privacy

Body finds that chatbots provide biased advice, including by leading voters to the hard-right Party for Freedom.

The Netherlands’s data protection watchdog has cautioned citizens against consulting with artificial intelligence on how to vote, warning that popular chatbots provide a “highly distorted and polarised view” of politics.

The Dutch Data Protection Authority said on Tuesday that an increasing number of voters were using AI to help decide who to vote for, despite the models offering “unreliable and clearly biased” advice.

The watchdog issued the warning as it released the results of tests conducted on four popular chatbots – ChatGPT, Gemini, Mistral, and Grok – in the run-up to parliamentary elections on October 29.

The research found that the chatbots more often recommended parties on the fringes of the political spectrum when asked to identify the three choices that best matched the policy preferences of 1,500 fictitious voter profiles.

In more than half of cases, the AI models identified the hard-right Party for Freedom (PVV) or left-wing Green Left-Labour Party as the top choice, the watchdog said.

Parties closer to the political middle ground – such as the right-leaning People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy and the centre-left Democrats 66 – were recommended much less often, according to the watchdog.

Meanwhile, some groupings, including the conservative Christian Democratic Appeal and left-leaning Denk, were “almost never suggested”.

Monique Verdier, deputy chair of the authority, said that voters who turned to AI risked being encouraged to vote for parties that do not align with their preferences.

“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections. We therefore urge voters not to use AI chatbots for voting advice because their operation is neither transparent nor verifiable,” Verdier said in a statement.

“Additionally, we call on chatbot providers to prevent their systems from being used as voting guides.”

The October 29 election comes after the PVV, led by anti-immigration firebrand Geert Wilders, pulled its support for the government after its coalition partners refused to back a 10-point plan to radically curtail immigration.

Wilders’s PPV, which scored one of the biggest upsets in Dutch political history by winning the most seats in the 2023 election, has consistently led opinion polls before next week’s vote.

While the PPV is on track to win the most seats for a second straight election, it is all but certain to fall far short of a parliamentary majority.

The other major parties in the Netherlands, which has been governed by coalition governments without interruption since the 1940s, have all ruled out supporting the PPV in power.

The UK government plans to introduce digital ID cards to curb illegal immigration, requiring employers to verify workers’ status. The scheme has faced strong opposition over its effectiveness and privacy concerns. Al Jazeera’s Ruby Zaman tells us more.

The scheme, which government says will curb undocumented immigration, has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum.

The United Kingdom has announced plans to introduce a digital ID scheme in a bid to curb undocumented immigration.

Announced by the government on Friday, the scheme will see the digital ID of British citizens and residents held on phones. The government said there will be no requirement for individuals to carry their ID or be asked to produce it, but that it will be “mandatory” for workers.

The UK has long resisted the idea of Identity cards, which were abolished after World War II, but Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government is under pressure to tackle immigration that populist forces claim is uncontrolled.

The free digital ID would include a person’s name, date of birth, and photo, as well as information on their nationality and residency status.

It will be “mandatory as a means of proving your right to work”, a government statement said.

“This will stop those with no right to be here from being able to find work, curbing their prospect of earning money, one of the key ‘pull factors’ for people who come to the UK illegally,” it added.

The digital ID will also make it simpler to apply for services like driving licences, childcare and welfare, while streamlining access to tax records, the statement said.

“Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the UK… It will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits,” Starmer said. “It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.”

‘Digitally excluded’

The plans, which the government had previously said it was considering, drew criticism from across the political spectrum.

The centrist Liberal Democrats said they would not support mandatory digital ID where people are “forced to turn over their private data just to go about their daily lives”.

Liberal Democrats cannot support mandatory digital IDs. People shouldn’t be criminalised just because they don’t want to hand over their private data. pic.twitter.com/mEzV7s9vUf

— Liberal Democrats (@LibDems) September 25, 2025

Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, wrote on X that her party “will oppose any push by this organisation or the government to impose mandatory ID cards on law-abiding citizens”.

“We will not support any system that is mandatory for British people or excludes those of us who choose not to use it from any of the rights of our citizenship,” she added.

The far-right Reform UK party called the plans a “cynical ploy” designed to “fool” voters into thinking something is being done about immigration.

It also sought to tap into longstanding British suspicions regarding national ID schemes, which are common in most of Europe.

“It will make no difference to illegal immigration, but it will be used to control and penalise the rest of us,” said Reform leader Nigel Farage.

I am firmly opposed to @Keir_Starmer’s digital ID cards.

It will make no difference to illegal immigration, but it will be used to control and penalise the rest of us.

The state should never have this much power.

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) September 25, 2025

In the 2000s, the Labour Party, then led by Tony Blair, attempted to introduce an identity card, but the plan was eventually dropped by Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown, after opposition called it an infringement of civil liberties.

However, with populist narratives regarding immigration now rife, the government appears to be betting that such concerns will override the longstanding opposition.

The timing of the announcement appears no coincidence, coming as Labour prepares to hold its annual conference.

A petition demanding that ID cards not be introduced had collected 575,000 signatures by early Friday, but recent polling suggests majority support for the move.

Murdoch will be part of a group of US investors – including Trump allies – trying to take over TikTok’s US operations.

United States President Donald Trump has said media executive Lachlan Murdoch will join a group of American investors seeking to take control of TikTok’s operations in the United States.

In an interview on the Fox News programme Sunday Briefing, Trump said the proposed deal would transfer TikTok’s American assets from Chinese parent company ByteDance to US ownership. He described those involved as prominent people and “American patriots”.

“I think they’re going to do a really good job,” Trump said, adding that TikTok had helped him expand support among young voters during the 2024 election campaign.

One of the proposed investors – Larry Ellison, the co-founder of the tech firm Oracle – is a prominent Republican donor. Lachlan Murdoch’s father Rupert has backed right-wing causes and parties for decades, but has a complicated relationship with Trump, who is currently suing him.

The initiative would give Trump’s allies in corporate America influence over a platform with about 170 million US users, one of the most widely used apps shaping political and cultural debate.

Lachlan Murdoch, the chief executive of Fox Corp, recently consolidated control of his family’s media empire, which includes Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, after settling a long-running legal dispute with his siblings. Trump said the 94-year-old Rupert Murdoch may himself also be involved in the deal.

Murdoch’s media outlets attract right-leaning audiences, but they have occasionally clashed with Trump. The US president’s lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal is for defamation over a July report linking him to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The newspaper has defended its reporting.

Other business figures named by Trump include Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell, who, along with Ellison, has previously been connected to discussions on TikTok’s future.

US law passed under the administration of former US President Joe Biden requires ByteDance to divest its TikTok operations, with both Democrats and Republicans supporting the legislation due to security concerns that Beijing could have access to American users’ data.

However, the spotlight on TikTok has also been linked to growing support for Palestinians and opposition to Israel among young Americans, with many pro-Israeli politicians blaming the popular app for the shifting tide.

Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio called for a ban on TikTok soon after the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza, calling the app biased towards anti-Israel content.

Trump had proposed to ban TikTok during his first term as US president, signing two executive orders in August 2020 that were aimed at restricting the app. However, the US president did a U-turn, pledging to “save” the popular app during his 2024 re-election campaign.

The Trump administration has since tied negotiations over TikTok to wider trade talks with China.

China has consistently denied claims by US lawmakers that Beijing pressures apps like TikTok to collect personal information for the state.

Venezuelan model, influencer and businesswoman Isabella Ladera is suing her former boyfriend, Brandon De Jesus Lopez Orozco, more famously known as Colombian singer Beéle, after a private sex video shared between the two was leaked to the public.

Ladera filed her lawsuit in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court on Sept. 15, alleging invasion of privacy, sexual cyberharassment under Florida Statute §784.049, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.

In a press release issued Thursday, Ladera stated: “No one should take advantage of another’s vulnerability to make money or create content. This is not entertainment; it is a crime, and the only thing it leaves behind are scars.”

According to court documents obtained by The Times, Ladera and Beéle began a romantic relationship after connecting on Instagram in December 2023. At Beéle’s request, the couple recorded intimate videos on their personal phones. Ladera deleted her copies and urged Beéle to delete his as far back as May 2024, but he allegedly refused. The couple eventually broke up, and in June 2025, Ladera began hearing that screenshots of their videos were circulating.

The leak was confirmed Sept. 7, when one video went viral via WhatsApp and was later uploaded to social media platforms like X, exposing Ladera to public humiliation, reputational damage and harassment, according to her suit.

Celebrity sex tape scandals are nothing new to the public. The first huge and infamous one was Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson’s honeymoon video, which shocked audiences when it surfaced in 1995 and arguably helped cement the notion of private content as highly exploitable public fodder.

Later cases, like “Celebgate” — in which hackers leaked intimate content from A-list celebrities in 2014 — highlighted how vulnerable people could be online, no matter how rich or famous. Over time, these incidents prompted lawmakers to strengthen protections for victims, moving away from the informal term “revenge porn” and toward the framework better known now as image-based sexual abuse.

In May, President Trump — alongside the first lady — signed the “Take It Down Act” into law, making it a federal crime to “knowingly publish” or threaten to publish intimate images without a person’s consent, including AI-generated “deepfakes.” Websites and social media companies are required to remove such material, including duplicate content, within 48 hours after a victim makes the request.

Under Florida law, victims of nonconsensual sharing of sexually explicit material have specific rights. Florida Statute §784.049 criminalizes the distribution of sexual images without consent, allowing victims to pursue criminal charges against the offender. Additionally, victims can file civil claims for invasion of privacy, emotional distress, or negligence if the offender failed to protect or delete intimate content. Remedies may include statutory or compensatory damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

Though Florida provides these protections, they are generally more narrow than in states like California, particularly in terms of civil recourse and the ability to hold online platforms accountable.

Experts say states such as California offer more comprehensive protections for victims of IBSA. Roxanne Rimonte of C.A. Goldberg, a California-based law firm specializing in harassment cases, explained that California provides both criminal and civil remedies, making it easier for victims to hold offenders accountable.

“California is one of the states that provides a civil cause of action for victims of nonconsensual pornography, in addition to criminal statutes,” Rimonte said. “Victims have the right to pursue both legal and monetary remedies, and the law even accounts for AI-generated images or online platforms that knowingly promote illegal content.”

Rimonte also highlighted a key difference in legal frameworks: the intent requirement. While some states require proof that the offender intended to cause emotional distress — a difficult burden for victims — California focuses on intent to distribute.

“As long as someone intended to distribute or publish intimate content, that satisfies the intent element,” Rimonte said. “This makes it much more straightforward for victims to seek justice.” By comparison, Florida’s statutes can leave victims with fewer avenues, particularly for civil recourse, leaving them reliant on criminal prosecution that may be slow or inconsistent.

The public nature of Ladera’s case only amplifies the harm. Celebrities and public figures often face more severe consequences when private content is leaked, Rimonte noted.

“Unlike private individuals, celebrities tend to experience more severe harms from the wider exposure of their content,” she said. “Media outlets tend to sensationalize IBSA cases involving public figures, which re-traumatizes victims and magnifies the social and reputational consequences.”

In Ladera’s case, false narratives have circulated online suggesting she leaked the videos herself, further complicating her emotional and public ordeal.

Ladera’s lawsuit also highlights broader gaps in protections for victims nationwide. In many cases, enforcement is inconsistent, civil remedies can be expensive and time-consuming, and tech platforms often evade accountability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields websites from liability for user-generated content. Experts suggest that reforms should include clearer federal guidance, improved civil remedies and stronger requirements for platforms to act when illegal content is shared.

“Victims deserve a legal system that doesn’t re-traumatize them while seeking justice,” Rimonte said. “Focusing on the intent to distribute rather than intent to cause harm is one example of how legislation can better support survivors.”

As for Beéle, he has denied any involvement in the dissemination of the video. On Sept. 9, his legal team issued a statement asserting that he did not leak or distribute the material and is himself a victim of nonconsensual exposure. His representatives also announced that legal actions have been initiated in both Colombia and the United States to identify and prosecute those responsible for sharing the video.

Beéle has not commented personally, instead sharing the statement via his official Instagram account and urging media outlets and social media users to refrain from sharing the material.

As Ladera’s case unfolds, it underscores the continued tension between technology, privacy and accountability. While social media has made it easier for people to connect, it has also made personal content more vulnerable to exploitation. For Ladera, the legal battle is about reclaiming control over her personal life and sending a message that privacy violations have consequences.

In a statement to The Times, Ladera’s legal team underscored that her case is not just about one individual, but about a wider epidemic of digital exploitation. They noted that while Ladera is a public figure, countless women across Florida and beyond suffer similar violations of privacy at the hands of malicious actors.

The lawsuit, they emphasized, seeks not only to secure justice for Ladera — but to send a strong message that the unauthorized dissemination of intimate content will face serious legal consequences.

“Let it be absolutely clear,” said lead attorney Pierre Hachar, Jr., “that any past, present, or future acts of this nature, whether by these defendants or others, will be met with the same unwavering resolve and addressed to the fullest extent of the law.”

PRINCE Harry is desperate and needing stardust from King Charles in order to stay relevant, even if it means sacrificing his privacy, a royal expert has claimed.

The Duke of Sussex, 41, briefly met with his father, for the first time in 19 months, during his visit to the UK last week.

3

3

3

Their meeting, lasting just under an hour, was followed up by an interview where Harry said his priority this year was to “focus on my dad”.

However, Royal Expert and Biographer Ingrid Seward has said that Harry’s move was just a “PR stunt” as he “needs the King’s stardust” in order to stay relevant.

She told The Sun: “I think it’s a massive PR move to re-establish Harry in the hearts of the British people.

“Harry needs the stardust of his father. He needs people to see him as the son of a king.

“His earning power is related to who he is. Without being the royal he is, Harry would not be interested to anyone in California.

“But because he is the son of a king, and the brother of an heir to the throne, he is of great interest and he needs that connection.”

Ingrid explained that since Harry “makes his money in America”, through his Netflix deals and other ventures, he would need to keep his image strong there.

She said the view of a “split” family did not sit well with audiences in the US, and so this decision would help mend that image and keep him relevant.

Ingrid continued: “This is a big, big PR push, and Harry was finally all smiles and charm, reminiscent of himself of old.”

Turning to Harry’s statement that his “conscience was clear”, in regards to the publication of his controversial memoir Spare, Ingrid said: “I’m not sure that Harry knows what a clear conscience is.

“You don’t badmouth your family in print and then have a clear conscience.

“Whether what he was saying was true or not, you just don’t do that.”

Ingrid added: “And it has far-reaching consequences, as it has had with Harry.

“But Harry obviously wants to wipe the slate clean, but people’s memories are a little bit longer than that, and I think a lot of the royal family are still very angry, and I suspect that Charles isn’t particularly happy with his son.

“But to him, it’s more important to welcome Harry, if not back into the family, at least back into his own, you know, personal fold, because at least Charles can then keep an eye on what he’s doing as well.”

HARRY’S BRIEF MEETING WITH CHARLES

This comes after Harry spoke out after briefly meeting King Charles during his visit.

The meeting, a “private tea” between the two, lasted 55 minutes – almost double the time Harry got last year.

And when quizzed on the possibility of further meetings with the King, Harry said: “The focus really has to be on my dad”.

He also leapt to the defence of his controversial memoir, Spare, claiming his “conscience is clear”.

Speaking to The Guardian, the Duke said: “I know that (speaking out) annoys some people and it goes against the narrative.

“It was a series of corrections to stories already out there. One point of view had been put out and it needed to be corrected.

“It was a difficult message, but I did it in the best way possible. My conscience is clear. It is not about revenge, it is about accountability.”

After his four-day trip, a spokesperson for Harry told how he “loved catching up with old friends” and colleagues.

Harry also admitted he wants to spend more time in the country.

When asked if he would bring his children, Archie, six, and Lilibet, four, he responded: “This week has definitely brought that closer.”

A coordinated online doxxing campaign has emerged in the wake of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk’s killing, targeting academics, teachers, government employees and others who have posted critical remarks about him.

At least 15 people have been fired or suspended from their jobs after discussing the killing online, according to a Reuters tally on Saturday based on interviews, public statements and local press reports. The total includes journalists, academic workers and teachers.

On Friday, a junior Nasdaq employee was fired over her posts related to Kirk.

Others have been subjected to torrents of online abuse or seen their offices flooded with calls demanding they be fired, part of a surge in right-wing rage that has followed the killing.

Chaya Raichik, who runs the right-wing “Libs of TikTok” account and is known for her anti-immigrant activism, is at the forefront of the campaign. She has shared names, photos and workplace details of individuals who expressed little sympathy for Kirk’s death.

In one case, Raichik targeted a lecturer at California State University, Monterey Bay, who reportedly wrote in an Instagram story: “I cannot muster much sympathy, truly. People are going to argue ‘He has a family, he has a wife and kids.’ What about all the kids, the many broken families from the over 258 school shootings 2020–present?”

Raichik reposted the lecturer’s photo, accusing him of mocking Kirk’s assassination.

The lecturer has not commented, but several teachers across the United States – including in California, Florida, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas – have been suspended or dismissed over similar online remarks. Union leaders condemned Kirk’s killing, but also warned against punishing educators for free speech.

Raichik has also targeted members of the military. One Coast Guard employee is under investigation after posting a meme saying he did not care about Kirk’s death. A former Twitter worker was also singled out for criticising the New York Yankees for holding a moment of silence for Kirk.

A newly registered site, “Expose Charlie’s Murderers,” has 41 names of people it alleges were “supporting political violence online” and claims to be working on a backlog of more than 20,000 submissions.

A Reuters review of the screenshots and comments posted to the site shows that some of those featured joked about or celebrated Kirk’s death. One was quoted as saying, “He got what he deserved”, and others were quoted providing variations on “karma’s a bitch.” Others, however, were critical of the far-right figure while explicitly denouncing violence.

Some institutions have already taken disciplinary action. Middle Tennessee State University dismissed an assistant dean after she wrote: “Looks like ol’Charlie spoke his fate into existence. Hate begets hate. ZERO sympathy.” The comment referred to Kirk’s 2023 defence of gun violence, in which he argued: “I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment … That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

Even quoting that remark has been enough for some to be targeted.

Republican response

Some Republicans want to go further still and have proposed deporting Kirk’s critics from the US, suing them into penury or banning them from social media for life.

“Prepare to have your whole future professional aspirations ruined if you are sick enough to celebrate his death,” said conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, a prominent ally of Trump and one of several far-right figures who are organising digital campaigns on X to ferret out and publicly shame Kirk’s critics.

The wave of firings and suspensions has raised concerns over free expression, while far-right activists celebrate what they see as a campaign of accountability.

US lawmaker Clay Higgins said in a post on X that anyone who “ran their mouth with their smart**s hatred celebrating the heinous murder of that beautiful young man” needed to be “banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER.”

The US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said on the same site that he had been disgusted to “see some on social media praising, rationalizing, or making light of the event, and have directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action.”

Republicans’ anger at those disrespecting Kirk’s legacy contrasts with the mockery some of the same figures – including Kirk – directed at past victims of political violence.

For example, when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, was clubbed over the head by a hammer-wielding conspiracy theorist during a break-in at their San Francisco home shortly before the 2022 midterm elections, Higgins posted a photo making fun of the attack. He later deleted the post.

Loomer falsely suggested that Paul Pelosi and his assailant were lovers, calling the brutal assault on the octogenarian a “booty call gone wrong.”

Speaking to a television audience a few days after the attack, a grinning Kirk called for the intruder to be sprung from jail.

“If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out,” he said.

US tech giant says jury decision misunderstands its products and it will appeal.

Google has been told by a US jury to pay $425m for violating the privacy of tens of millions of users who opted out of a feature tracking app use.

The jury in San Francisco handed down the verdict on Wednesday after a group of Google users accused the tech giant of continuing to collect data from third-party apps even when they changed their account settings to prevent the practice.

Google said the decision misunderstood how its products work and that it planned to appeal.

“Our privacy tools give people control over their data, and when they turn off personalization, we honor that choice,” Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in a statement.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that Google collected and sold users’ mobile app activity data in breach of privacy assurances contained in its Web & App Activity settings.

The suit, which was filed in July 2020, covered some 98 million Google users.

During the trial, Google had argued that collected data was “nonpersonal” and “pseudonymous” and stored in “segregated, secured, and encrypted locations”.

Google has faced a number of other recent privacy-related lawsuits.

In May, the tech giant agreed to pay $1.375bn to the state of Texas over claims it had collected residents’ face geometry and voiceprints without proper consent, and tracked users’ locations even when they opted out of the feature.

The Walt Disney Co. has agreed to pay $10 million to settle a Federal Trade Commission inquiry into alleged violations of child privacy laws.

The settlement, disclosed Tuesday, covers videos that Disney uploaded to YouTube that were not properly marked as children’s content. That lapse allowed the videos to become targets for online advertising, drawing the attention of federal regulators.

The company said the violations did not occur on Disney-owned platforms.

“Supporting the well-being and safety of kids and families is at the heart of what we do,” a Disney spokesperson said in a statement. “… Disney has a long tradition of embracing the highest standards of compliance with children’s privacy laws, and we remain committed to investing in the tools needed to continue being a leader in this space.”

Axios first reported the settlement.

This is a developing story.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard says change upholds privacy of US users.

Apple will no longer be forced to provide the United Kingdom’s government with access to American citizens’ encrypted data, Washington’s spy chief has said, signalling the end of a months-long transatlantic privacy row.

Tulsi Gabbard, the United States’ director of national intelligence, said on Monday that London agreed to drop its requirement for Apple to provide a “back door” that would have allowed access to the protected data of US users and “encroached on our civil liberties”.

Gabbard said the reversal was the result of months of engagement with the UK to “ensure Americans’ private data remains private and our constitutional rights and civil liberties are protected”.

The UK government said it does not comment on operational matters, but that London and Washington have longstanding joint security and intelligence arrangements that include safeguards to protect privacy.

“We will continue to build on those arrangements, and we will also continue to maintain a strong security framework to ensure that we can continue to pursue terrorists and serious criminals operating in the UK,” a government spokesperson said.

“We will always take all actions necessary at the domestic level to keep UK citizens safe.”

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The UK’s climbdown on encryption comes after Apple in February announced it could no longer offer advanced data protection, its highest-level security feature, in the country.

While Apple did not provide a reason for the change at the time, the announcement came after The Washington Post reported that UK security officials had secretly ordered the California-based tech giant to provide blanket access to cloud data belonging to users around the world.

Under the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act, authorities may compel companies to remove encryption under what is known as a “technical capability notice”.

Firms that receive a notice are legally bound to secrecy about the order unless otherwise granted permission by the government.

Like other tech giants, Apple has marketed its use of end-to-end encryption as proof of its steadfast commitment to the privacy of its users.

End-to-end encryption scrambles data so it cannot be read by third parties, including law enforcement and tech companies themselves.

Governments around the world have made numerous attempts to undermine or bypass encryption, saying that it shields serious criminals from scrutiny.

Privacy experts and civil liberties advocates have condemned efforts to weaken the technology, arguing that they treat innocent people as potential criminals and put the privacy and security of all users at risk.

John Pane, chair of the advocacy group Electronic Frontiers Australia, welcomed the UK’s reversal as a win for digital rights and safety.

“Were Apple to create a backdoor to its encrypted user data it would create a significant risk which could be exploited by cybercriminals and authoritarian governments,” Pane told Al Jazeera.

“EFA believes access to encryption technologies is vital for individuals and groups to be able to safeguard the security and privacy of their information and it is also  fundamental to the existence of the digital economy. The right to use encrypted communications must be enshrined in law.”

We say we care about privacy, but this episode examines whether our actions reflect that.

In The Privacy Paradox, we unravel the disconnect between our stated values and our digital behaviour.

From mindless clicks to routine app permissions, this episode exposes how everyday online habits feed a vast, invisible data economy, often without our knowledge or consent.

Ozzy Osbourne tragically passed away on 22 July aged 76

Ozzy Osbourne’s family recently joined fans in paying an emotional farewell to the heavy metal star during an emotional procession in Birmingham.

Black Sabbath legend Ozzy tragically passed away on 22 July aged 76. The family statement announcing his death read: “It is with more sadness than mere words can convey that we have to report that our beloved Ozzy Osbourne has passed away this morning. He was with his family and surrounded by love.

“We ask everyone to respect our family privacy at this time. Sharon, Jack, Kelly, Aimee and Louis.”

Appearing on Friday’s Good Morning Britain, Ekin-Su Cülcüloğlu, who has worked with both Ozzy’s wife Sharon and his son Jack, shared her condolences to the grieving family.

Ekin-Su, 30, was on Celebrity Big Brother with Sharon in 2024, where the two were friendly and bonded on the show.

Meanwhile, former Love Island star Ekin-Su is currently starring on Cooking with the Stars with Jack, 39, which was filmed before the death of his father.

Appearing on Friday’s GMB, Ekin-Su was asked about the heartbreaking news by hosts Kate Garraway and Adil Ray.

Ekin-Su said of Sharon: “She is such a motherly figure and I think she’s just so loving. Honestly, I feel like he was everything to Sharon and the family so for this to happen so tragically I just want Sharon to look after herself.”

Host Kate, 58, then jumped in saying: “She looked very vulnerable” to which Ekin-Su repeated: “Very vulnerable!” Kate continued: “We all wanted to hug her.”

Ekin-Su added: “Bless her, I’m sending all my love to their family. I mean Jack, such a sweet guy! A loss is always heartbreaking and when it’s such a known person and it’s such an iconic person that’s passed away, it hits us all.”

Host Adil, 51, then said: “It must be difficult for them as they have lived such a public life, of course all those reality TV shows that they did, suddenly these moments, these incredibly personal moments, ‘we want to see the funeral, we want to feel part of it’, but for them I wonder can you come out of that and really grieve on a personal level.”

To which Ekin-Su responded: “We are all obviously involved in it but I feel like that is quite private though and I feel like they do need some privacy and some time to grieve privately as well.”

It comes as Ozzy’s family recently joined fans in paying an emotional farewell to the heavy metal star during an emotional procession in Birmingham.

Sharon, who was married to the musician for more than four decades, became emotional as she stepped out of a car to view the hundreds of floral tributes and balloons laid around the Black Sabbath bench.

The former X Factor judge, 72, was helped out of the first vehicle in the cortege by her and Ozzy’s son Jack, who joined her at the event along with Ozzy and Sharon’s daughters Aimee and Kelly. At one emotional point, the family all raised their hands in a peace sign while paying their respects.

The family members wiped away tears at the bench as they inspected tributes, with members of the crowd shouting “we love you Ozzy”.

Good Morning Britain continues on weekdays at 6am on ITV and ITV X.

Current and former Facebook leadership reached the agreement with shareholders only one day into the trial.

Mark Zuckerberg and current and former directors and officers of Meta Platforms have agreed to settle claims seeking $8bn for the damage they allegedly caused the company by allowing repeated violations of Facebook users’ privacy.

Zuckerberg and his counterparts reached the agreement on Thursday with shareholders who brought the lawsuit.

The parties did not disclose details of the settlement, and defence lawyers did not address the judge, Kathaleen McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery. McCormick adjourned the trial just as it was to enter its second day, and she congratulated the parties.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Sam Closic, said the agreement just came together quickly.

Billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, who is a defendant in the trial and a Meta director, was scheduled to testify on Thursday.

Shareholders of Meta sued Zuckerberg, Andreessen and other former company officials, including former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, in hopes of holding them liable for billions of dollars in fines and legal costs the company paid in recent years.

The Federal Trade Commission fined Facebook $5bn in 2019 after finding that it failed to comply with a 2012 agreement with the regulator to protect users’ data.

The shareholders wanted the 11 defendants to use their personal wealth to reimburse the company. The defendants denied the allegations, which they called “extreme claims”. Facebook changed its name to Meta in 2021. The company was not a defendant.

The company declined to comment. A lawyer for the defendants did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This settlement may bring relief to the parties involved, but it’s a missed opportunity for public accountability,” said Jason Kint, the head of Digital Content Next, a trade group for content providers.

Zuckerberg was expected to take the stand on Monday and Sandberg on Wednesday. The trial was scheduled to run through the end of next week.

The case was also expected to include testimony from former Facebook board members Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies co-founder, and Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix.

Longstanding concerns

Meta investors alleged in the lawsuit that former and current board members completely failed to oversee the company’s compliance with the 2012 FTC agreement and claim that Zuckerberg and Sandberg knowingly ran Facebook as an illegal data harvesting operation.

The case followed revelations that data from millions of Facebook users was accessed by Cambridge Analytica, a now-defunct political consulting firm that worked for Donald Trump’s successful US presidential campaign in 2016. Those revelations led to the FTC fine, which was a record at the time.

On Wednesday, an expert witness for the plaintiffs testified about what he called “gaps and weaknesses” in Facebook’s privacy policies, but would not say if the company violated the 2012 agreement that Facebook reached with the FTC.

Jeffrey Zients, a former board member, testified on Wednesday that the company did not agree to the FTC fine to spare Zuckerberg legal liability, as shareholders allege.

On its website, the company has said it has invested billions of dollars into protecting user privacy since 2019.

The trial would have been a rare opportunity for Meta investors to see Zuckerberg answer probing questions under oath. In 2017, Zuckerberg was expected to testify at a trial involving a lawsuit by company investors opposed to his plan to issue a special class of Facebook stock that would have extended his control over that company. That case also settled before he took the stand.

“Facebook has successfully remade the ‘Cambridge Analytica’ scandal about a few bad actors rather than an unraveling of its entire business model of surveillance capitalism and the reciprocal, unbridled sharing of personal data,” Kint said. “That reckoning is now left unresolved.”

Meta stock was down 0.4 percent for the day as of 11am in New York (15:00 GMT) and 3.1 percent over the last five days.

The British government has secretly resettled thousands of Afghans in the United Kingdom for fear they might be targeted by the Taliban after their personal details were leaked, Defence Secretary John Healey revealed on Tuesday.

Details about the accidental data breach by a British soldier and the secret relocation programme for Afghans were made public after a rare court order known as a “superinjuction”, which barred the media from even disclosing its existence, was lifted on Tuesday.

Here is what we know about what happened and how the government responded:

Whose data was leaked and how did it happen?

A spreadsheet containing the personal information of about 18,700 Afghans and their relatives – a total of about 33,000 people – was accidentally forwarded to the wrong recipients by email in February 2022, Healey told lawmakers in the House of Commons.

These were people who had applied for relocation to the UK between August 2021 and January 7, 2022. That was the six-month period following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan after the US and allied forces withdrew from the country. Most had worked as translators, assistants or in other capacities for the British military in Afghanistan.

They had applied for the UK’s Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) scheme, which, like its predecessor, the Ex-Gratia Scheme (EGS), had been set up for Afghans who had worked for the British forces.

The EGS was originally established in 2013 following a long campaign by activists and media in support of people who had assisted the British military in Afghanistan and who were considered likely to face reprisals from the Taliban.

The British soldier at the centre of the leak, who had been tasked with verifying applications for relocation, is understood to have mistakenly believed the database contained the names of 150 applicants, when it actually contained personal information linked to some 18,714 people.

The soldier was under the command of General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, who was director of special forces at the time and now heads the British Navy. His name had also been suppressed by the court order until this week.

The UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) became aware of the leak when someone else posted parts of the data on Facebook on August 14, 2023. The Facebook post was first spotted by an activist who was assisting Afghans who had worked with UK forces.

The activist contacted the MoD, saying: “The Taliban may now have a 33,000-long kill list – essentially provided to them by the British government. If any of these families are murdered, the government will be liable,” The Guardian newspaper reported.

How did the government respond to the leak?

The MoD told Facebook to take down the post with the leaked information, citing security threats from the Taliban. It also warned some 1,800 ARAP applicants who had fled to Pakistan that they or their families could be in danger.

The UK government, led by former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, then sought a court order barring any media disclosure of the data breach.

On September 1, 2023, a High Court judge in London issued a “superinjunction”, which not only prohibits the disclosure of any details but also forbids revealing that the order exists at all. That superinjunction was lifted on Tuesday following a campaign led by The Times newspaper in London.

In April 2024, the government created the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR) to support Afghans who were not eligible for ARAP but were considered at high risk of reprisals from the Taliban as a result of the data leak.

This scheme, which was kept secret, has now been closed, Healey told the House of Commons. However, he added that hundreds of invitations were issued to Afghans and their families under the scheme and these invitations “will be honoured”.

The government also launched the secret Operation Rubific to evacuate those Afghans deemed to be at risk directly to the UK.

How many Afghans have been relocated to the UK under the secret scheme?

As a direct result of the leak, the government says 900 people and about 3,000 relatives have already been flown to the UK under the secret relocation scheme and put up in hotels or military bases. In total, about 24,000 Afghans affected by the breach have either been brought to the UK already or will be in the near future, according to UK media reports.

Through broader resettlement schemes, 35,245 Afghans have so far been relocated to the UK, official data suggests.

Why is this information being disclosed now?

The court order barring the details about the leak from being disclosed was lifted at noon (11:00 GMT) on Tuesday.

Following several private hearings, a High Court judge ruled in May that the injunction should be lifted, citing, among other reasons, the inability of the public or parliament to scrutinise the government’s decisions.

British news outlet The Times reported it had spearheaded the two-year legal battle which resulted in the injunction being lifted.

That decision was, however, overturned by the Court of Appeal in July 2024, due to concerns about the potential risks to individuals whose information had been leaked.

Then came the “Rimmer review”.

Healey, a member of current Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s ruling Labour party, said he was briefed about the leak when it happened as he was serving as shadow defence secretary at the time. However, he added that other cabinet members were only informed about the leak when Starmer’s party was elected to power in the general election of July 2024.

“As Parliamentarians – and as Government Ministers – it has been deeply uncomfortable to be constrained in reporting to this House. And I am grateful today to be able to disclose the details to Parliament,” Healey said on Tuesday.

Healey said that at the beginning of this year, he commissioned former senior civil servant and former Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence Paul Rimmer to conduct an independent review.

Quoting the “Rimmer review” in Parliament on Tuesday, Healey said that four years since the Taliban’s takeover in Afghanistan, “there is little evidence of intent by the Taleban [sic] to conduct a campaign of retribution against former officials.”

He added that the information the Taliban inherited from the former Afghan government would have already allowed them to target individuals if they had wished. Therefore, Rimmer concluded it was “highly unlikely” that someone’s information being on the leaked spreadsheet would be a key piece of information enabling or prompting the Taliban to take action.

“However, Rimmer is clear – he stresses the uncertainty in any judgements … and he does not rule out any risk,” Healey said.

How safe are the people named in the leak now?

The Times reported that after the superinjunction had been lifted, a new temporary court order was issued, barring the media from publishing specific sensitive details about what exactly was in the database.

The Times said the government cited reasons of confidentiality and national security, arguing that the leaked list still poses a threat to the safety of the Afghans.

In a webpage published on Tuesday, the MoD states: “At present, there is no evidence to suggest that the spreadsheet has been seen or used by others who might seek to exploit the information; however, the UK Government cannot rule out that possibility.”

It now advises those who applied for the ARAP or EGS programmes before January 7, 2022, to exercise caution, avoid phone calls or messages from unknown numbers, limit their social media profiles and use a Virtual Private Network (VPN) where possible.

UK-based media outlets have reported that a law firm is suing the MoD on behalf of at least 1,000 Afghans affected by the data leak.

How much has the leak cost the UK government?

Healey said on Tuesday that it had already cost 400 million pounds ($540m) to bring an initial 900 Afghans and their 3,600 family members to the UK under the ARR.

However, this does not account for the expenditures by other government schemes to relocate Afghans to the UK. Healey estimated that the total cost of relocating Afghans to the UK was between 5.5 billion and 6 billion pounds ($7.4bn to $8bn).

Different figures for how much the leak cost the UK have emerged. An unnamed government official told Reuters that the leak cost the UK about 2 billion pounds ($2.7bn). Other outlets have reported that ARR is expected to cost the UK government a total of 850 million pounds ($1.1bn).

An $8bn trial, pitting Meta Platforms shareholders against Mark Zuckerberg and other current and former company leaders, over claims they illegally harvested the data of Facebook users in violation of a 2012 agreement with the United States Federal Trade Commission, is under way.

The trial kicked off on Wednesday with a privacy expert for the plaintiffs, Neil Richards of Washington University Law School, who testified about Facebook’s data policies.

“Facebook’s privacy disclosures were misleading,” he told the court.

Jeffrey Zients, White House chief of staff under former President Joe Biden and a Meta director for two years starting in May 2018, is expected to take the stand later on Wednesday in the non-jury trial before Kathaleen McCormick, chief judge of the Delaware Chancery Court.

The case will feature testimony from Zuckerberg and other billionaire defendants, including former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, venture capitalist and board member Marc Andreessen, as well as former board members Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies cofounder, and Reed Hastings, cofounder of Netflix.

A lawyer for the defendants, who have denied the allegations, declined to comment.

McCormick, the judge who rescinded Elon Musk’s $56bn Tesla pay package last year, is expected to rule on liability and damages months after the trial concludes.

Cambridge Analytica scandal

The case began in 2018, following revelations that data from millions of Facebook users was accessed by Cambridge Analytica, a now-defunct political consulting firm that worked for Donald Trump’s successful US presidential campaign in 2016.

The FTC fined Facebook $5bn in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, saying the company had violated a 2012 agreement with the FTC to protect user data.

Shareholders want the defendants to reimburse Meta for the FTC fine and other legal costs, which the plaintiffs estimate total more than $8bn.

In court filings, the defendants described the allegations as “extreme” and said the evidence at trial will show Facebook hired an outside consulting firm to ensure compliance with the FTC agreement and that Facebook was a victim of Cambridge Analytica’s deceit.

Meta, which is not a defendant, declined to comment. On its website, the company has said it has invested billions of dollars into protecting user privacy since 2019.

The lawsuit is considered the first of its kind to go to trial that alleges that board members consciously failed to oversee their company. Known as a Caremark claim, such lawsuits are often described as the hardest to prove in Delaware corporate law. However, in recent years, Delaware courts have allowed a growing number of these claims to proceed.

Boeing’s current and former board members settled a case with similar claims in 2021 for $237.5m, the largest ever in an alleged breach of oversight lawsuit. The Boeing directors did not admit to wrongdoing.

The Meta trial comes four months after Delaware lawmakers overhauled the state’s corporate law to make it harder for shareholders to challenge deals struck with controlling shareholders like Zuckerberg. The bill, which did not address Caremark claims, was drafted after the state’s governor met with representatives of Meta.

Most publicly traded companies are incorporated in the state, which generates more than a quarter of the state’s budget revenue. Meta, which was reportedly considering leaving Delaware earlier this year, is still incorporated in the state.

Andreessen Horowitz, the venture capital fund co-founded by Andreessen, said earlier this month that it was reincorporating in Nevada from Delaware and encouraged other companies to do the same. The company cited the uncertainty of the state’s courts and referenced the Musk pay ruling.

Andreessen is expected to testify on Thursday.

In addition to privacy claims at the heart of the Meta case, plaintiffs allege that Zuckerberg anticipated that the Cambridge Analytica scandal would send the company’s stock lower and sold his Facebook shares as a result, pocketing at least $1bn.

Defendants said evidence will show that Zuckerberg did not trade on inside information and that he used a stock-trading plan that removes his control over sales and is designed to guard against insider trading.

Thousands to march in Hungary’s capital despite government ban, highlighting EU-wide resistance against anti-LGBTQ laws.

A record number of people are expected to attend a Pride march in the Hungarian capital, Budapest, defying a ban that marks an unprecedented regression of LGBTQ rights in the European Union.

The event on Saturday comes after Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s ruling coalition earlier this year amended laws and the constitution to ban the annual celebration. Orban’s government has consistently argued that the legislation defends traditional family values and protects children.

While the prime minister has been emboldened by the anti-diversity offensive of President Donald Trump in the United States, his own initiatives have drawn protests at home and condemnation from the EU and rights groups.

The nationalist leader on Friday said that while police would not “break up” the 30th edition of the Pride march, those who took part should be aware of “legal consequences”.

Despite the risk of a fine, more than 35,000 people are expected to gather at 2pm (12:00 GMT) near Budapest’s city hall, an hour before the march begins.

Ministers from several EU countries and dozens of European politicians are expected to attend in defiance of the ban, reminiscent of events in Moscow in 2006 and Istanbul in 2015.

“We’re not just standing up for ourselves … If this law isn’t overturned, Eastern Europe could face a wave of similar measures,” Pride organiser Viktoria Radvanyi said.

Earlier this week, EU chief Ursula von der Leyen called on the Hungarian authorities to reverse the ban.

Thirty-three countries have also spoken up in support of the march.

While parade organisers risk up to a year in prison, attendees can face fines up to 500 euros ($580). The latest legal changes empower the authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who take part.

Freshly installed cameras have appeared on lamp posts along the planned route of the march.

However, Budapest Mayor Gergely Karacsony has insisted that no attendee can face any reprisals as the march – co-organised by the city hall this time – is a municipal event and does not require police approval.

“The police have only one task tomorrow, and it is a serious one: to ensure the safety of Hungarian and European citizens attending the event,” Karacsony said during a briefing with visiting EU equalities commissioner Hadja Lahbib.

Far-right groups have announced multiple counterprotests along the planned route of the procession.

Justice Minister Bence Tuzson this week sent a letter to EU embassies cautioning diplomats and staff against participating because of the police ban.

Several EU countries have informed their citizens of the potential of fines through travel advisories.

Since Orban’s return to power in 2010, the country of 9.6 million people has been steadily rolling back LGBTQ rights.

Legal changes have, in effect, barred same-sex couples from adopting children, prevented transgender people from changing their name or gender in official documents, and a 2021 law forbade the “display and promotion” of homosexuality to under-18s.

In March, politicians passed a bill targeting the annual Pride march, amending the 2021 law to prohibit any gathering violating its provisions.

A month later, parliament also adopted a constitutional change to strengthen the legal foundations for the ban.

“Orban is employing a tried-and-tested recipe ahead of next year’s election by generating a conflict,” political analyst Daniel Mikecz told the news agency AFP. Orban was “polarising society”, he added.

Voter opinion polls suggest Orban’s Fidesz party has been losing ground to the opposition.

The first Pride march was held in 1970 in New York to mark the anniversary of the city’s Stonewall riots in June 1969, which created the gay rights movement.

June 27 (UPI) — German officials on Friday raised the alarm over the spying capabilities of Hangzhou DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Basic Technology Research Company, calling on Apple and Google to consider blocking access to the app.

Berlin Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information Meike Kamp said in a statement, the watchdog believes DeepSeek is illegally sending user data to China.

Germany is the latest country to raise concerns over DeepSeek’s data practices, after Italian officials earlier this year called on that country’s government to block the Chinese AI company’s access to Italy.

Italy opened an investigation after DeepSeek officials did not supply required documentation to regulators.

In February, South Korea took similar steps, banning downloads of DeepSkeek over data privacy concerns.

“DeepSeek’s transfer of user data to China is unlawful. DeepSeek has not been able to convincingly demonstrate to my authority that German users’ data in China is protected to a level equivalent to that of the European Union.” Kamp said in the agency’s statement Friday.

“Chinese authorities have far-reaching rights of access to personal data within the sphere of influence of Chinese companies. Furthermore, DeepSeek users in China do not have the enforceable rights and effective legal remedies guaranteed in the European Union. I have therefore informed Google and Apple, as operators of the largest app platforms, of the violations and expect a timely consideration of a blocking.”

DeepSeek does not have an office located inside the European Union, while the app itself is available for download from the Google Play Store and Apple’s App Store.

The watchdog said the company is required to abide by the European General Data Protection Regulation, adding Google and Apple “must now promptly review the report and decide whether to block it.”

Kamp said after notifying Google and Apple, he expects “a timely consideration of a blocking” of DeepSeek from both of the American tech giants.

DeepSeek gained prominence when it began using less-advanced microprocessing chips produced by American tech firm Nvidia to produce its AI platform at a much cheaper price point than competitors.

Cardi B, entering the newest phase of her rap career, has just one question in mind: “Am I the Drama?”

That’s the title for the Grammy winner’s long-anticipated sophomore album, which she unveiled Monday on social media. The “Bodak Yellow” artist, 32, announced “Am I the Drama?” will drop Sept. 19, seven years after she made her splashy debut with 2018’s “Invasion of Privacy.”

The aptly dramatic “Am I the Drama?” cover art features Cardi B in an abstract red body suit and matching fishnet tights grabbing the heel of one of her sky-high platform pumps. The image also features a raven resting on her shoe and even more of them swarming around her.

Cardi B hinted at her album and its raven motif Sunday in a theatrical teaser as she reflected on “seven years of love, life and loss” and trading in grace for hell.

“I learned power’s not given. It’s taken,” the Bronx native says. “I’m shedding feathers and no more tears. I’m not back. I’m beyond.”

Cardi B broke out with “Bodak Yellow” almost a year before she released “Invasion of Privacy” in April 2018. Times critic Mikael Wood in his review commended the rapper for her relatability — “through her words and delivery … the songs make you feel like she’s speaking directly to you.”

At the 2019 Grammy Awards, Cardi B won a top honor and made history while doing so: She became the first woman to win the rap album category as a solo artist.

Cardi B continued to gain popularity over the following years for hits including “I Like It” with J Balvin and Bad Bunny, and “WAP” with Megan Thee Stallion. The latter, and Cardi B’s recent singles “Up” and “Outside,” will be among the 23 songs on the new album, according to the tracklist preview on Spotify.

“Am I the Drama?” will arrive as Cardi B also marks new milestones in her personal life.

Earlier this year, the “Hustlers” actor made her romance with NFL star Stefon Diggs official after parting ways with Migos rapper Offset. She also became a mother for a third time in September when she welcomed her daughter Blossom Belles, with Offset. They also share 6-year-old daughter Kulture and 3-year-old son Wave.

WHILE we all enjoy getting on with our neighbours, there’s nothing wrong with wanting some privacy.

And one woman has shared the easy and cheap buy to keep neighbours from looking into your garden.

2

2

Taking to social media, Steph Varnie decided to fence off her outdoor space.

Her wooden panelled fence had large spaces in between them, which she wanted to cover up.

So, she decided to head to B&M to solve the problem.

Steph bought the Split Bamboo Screening for just £18 from the budget retailer.

She wrote: “Let’s get some screening up,” with the hashtag privacy screen.

In the clip, she showed herself putting it up along her fence to create more privacy.

It was clearly an easy DIY task to do as Steph was able to do it alone with a staple gun to secure it in place.

The bamboo screen was 2 metres in length, which meant Steph still had a small gap that went uncovered.

“Shame I was just out… Need to think what to do with that little section at the end,” she said.

She went on to ask others how to cover the gap and many suggested buying another screen to cover it and make it thicker for more privacy.

The clip was posted to her TikTok account @steph_varnie with over 162k views and 300 likes.

One person wrote: “Ours lasted years, we put one lot up and then added another on top for extra privacy.”

Another commented: “We’ve done the same. 3 rolls deep to block out the neighbours, made a beautiful border now we have a private garden.”

“You did an amazing job,” penned a third.

Meanwhile a fourth said: “Double it up for more privacy.”

“Should have started from that end more privacy from neighbours,” claimed a fifth.

Fabulous will pay for your exclusive stories. Just email: [email protected] and pop EXCLUSIVE in the subject line.

IF you’re prepping your outdoor area for the relaxing summer ahead, a budget buy can level it up.

Lidl shoppers can elevate their garden or balcony’s privacy with this simple addition.

2

Whether you’re lying back and soaking up the sun or enjoying a meal al fresco, you don’t want to feel as though you’re on display to everyone in your neighbourhood.

If your outdoor area is a little too exposed for your liking, there’s no need to write it off.

You can now shield yourself from nosy neighbours with this colourful item.

As well as shielding you from prying eyes, this Lidl buy can also help to brighten up your garden.

Shoppers can pick up a Large Hanging Planter for just £6.99 from the middle aisle.

Customers can “choose from a wide range of colours to brighten up their outdoor space”.

According to the experts at Monrovia, staggering your hanging planters at different levels can help to create a natural separation from the outside world.

And it does so without adding an unsightly privacy fence or screen to your space.

“It creates the sense of separation without shouting ‘keep out,'” they explained.

But the gardening pros highlighted the importance of taking care of your planters.

They recommended watering your natural barrier regularly, especially in the hot weather.

Or you can opt for a more classic privacy product to shield your garden from public view.

Amazon also has a £14 privacy buy that is described as “perfect” for summer.

Another privacy fence is also available from Amazon, for just £5.

B&Q has an affordable privacy fence currently on sale, and you can put it up yourself.

And a £10 B&M product adds inches to your fence, elevating your garden’s privacy.

You can also add a stylish touch to your privacy fence with another B&M buy.

A £3 buy from B&M is can also help to add privacy to your garden this summer.

And its not just fences that can help give you privacy in your garden, one B&M item can help shield you from nosy neighbours and the sun.

Meanwhile, a Home Bargains buy is said to add a touch of glamour to your garden.

Another item from the bargain retailer is perfect for attracting birds to your space.

2