Privacy

LinkedIn loads JavaScript that probes for installed browser extensions — thousands of them, including competitors’ sales tools, grammar checkers, and religious or political plugins. LinkedIn acknowledges this, but frames it as anti-scraping and abuse prevention. The question is not whether extension detection happens. It is how the results are used and stored? So the situation is not “hidden conspiracy script discovered”, it is “known technique used aggressively enough that it has triggered class actions”. ...

The trouble with governments and cryptography is that they keep mistaking mathematics for magic. In Ankh-Morpork, this was the sort of thinking that once led the Wizards of Unseen University to try and regulate gravity, on the grounds that it was “inconvenient.” It ended, inevitably, in bruises. In our world, the same logic has produced the noble invention of the “government backdoor.” A handy hole in the wall of your digital house, through which the Watch can come and go as it pleases. The Watch insists it will only use this hole to catch thieves and murderers. Unfortunately, thieves and murderers are rather good at using holes too. ...

Ten years ago, Nonprofit AF , in Weaponized data: How the obsession with data has been hurting marginalized communities, warned that nonprofits’ data obsession could dehumanise and harm marginalised communities, reducing lived experiences to reductive metrics, ignoring power dynamics, and prioritising funder dashboards. Now it’s 2025. Technology, AI, data regulation, and global politics have changed, but many threats have only intensified. What changed? What has improved Stronger legal guardrails (sometimes) Since GDPR (2018), Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted data protections that at least nominally strengthen consent and individual’s rights. Data-sharing rules and transparency mandates force nonprofits to be somewhat more accountable. ...

Zero-knowledge proofs are a rare and beautiful thing: deeply technical, yet profoundly human. They offer a way to engage with digital systems without handing over your soul. Like a well-trained butler, they keep your secrets while getting things done. In an age where over-sharing has become the default, they offer something radical: the power to prove yourself, without losing yourself. The pub test: The colour-blind friend experiment Picture the scene: you are at the pub with your colour-blind friend Nicole. On the table are two pool balls – one brilliant blue, the other an unapologetically yellow sunshine hue. To Nicole, they look exactly the same. She thinks you are pulling her leg. Telling her to “just trust you” will not help, and simply pointing out which is which feels like cheating. ...

You’d think something called the General Data Protection Regulation might actually protect data. You’d be wrong. Along with its elder cousin, the ICCPR, GDPR was hailed as the Great Hope™, a beacon of digital dignity in a world run by surveillance capitalists. But instead of taming the beast, it handed it a clipboard and told it to tick some boxes. The GDPR officially kicked in at the stroke of midnight on 25 May 2018, like some sort of data privacy Cinderella. It was meant to give users the sacred gift of choice, to say yes or no to having their personal lives vacuumed up, analysed, monetised, and passed around like cheap party favours. What we actually got was an avalanche of “consent” banners and passive-aggressive pop-ups saying: “Agree or get lost.” ...

The GDPR, Europe’s flagship privacy reform, drafted by people who appear to believe consent forms are the pinnacle of human interaction. Born from the 1995 Data Protection Directive (which was about as fit for the digital age as a fax machine), it was billed as a way to “strengthen privacy rights” and “boost Europe’s digital economy”. What it produced was pop-up hell, a quiet corporate scramble, and a cottage industry of “GDPR consultants” who appear never to have met a compliance checkbox they didn’t adore. ...