial surveillance tools.

One of the most dangerous techniques involved is known as a zero-click attack. In such cases, a device can be infected without the user clicking a link, opening a message, or downloading a file. According to Malwarebytes researcher Pieter Arntz, once infected, attackers can read messages, track keystrokes, capture screenshots, monitor notifications, and access banking applications. Rocky Cole of iVerify adds that spyware can also extract emails and texts, steal credentials, send messages, and access cloud accounts.

Spyware may also spread through malicious links, fake applications, infected images, browser vulnerabilities, or harmful browser extensions. Recorded Future’s Richard LaTulip notes that recent research into malicious extensions shows how tools that appear harmless can function as surveillance mechanisms. These methods, often associated with nation-state actors, are designed to remain hidden and persistent.

Governments and spyware vendors frequently claim such tools are used only for law enforcement or national security. However, Amnesty International researcher Rebecca White states that journalists, activists, and others have been unlawfully targeted worldwide, using spyware as a method of repression. Thai activist Niraphorn Onnkhaow was targeted multiple times during pro-democracy protests between 2020 and 2021, eventually withdrawing from activism due to fears her data could be misused.

Detecting spyware is challenging. Devices may show subtle signs such as overheating, performance issues, or unexpected camera or microphone activation. Official threat alerts from Apple, Google, or Meta should be treated seriously. Leaked private information can also indicate compromise.

To reduce risk, Apple offers Lockdown Mode, which limits certain functions to reduce attack surfaces. Apple security executive Ivan Krstić states that widespread iPhone malware has not been observed outside mercenary spyware campaigns. Apple has also introduced Memory Integrity Enforcement, an always-on protection designed to block memory-based exploits.

Google provides Advanced Protection for Android, enhanced in Android 16 with intrusion logging, USB safeguards, and network restrictions.

Experts recommend avoiding unknown links, limiting app installations, keeping devices updated, avoiding sideloading, and restarting phones periodically. However, confirmed infections often require replacing the device entirely. Organizations such as Amnesty International, Access Now, and Reporters Without Borders offer assistance to individuals who believe they have been targeted.

Security specialists advise staying cautious without allowing fear to disrupt normal device use.

Instagram Refutes Breach Allegations After Claims of 17 Million User Records Circulating Online

 



Instagram has firmly denied claims of a new data breach following reports that personal details linked to more than 17 million accounts are being shared across online forums. The company stated that its internal systems were not compromised and that user accounts remain secure.

The clarification comes after concerns emerged around a technical flaw that allowed unknown actors to repeatedly trigger password reset emails for Instagram users. Meta, Instagram’s parent company, confirmed that this issue has been fixed. According to the company, the flaw did not provide access to accounts or expose passwords. Users who received unexpected reset emails were advised to ignore them, as no action is required.

Public attention intensified after cybersecurity alerts suggested that a large dataset allegedly connected to Instagram accounts had been released online. The data, which was reportedly shared without charge on several hacking forums, was claimed to have been collected through an unverified Instagram API vulnerability dating back to 2024.

The dataset is said to include information from over 17 million profiles. The exposed details reportedly vary by record and include usernames, internal account IDs, names, email addresses, phone numbers, and, in some cases, physical addresses. Analysis of the data shows that not all records contain complete personal details, with some entries listing only basic identifiers such as a username and account ID.

Researchers discussing the incident on social media platforms have suggested that the data may not be recent. Some claim it could originate from an older scraping incident, possibly dating back to 2022. However, no technical evidence has been publicly provided to support these claims. Meta has also stated that it has no record of Instagram API breaches occurring in either 2022 or 2024.

Instagram has previously dealt with scraping-related incidents. In one earlier case, a vulnerability allowed attackers to collect and sell personal information associated with millions of accounts. Due to this history, cybersecurity experts believe the newly surfaced dataset could be a collection of older information gathered from multiple sources over several years, rather than the result of a newly discovered vulnerability.

Attempts to verify the origin of the data have so far been unsuccessful. The individual responsible for releasing the dataset did not respond to requests seeking clarification on when or how the information was obtained.

At present, there is no confirmation that this situation represents a new breach of Instagram’s systems. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the data was extracted through a recently exploited flaw, and Meta maintains that there has been no unauthorized access to its infrastructure.

While passwords are not included in the leaked information, users are still urged to remain cautious. Such datasets are often used in phishing emails, scam messages, and social engineering attacks designed to trick individuals into revealing additional information.

Users who receive password reset emails or login codes they did not request should delete them and take no further action. Enabling two-factor authentication is fiercely recommended, as it provides an added layer of security against unauthorized access attempts.


Facebook Tests Paid Access for Sharing Multiple Links

 



Facebook is testing a new policy that places restrictions on how many external links certain users can include in their posts. The change, which is currently being trialled on a limited basis, introduces a monthly cap on link sharing unless users pay for a subscription.

Some users in the United Kingdom and the United States have received in-app notifications informing them that they will only be allowed to share a small number of links in Facebook posts without payment. To continue sharing links beyond that limit, users are offered a subscription priced at £9.99 per month.

Meta, the company that owns Facebook, has confirmed the test and described it as limited in scope. According to the company, the purpose is to assess whether the option to post a higher volume of link-based content provides additional value to users who choose to subscribe.

Industry observers say the experiment reflects Meta’s broader effort to generate revenue from more areas of its platforms. Social media analyst Matt Navarra said the move signals a shift toward monetising essential platform functions rather than optional extras.

He explained that the test is not primarily about identity verification. Instead, it places practical features that users rely on for visibility and reach behind a paid tier. In his view, Meta is now charging for what he describes as “survival features” rather than premium add-ons.

Meta already offers a paid service called Meta Verified, which provides subscribers on Facebook and Instagram with a blue verification badge, enhanced account support, and safeguards against impersonation. Navarra said that after attaching a price to these services, Meta now appears to be applying a similar approach to content distribution itself.

He noted that this includes the basic ability to direct users away from Facebook to external websites, a function that creators and businesses depend on to grow audiences, drive traffic, and promote services.

Navarra was among those who received a notification about the test. He said he was informed that from 16 December onward, he would only be able to include two links per month in Facebook posts unless he subscribed.

For creators and businesses, he said the message is clear. If Facebook plays a role in their audience growth or traffic strategy, that access may now require payment. He added that while platforms have been moving in this direction for some time, the policy makes it explicit.

The test comes as social media platforms increasingly encourage users to verify their accounts in exchange for added features or improved engagement. Platforms such as LinkedIn have also adopted similar models.

After acquiring Twitter in 2022, Elon Musk restructured the platform’s verification system, now known as X. Blue verification badges were made available only to paying users, who also received increased visibility in replies and recommendation feeds.

That approach proved controversial and resulted in regulatory scrutiny, including a fine imposed by European authorities in December. Despite the criticism, Meta later introduced a comparable paid verification model.

Meta has also announced plans to introduce a “community notes” system, similar to X, allowing users to flag potentially misleading posts. This follows reductions in traditional moderation and third-party fact-checking efforts.

According to Meta, the link-sharing test applies only to a selected group of users who operate Pages or use Facebook’s professional mode. These tools are widely used by creators and businesses to publish content and analyse audience engagement.

Navarra said the test highlights a difficult reality for creators. He argued that Facebook is becoming less reliable as a source of external traffic and is increasingly steering users away from treating the platform as a traffic engine.

He added that the experiment reinforces a long-standing pattern. Meta, he said, ultimately designs its systems to serve its own priorities first.

According to analysts, tests like this underline the risks of building a business that depends too heavily on a single platform. Changes to access, visibility, or pricing can occur with little warning, leaving creators and businesses vulnerable.

Meta has emphasized  that the policy remains a trial. However, the experiment illustrates how social media companies continue to reassess which core functions remain free and which are moving behind paywalls.

Meta Begins Removing Under-16 Users Ahead of Australia’s New Social Media Ban

 



Meta has started taking down accounts belonging to Australians under 16 on Instagram, Facebook and Threads, beginning a week before Australia’s new age-restriction law comes into force. The company recently alerted users it believes are between 13 and 15 that their profiles would soon be shut down, and the rollout has now begun.

Current estimates suggest that a large number of accounts will be affected, including roughly hundreds of thousands across Meta’s platforms. Since Threads operates through Instagram credentials, any underage Instagram account will also lose access to Threads.

Australia’s new policy, which becomes fully active on 10 December, prevents anyone under 16 from holding an account on major social media sites. This law is the first of its kind globally. Platforms that fail to take meaningful action can face penalties reaching up to 49.5 million Australian dollars. The responsibility to monitor and enforce this age limit rests with the companies, not parents or children.

A Meta spokesperson explained that following the new rules will require ongoing adjustments, as compliance involves several layers of technology and review. The company has argued that the government should shift age verification to app stores, where users could verify their age once when downloading an app. Meta claims this would reduce the need for children to repeatedly confirm their age across multiple platforms and may better protect privacy.

Before their accounts are removed, underage users can download and store their photos, videos and messages. Those who believe Meta has made an incorrect assessment can request a review and prove their age by submitting government identification or a short video-based verification.

The new law affects a wide list of services, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Threads, YouTube, X, Reddit, Twitch and Kick. However, platforms designed for younger audiences or tools used primarily for education, such as YouTube Kids, Google Classroom and messaging apps like WhatsApp, are not included. Authorities have also been examining whether children are shifting to lesser-known apps, and companies behind emerging platforms like Lemon8 and Yope have already begun evaluating whether they fall under the new rules.

Government officials have stated that the goal is to reduce children’s exposure to harmful online material, which includes violent content, misogynistic messages, eating disorder promotion, suicide-related material and grooming attempts. A national study reported that the vast majority of children aged 10 to 15 use social media, with many encountering unsafe or damaging content.

Critics, however, warn that age verification tools may misidentify users, create privacy risks or fail to stop determined teenagers from using alternative accounts. Others argue that removing teens from regulated platforms might push them toward unmonitored apps, reducing online safety rather than improving it.

Australian authorities expect challenges in the early weeks of implementation but maintain that the long-term goal is to reduce risks for the youngest generation of online users.



Meta Cleared of Monopoly Charges in FTC Antitrust Case

 

A U.S. federal judge ruled that Meta does not hold a monopoly in the social media market, rejecting the FTC's antitrust lawsuit seeking divestiture of Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC, joined by multiple states, filed the suit in December 2020, alleging Meta (formerly Facebook) violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by acquiring Instagram for $1 billion in 2012 and WhatsApp for $19 billion in 2014. 

These moves were part of a supposed "buy-or-bury" strategy to eliminate rivals in "personal social networking services" (PSNS), stifling innovation, increasing ads, and weakening privacy. The agency claimed Meta's dominance left consumers with few alternatives, excluding platforms like TikTok and YouTube from its narrow market definition.

Trial and ruling

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg oversaw a seven-week trial ending in May 2025, featuring testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who highlighted competition from TikTok and YouTube. In an 89-page opinion on November 18, 2025, Boasberg ruled the FTC failed to prove current monopoly power, noting the social media landscape's rapid evolution with surging apps, new features, and AI content.He emphasized Meta's market share—below 50% and declining in a broader market including Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube—showed no insulation from rivals.

Key arguments and evidence

The FTC presented internal emails suggesting Zuckerberg feared Instagram and WhatsApp as threats, arguing acquisitions suppressed competition and harmed users via heavier ads and less privacy. Boasberg dismissed this, finding direct evidence like supra-competitive profits or price hikes insufficient for monopoly proof, and rejected the PSNS market as outdated given overlapping uses across apps.Meta countered that regulators approved the deals initially and that forcing divestiture would hurt U.S. innovation.I

Implications

Meta hailed the decision as affirming fierce competition and its contributions to growth, avoiding operational upheaval for its 3.54 billion daily users. The FTC expressed disappointment and is reviewing options, marking a setback amid wins against Google but ongoing cases versus Apple and Amazon. Experts view it as reinforcing consumer-focused antitrust in dynamic tech markets.

WhatsApp’s “We See You” Post Sparks Privacy Panic Among Users

 

WhatsApp found itself in an unexpected storm this week after a lighthearted social media post went terribly wrong. The Meta-owned messaging platform, known for emphasizing privacy and end-to-end encryption, sparked alarm when it posted a playful message on X that read, “people who end messages with ‘lol’ we see you, we honor you.” What was meant as a fun cultural nod quickly became a PR misstep, as users were unsettled by the phrase “we see you,” which seemed to contradict WhatsApp’s most fundamental promise—that it can’t see users’ messages at all. 

Within minutes, the post went viral, amassing over five million views and an avalanche of concerned replies. “What about end-to-end encryption?” several users asked, worried that WhatsApp was implying it had access to private conversations. The company quickly attempted to clarify the misunderstanding, replying, “We meant ‘we see you’ figuratively lol (see what we did there?). Your personal messages are protected by end-to-end encryption and no one, not even WhatsApp, can see them.” 

Despite the clarification, the irony wasn’t lost on users—or critics. A platform that has spent years assuring its three billion users that their messages are private had just posted a statement that could easily be read as the opposite. The timing and phrasing of the post made it a perfect recipe for confusion, especially given the long-running public skepticism around Meta’s privacy practices. WhatsApp continued to explain that the message was simply a humorous way to connect with users who frequently end their chats with “lol.” 

The company reiterated that nothing about its encryption or privacy commitments had changed, emphasizing that personal messages remain visible only to senders and recipients. “We see you,” they clarified, was intended as a metaphor for understanding user habits—not an admission of surveillance. The situation became even more ironic considering it unfolded on X, Elon Musk’s platform, where he has previously clashed with WhatsApp over privacy concerns. 

Musk has repeatedly criticized Meta’s handling of user data, and many expect him to seize on this incident as yet another opportunity to highlight his stance on digital privacy. Ultimately, the backlash served as a reminder of how easily tone can be misinterpreted when privacy is the core of your brand. A simple social media joke, meant to be endearing, became a viral lesson in communication strategy. 

For WhatsApp, the encryption remains intact, the messages still unreadable—but the marketing team has learned an important rule: never joke about “seeing” your users when your entire platform is built on not seeing them at all.

Privacy Laws Struggle to Keep Up with Meta’s ‘Luxury Surveillance’ Glasses


Meta’s newest smart glasses have reignited concerns about privacy, as many believe the company is inching toward a world where constant surveillance becomes ordinary. 

Introduced at Meta’s recent Connect event, the glasses reflect the kind of future that science fiction has long warned about, where everyone can record anyone at any moment and privacy nearly disappears. This is not the first time the tech industry has tried to make wearable cameras mainstream. 

More than ten years ago, Google launched Google Glass, which quickly became a public failure. People mocked its users as “Glassholes,” criticizing how easily the device could invade personal space. The backlash revealed that society was not ready for technology that quietly records others without their consent. 

Meta appears to have taken a different approach. By partnering with Ray-Ban, the company has created glasses that look fashionable and ordinary. Small cameras are placed near the nose bridge or along the outer rims, and a faint LED light is the only sign that recording is taking place. 

The glasses include a built-in display, voice-controlled artificial intelligence, and a wristband that lets the wearer start filming or livestreaming with a simple gesture. All recorded footage is instantly uploaded to Meta’s servers. 

Even with these improvements in design, the legal and ethical issues remain. Current privacy regulations are too outdated to deal with the challenges that come with such advanced wearable devices. 

Experts believe that social pressure and public disapproval may still be stronger than any law in discouraging misuse. As Meta promotes its vision of smart eyewear, critics warn that what is really being made normal is a culture of surveillance. 

The sleek design and luxury branding may make the technology more appealing, but the real risk lies in how easily people may accept being watched everywhere they go.

Tech Giants Pour Billions Into AI Race for Market Dominance

 

Tech giants are intensifying their investments in artificial intelligence, fueling an industry boom that has driven stock markets to unprecedented heights. Fresh earnings reports from Meta, Alphabet, and Microsoft underscore the immense sums being poured into AI infrastructure—from data centers to advanced chips—despite lingering doubts about the speed of returns.

Meta announced that its 2025 capital expenditures will range between $70 billion and $72 billion, slightly higher than its earlier forecast. The company also revealed plans for substantially larger spending growth in 2026 as it seeks to compete more aggressively with players like OpenAI.

During a call with analysts, CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended Meta’s aggressive investment strategy, emphasizing AI’s transformative potential in driving both new product development and enhancing its core advertising business. He described the firm’s infrastructure as operating in a “compute-starved” state and argued that accelerating spending was essential to unlocking future growth.

Alphabet, parent to Google and YouTube, also raised its annual capital spending outlook to between $91 billion and $93 billion—up from $85 billion earlier this year. This nearly doubles what the company spent in 2024 and highlights its determination to stay at the forefront of large-scale AI development.

Microsoft’s quarterly report similarly showcased its expanding investment efforts. The company disclosed $34.9 billion in capital expenditures through September 30, surpassing analyst expectations and climbing from $24 billion in the previous quarter. CEO Satya Nadella said Microsoft continues to ramp up AI spending in both infrastructure and talent to seize what he called a “massive opportunity.” He noted that Azure and the company’s broader portfolio of AI tools are already having tangible real-world effects.

Investor enthusiasm surrounding these bold AI commitments has helped lift the share prices of all three firms above the broader S&P 500 index. Still, Wall Street remains keenly interested in seeing whether these heavy capital outlays will translate into measurable profits.

Bank of America senior economist Aditya Bhave observed that robust consumer activity and AI-driven business investment have been the key pillars supporting U.S. economic resilience. As long as the latter remains strong, he said, it signals continued GDP growth. Despite an 83 percent profit drop for Meta due to a one-time tax charge, Microsoft and Alphabet reported profit increases of 12 percent and 33 percent, respectively.