Latest news with #safeguards
Fox News
28-05-2025
- Health
- Fox News
Scammers can exploit your data from just 1 ChatGPT search
ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) have become amazing helpers for everyday tasks. Whether it's summarizing complex ideas, designing a birthday card or even planning your apartment's layout, you can get impressive results with just a simple prompt. But as helpful as these AI tools are, their convenience comes with hidden risks, especially when it comes to your personal privacy. If you haven't tried an LLM like ChatGPT before, here's the gist: They're advanced language processors that chat with you through text. No special commands or coding needed, just type what you want to know or do, and they respond. For example, asking "Why is the conclave kept secret?" will get you a detailed explanation in seconds. This simplicity is what makes LLMs so useful, but it also opens the door to risks. Instead of harmless questions, someone could ask for a detailed profile on a person, and the model might generate a surprisingly thorough report. While these tools have safeguards and often refuse certain requests, clever phrasing can sometimes bypass those limits. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much effort for someone to use ChatGPT to gather personal information about you. But don't worry, there are ways to protect yourself from this kind of digital snooping. These AI tools don't just pull information out of thin air. They need to access real online sources to work. In other words, your data is already out there on the internet; AI tools just make it easier to find. And if you look at the sources, most of the information you wouldn't want shared online, like your address, relatives and so on, is made public by people-search sites. Other sources include social media, like LinkedIn and Facebook, as well as public databases. But none of them are as invasive as people-search sites. Let's see what you can do to limit how much of your information is exposed online. To effectively safeguard your personal information from being exposed or misused, it's important to follow these steps and adopt key precautions. Although not all people-search sites are required to offer it, most of them do provide an option to request an opt-out. But that comes with a few challenges. Where to start: Identifying people-search sites that expose your personal information There are hundreds of people-search sites registered in the U.S. Going through each and every one is, realistically speaking, impossible. You'll need to narrow your search somehow. Using AI tools: How to find and list data broker sites with your personal data Use AI tools and ask them to run a deep search on yourself. It's not a perfect or complete solution; LLMs tend to shorten their responses to save resources. But it will give you a good starting point, and if you keep asking for more results, you should be able to put together a decent list of people-search sites that might have your profile. Submitting opt-out requests: How to remove your information from people-search sites Now, you'll have to go through each of these people-search sites and submit opt-out requests. These usually aren't complicated, but they're definitely time-consuming. The opt-out forms are typically located at the bottom of each site, in the footer. The naming can vary from "Do Not Sell My Info" to "Opt-Out" or something similar. Each people-search site is a little different. Opting out of every people-search site that exposes your personal information is a mammoth task. I've discussed it in more detail here. Alternatively, you can automate this process. Data removal services are real-time and energy savers when it comes to protecting your personal information online. The way these services work is simple. They send hundreds of data removal requests on your behalf to people-search sites you might not even know exist but are still exposing your data. And with some services, the process goes even further than that. People-search sites aren't the only places exposing your personal information without your knowledge. In fact, they're just a small part of the larger data broker industry. There are marketing, health, financial, risk and many other types of data brokers trading your information. Your data is a commodity they use to make a profit, often without you even realizing it. Data removal services have taken on the challenge of fighting this threat to your privacy. They continuously scour the web, looking for your profiles. This way, you can just sign up and let them handle the work in the background. And here's the best part: They take about 10 minutes to set up, roughly the same time it takes to opt out of a single people-search site. And that's it. The removal process is entirely automated and requires little to no effort on your part. With this small initial effort, you may save yourself from privacy-related risks, including scams and even identity theft. But what if your data is exposed on a people-search site not covered by any data removal service? Every removal service out there has limitations on the number of data brokers it supports. It's not about a lack of effort; it's mostly because brokers are generally unwilling to cooperate, to put it mildly. But there's a way to address this issue without going back to manual opt-outs. The top names in the data removal industry now offer custom removals. In simple terms, this means you can ask them to remove your personal information from websites not currently covered by their standard plans. The catch is that you'll need to do the research yourself and point out which sites are exposing your data. It's not as convenient as having everything done automatically, but it's a relatively minor inconvenience for the sake of your online privacy. Being mindful of the information you provide to AI tools is the first and most crucial step in protecting your privacy. Don't share sensitive details such as your full name, home address, financial information, passwords or any other personal data that could be used to identify or harm you or others. Protecting your AI accounts from unauthorized access helps keep your interactions and data safe. Always use strong, unique passwords and consider using a password manager to generate and store those complex passwords. Enable multifactor authentication whenever possible to add an extra layer of security. Regularly review your account permissions and remove access for any devices or applications you no longer use. Get more details about my best expert-reviewed password managers of 2025 here. Adjusting your social media privacy settings can greatly reduce the amount of personal information available to data brokers. Make your profiles private, limit who can see your posts and be selective about accepting friend or follower requests. Periodically audit your privacy settings and remove any unnecessary third-party app connections to further minimize your exposure. Protecting your devices with strong antivirus software adds an essential layer of security against digital threats. Antivirus programs defend against malware, phishing and identity theft. Be sure to choose reputable software and regularly update it to stay protected against the latest threats. Get my picks for the best 2025 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android and iOS devices. Using a dedicated email address for opt-outs and online sign-ups helps reduce spam and protects your primary email. This practice also makes it easier to track which sites and services have your contact information. If your alias email becomes compromised, you can quickly change it without disrupting your main accounts. See my review of the best secure and private email services here. Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web. Large language models like ChatGPT are transforming how we work, create and solve problems, but they also introduce new privacy and security risks that can't be ignored. As these tools become more powerful and accessible, it's up to each of us to take proactive steps to safeguard our personal information and understand where our data might be exposed. By staying alert and making use of available privacy tools, we can enjoy the benefits of AI while minimizing the risks. Should OpenAI be held legally accountable when its tools are used to collect or expose private data without consent? Let us know your experience or questions by writing us at Your story could help someone else stay safe. For more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Follow Kurt on his social channels: Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions: New from Kurt: Copyright 2025 All rights reserved.
The Independent
16-05-2025
- Health
- The Independent
There is still time for amendments to be made to the assisted dying bill – but it deserves to pass
When the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed its first stage in the House of Commons in November, The Independent agreed with the majority of MPs. They voted at second reading to approve the draft law in principle, while many of them had reservations about the terms of the bill and expected it to be improved when it was subjected to detailed scrutiny. In particular, we agreed with those who said that the safeguards against coercion needed to be strengthened, and that the requirement for a High Court judge to sign off on a decision to die was unworkable. To her credit, Kim Leadbeater, the Labour backbencher who is the sponsor of this private member's bill, has taken those concerns seriously and sought to allay them. Since November, the bill has been improved, as was confirmed in the Commons on Friday. The safeguards have been strengthened and the role of the High Court judge has been replaced by a panel including a lawyer, a social worker and a psychiatrist. This is a better and more workable arrangement, drawing on a range of relevant expertise, rather than a narrowly legal authority. No doubt the bill could still be improved further. We are worried, for example, that the Royal College of Psychiatrists said earlier this week that it could not support the draft law in its current form because, among other things, 'there are not enough consultant psychiatrists to do what the bill asks'. But this raises questions that are beyond the scope of the bill itself, and it would be wrong to block the bill on the grounds that it may not be possible for everyone who wants to use its provisions to do so. If assisted dying is right in principle, it is better that it is available to some rather than none. Among the amendments Ms Leadbeater accepted on Friday was one to exclude anorexia explicitly from the definition of a terminal illness. This is another welcome change. MPs also agreed amendments to ensure that there is no obligation on anyone, such as medical staff, to take part in a patient's decision to seek an assisted death; to prevent doctors from discussing the option of an assisted death with under 18s, unless the patient has raised it first: and to require the government to publish an assessment of the availability and quality of palliative and end-of-life care. These are all further improvements to the bill. That is not to say that it has now achieved a state of legislative perfection. We remain concerned, in particular, about whether the protections for people with mental illness are sufficient. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says that 'mental health services simply do not have the resource required to meet a new range of demands'. Ms Leadbeater should continue to try to meet the concerns expressed in good faith by the bill's critics. There is still time for further amendments to be made before MPs are asked to give their yes or no verdict on the bill next month – and it can then be amended further in the House of Lords. However, one of the striking contributions to the debate on Friday was made by Marie Tidball, the Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge. As an MP with a disability – she was born with shortened limbs and a single digit on each hand – she said she had voted for the bill in November on the understanding that it would be strengthened and improved, and that she was now satisfied that it had been. Of course, the bill is not perfect, and never could be, because the subject is so difficult and the circumstances in each case will be different. Ms Leadbeater must continue to make it the best it can be, but those MPs who gave the bill a conditional vote of confidence in November can now safely send it on to its next stage in the upper house.
The Independent
16-05-2025
- Health
- The Independent
MP ‘will not be complicit' in approving assisted dying law in safeguards call
Assisted dying safeguards to prevent coercion and 'terrible tragedy' are 'inadequate', MPs have argued as they debated a draft new law. Labour's Naz Shah warned that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is 'literally a matter of life and death' and said she would not be 'complicit' in approving a law without adequate protections. Her colleague Florence Eshalomi told the Commons that she too opposed the proposal to legislate for assisted dying, as a result of 'inadequate safeguards against the coercion of minority communities'. Ahead of Friday's debate about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, Ms Shah tabled an amendment so that a person would not meet the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking'. Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP for Spen Valley who proposed the Bill, accepted the change. Later in the debate, Bradford West MP Ms Shah, said she had spoken to the parents of a girl who had diabetes and complexities of anorexia. 'If the safeguards in this Bill fail, even once, it will be a young woman like Jessica who dies, it will be parents like Leslie and Neil who lose a child. That is a terrible tragedy no family should ever have to endure,' she said. 'No-one in this House will be able to say truthfully that we did not know or didn't see this coming. That is not compassion, that is abandonment. 'I will not be complicit in that and I hope this House will not be either.' Ms Shah said: 'This is literally a matter of life and death. If this Bill passes that it doesn't have the safeguards, there's no coming back from those decisions.' Conservative MP for Reigate Rebecca Paul said she supported Ms Shah's amendment, because it 'addresses a big risk'. She said: 'In the case of anorexia, there are physical manifestations of the illness, such as malnutrition and diabetes, that might mean the patient meets the definition of being terminally ill, and that is the nub of the problem here. 'The Bill doesn't adequately rule out physical manifestations caused by mental illness.' Ms Eshalomi said she had 'voted against this Bill at second reading on the grounds of inadequate safeguards against the coercion of minority communities', and added: 'I'm sad to say I'm even more worried now than I was then.' The Vauxhall and Camberwell Green MP also said: 'It is because we recognise that if this Bill passes, it may impact everyone, not just those who may wish to die. It is not wrong or scaremongering to consider the wider family life, relationships with feelings of burdens or coercion including vulnerable women and people from the BME (black and minority ethnic) community at the end of their life. 'It is not wrong or scaremongering for us as politicians as we continue to receive correspondence from our constituents about the broken state of our NHS and social care, and for us to think carefully about a Bill which may alter the very relationship between doctors and their patients. 'It is frankly insulting to disabled people, hardworking professionals up and down the country who have raised many valid concerns about this Bill, to have it dismissed as religious beliefs.' Addressing Ms Shah's amendment, Ms Leadbeater told the Commons she had previously 'worked with a number of people with eating disorders'. She said: 'Eating disorders cause huge distress for individuals and their families and loved ones, but with care and with the right treatments, it is possible for people to recover and to go back to leading a full and fulfilling life.' Ms Leadbeater said 'some people have expressed concerns that the severe physical consequences of a decision to stop eating or drinking could still enable someone to claim eligibility for assisted dying when otherwise they would not be able to do so'. She backed the amendment subject to possible 'further drafting changes' to reduce the risk of a 'loophole'. From the despatch box, health minister Stephen Kinnock said whether or not to approve Ms Shah's proposal was 'a policy choice for Parliament' but warned it 'risks introducing some uncertainty over a persons' eligibility for assistance under the Bill'. He added: 'Recognising the intent of this amendment, we do not believe it would render the Bill unworkable.' After the debate, Ms Shah revealed she was 'unbelievably' not told that her amendment would be accepted, and added: 'We shouldn't be playing games with people's lives like this.'
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
16-05-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Readers call for compassion in assisted dying debate – ‘I should have the right to die if I want to'
The debate over the assisted dying bill in the House of Commons has intensified, with MPs deeply divided over its safeguards and scope. While sponsor Kim Leadbeater insists the bill includes world-leading protections, critics argue it has been weakened, particularly after the replacement of High Court oversight with an expert panel. Concerns were raised by MPs including Naz Shah and Anneliese Dodds, who fear the system could miss signs of coercion or abuse. Supporters like Marie Tidball and Liz Jarvis shared moving personal stories, backing amendments that would expand access to those with neurodegenerative diseases. Meanwhile, some MPs who once supported the bill, including Andrew Snowden and Peter Lamb, now oppose it, citing concerns over rushed legislation and underfunded palliative care. When we asked for your views, readers echoed these tensions. In a poll, 56 per cent said the new safeguards were enough. Many argued for greater autonomy and compassion, referencing the suffering of loved ones and calling current restrictions cruel and outdated. Others warned of a slippery slope, adding that controls will never be infallible. Here's what you had to say: Dementia concerns My biggest concern is that these systems (UK and Spain, where I live) do not cover dementia, which, it seems to me, is a very cruel and prolonged death. A notarised living will, made while the mind was sound with a named medical proxy to make the final decision if necessary, would cover all protections. And truly, once all pleasure, all joy has gone out of life, why is it such a big deal to bring forward death, which is a certainty? Why condemn people to sit for extra months, knowing nothing, incontinent, when the end is inevitable? Surely, a properly appointed group of people, including medical professionals dedicated to this, makes much more sense than using a High Court judge whose time is needed elsewhere and who may well lack the expertise. Suggesting that this dilutes safeguards is, I suggest, making excuses to hold this up. If you have experienced a person close to you dying in the most unbearable pain, as I have, you would have no hesitation in believing in the right to die. You would not let an animal experience that sort of death, so why would you expect a human being to suffer? It is beyond comprehension. Lille The Netherlands system works well The system they have had in the Netherlands has worked very well, and with no prosecutions for abuse of the system. My own brother-in-law, who had terminal cancer, opted for assisted dying months before he became bedridden. When he was ready, he sent for the doctors and died peacefully and in control of his pain and suffering. He went with a smile on his face and a joke at the end. Some people in the UK are raising problems that do not exist. Tarquin I should have the right to die if I want to Sensible processes for assisted dying are increasingly necessary for us all, not just the terminally ill. It's my life, and I should have the right to die if I want to. And of course, many do just this every day. The conditions being imposed are just red herrings, in my opinion – either by those wanting to confuse the debate or by others thinking they are being kind and caring by insisting on restrictions. What's needed is an open, full, 'holistic' assessment of why people want to die 'early', and offering them decent care (specialists assessing their mental state etc.), along with an agreement to help them die if that's what they truly want. It's their lives, after all – minimum conditions and restrictions. I've seen a family cruelly devastated by having to construct a complicated scenario to help their young, intelligent son take his own life after an accident that left him paraplegic (eight years of total misery) – with the parents having to be absent to avoid being charged. A totally insulting, cruel farce in this day and age. rayw A jury is needed Given that the judicial system has been, and remains, fallible, the title "judge" is not in itself an absolute. Judgment is of fact, provided all facts are apparent. Having a "committee" or group of differing aptitudes and skills allows for opinion variability and thus stronger reasoning. High Court judges analyse information given against statutory law. Others, such as clinicians, also weigh up facts and opinions with equal respect to the facts. Hence, a "jury" of a mixture of skills, including analysis and risk assessment, is a stronger option due to its variety of thought. This does not denigrate the office of High Court judges, nor individual judges' experience; however, the ability to analyse and weigh up is not exclusive to the judiciary. Many other professionals are trained within their professions to do so. Piepowder Controls will never be infallible So, "other amendments will require the doctors assessing assisted dying requests to have detailed training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse..."? My relative is divorcing her husband of more than 20 years precisely because of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. Had she opted, under such circumstances, for euthanasia, she would not have the second chance she now has. I am quite sure that there are other circumstances under which the ultimate choice would be the wrong one. "Controls" to prevent abuse of the system will never be infallible. Currently, those availing themselves of "assisted dying" have more protection than they will if this appalling bill becomes law. It should not become law. IndyReader Those opposed to assisted dying have lost the debate, and they know it. We're now witnessing desperate efforts to water down the legislation – maybe to make it "unworkable". They need to be called out on this. I've witnessed two loved ones – a wife and a mother – both have their lives needlessly protracted against their wills for weeks, in hospital settings, both in hideous circumstances where even palliative care could do nothing for them. Neither could take any effective steps to end it themselves, although both settled for refusing further feeding and opting to starve (which in my mother's case took 17 days). It was almost as harrowing for their loved ones, who had to witness the process for weeks on end. If we treated dogs like that, we would be accused of animal cruelty. SteveHill Get on with it I find the whole debate rather ludicrous. This bill is almost irrelevant. At present, by the time the poor person gets all the paperwork done, they will be dead. Everyone is getting stressed by all the checks and balances. The actual percentage of people who might be pressured into taking a tablet is minuscule. I accept this is a big step towards addressing the real problem. Furthermore, a six-month 'get out of life' card is fatuous. My mother just died at 100. She spent the last eight years of her life sitting in a chair, unable to communicate or do anything for herself. She told us, while she could still talk, that she wanted to go. Having seen the terrible existence she went through, I am all in favour of a very simplified process. I want to be able to put legal papers in place now so that if I meet certain criteria, I can be legally terminated by my family. It is my life and my choice. Why on earth should a debate be needed? Those who want it – set it up. Those who don't – do nothing. How simple can this be? In addition, can you imagine the cost of keeping my mother in a good care home for eight years? If the family has no money, it is the government that will have to pay. So there's the incentive. Get on with it. Rob The conversation isn't over. To join in, all you need to do is register your details, then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking 'log in' on the top right-hand corner of the screen.
The Independent
14-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Assisted dying bill: What changes are being made to the controversial legislation and will it pass?
Newly proposed changes to the assisted dying bill have caused controversy as MPs weigh up whether they will continue supporting the legislation at the final vote on Friday. Put forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who tabled the original bill, the changes have reformed a major safeguarding measure that was included in the original version. Ms Leadbeater says her amendment would make the bill 'even more robust,' but others have responded critically. Veteran member Diane Abbott, a vocal opponent of the legislation, wrote on X: 'Safeguards on the Assisted Dying Bill are collapsing. Rushed, badly thought-out legislation. Needs to be voted down.' Former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron added: 'Lots of MPs voted for the bill at second reading in the expectation that there would be stronger safeguards added at committee stage and yet we now see that even the weak safeguards that existed, are being dropped.' The amended version of the bill was given back on 28 March after a public bill committee considered over 500 amendments where around one-third were agreed. On Friday, MPs will gather in the House of Common for the bill's report stage, the first chance for all MPs to consider further amendments before a third reading. Here's everything you need to know about the changes: What are the proposed changes to the bill? The most significant of the amendments was Ms Leadbeater's change to how an application for assisted dying is authorised. In the original version of the bill, a High Court judge would need to decide on every single case – but this requirement could now be removed. Instead, Ms Leadbeater proposed that a 'voluntary assisted dying commission' should be created to 'introduce a multidisciplinary layer of protection'. This would be chaired by a High Court judge or former senior judge, so a judicial element would be retained. This commission would authorise multidisciplinary 'Assisted Dying Review Panels' to look at applications for assisted dying. These would comprise a senior legal figure, alongside a consultant psychiatrist and a social worker, who Ms Leadbeater says will use their expertise in 'assessing mental capacity and identifying any risk of coercion.' Writing in The Guardian, the Spen Valley MP calls this process 'Judge Plus'. She adds that this is an evidence-based approach, and that fears around coercion have 'rarely, if ever, been borne out in practice.' Other amendments will require the doctors assessing assisted dying requests to have detailed training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse, and reasonable adjustments and safeguards for autistic people and people with learning disabilities. As well, doctors must discuss assisted dying in conjunction with other options, for example, palliative care, symptom management and psychological support. Amendments also make independent advocates available for people who 'may experience substantial difficulty in understanding the processes or information relevant' to the assisted dying process. The commencement period has also been increased from two years to four years in England, meaning that the majority of the bill's provisions must be implemented within four years of it becoming law. Meanwhile, other issues remain up for discussion. Whether medical practitioners may raise the subject of assisted dying with a patient, for example, is a clause that Meg Hillier, senior Labour MP, is calling for a change to. Will the assisted dying bill still become law? Whether the assisted dying bill still passes into law is, in theory, down to just 28 MPs. This is the number of members that would need to switch from a yes to no vote to shoot down the bill for good. Due to the amendments, there's a good chance many MPs will change their minds on backing the legislation at all. Analysis has suggested that as many as 81 members could pull their backing following the changes. This is because at least 61 MPs said before the second reading of the bill that the High Court safeguard was a key reason for their support, while a further 20 cited 'judicial protections.' These figures would suggest that the assisted dying bill won't get through its final vote if the High Court is removed from the safeguarding process. A number of MPs who previously abstained have decided to vote against it on Friday, among them Lee Anderson and his former Reform UK colleague Rupert Lowe, who have publicly stated they will change their vote. However, it may also be the case that Ms Leadbeater's proposed 'Judge Plus' system proves strong enough for the required number of MPs.
