TSA issues urgent warning to all smartphone users over data theft
Many people would consider themselves to be nervous flyers. But a recent warning from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) may be an indication that you need to be more worried about what happens before you even get on a plane. 'In this technology age, cybersecurity has never been more important,' the TSA wrote on a recent Facebook post.
'You've likely heard about things like email scams and social media scams (tip: don't accept that friend request from your buddy's "new" profile), but today we want to share our two best tips for staying cyber safe at airports while you're traveling.' Both of the tips involved safety with your smartphone.
While we all typically glue ourselves to our phone once we're safely by our gate and waiting for a flight, it's possible that your mobile device might be behind your next cybersecurity attack. The TSA suggested that charging ports at the airport aren't always as trustworthy as you might have assumed.
They warned against 'juice jacking,' which is when a charging port has been altered so that it can be used to transfer malware to or steal personal information from a phone. 'So, when you're at an airport do not plug your phone directly into a USB port,' the TSA wrote. 'Bring your TSA-compliant power brick or battery pack and plug in there.'
The second warning involves WiFi. In terms of free internet, the TSA pretty much says to stay away entirely. 'Don't use free public WiFi, especially if you're planning to make any online purchases,' the entity posted. 'Do not ever enter any sensitive info while using unsecure WiFi.'
Similar to juice jacking, some unsecure WiFi networks could be stealing your information - which includes your card information when you're trying to pay for something. So what if you need to get on the WiFi? The TSA suggested you disconnect from unknown networks, only enter encrypted sites, and stay away from downloads.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Get every child under 13 off social media immediately, minister tells tech giants
Every child in the UK under the age of 13 must be barred from social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and X, the Technology Secretary has said. In an interview with The Telegraph, Peter Kyle said he was aiming for '100 per cent' enforcement of the new laws, which come into force on Friday, requiring tech firms to block children aged under 13 from their platforms. He said he 'expected' the estimated 1.8 million children aged eight to 12 in the UK who already have social media accounts to be removed from the sites. 'I cannot see the circumstances where online activity under 13, when it comes to social media, is ever appropriate. So in this instance, it is right that the Government sets this baseline from which parents can build appropriate boundaries for their families,' said Mr Kyle. 'I've not met anybody within these companies that thinks it is appropriate or that allows their own children to use these products under the age of 13. So we should be working together to solve this issue.' 'Partnering with parents' Asked if that meant the 60 per cent of eight to 12-year-olds with social media accounts should be thrown off, he said: 'I would expect them to be removed and for the law to be rigorously enforced. 'It's going to be really hard for kids who have access that will now have it taken away. It is tough, but we're on the side of parents here. 'Parents repeatedly tell me that once they're on [social media], it is a constant battle between parent and child to get it out of their hands, particularly interrupting study time, bedtime and family time. So we are now partnering with parents, giving them the baseline to move forward.' The tech firms have been told they must either ensure their minimum age limits of 13 are properly enforced, or radically overhaul their sites to make content safe enough for the tens of thousands of underage children currently using them. The measures are part of new children's codes set by the regulator Ofcom, which require companies to block their access to harmful content, including suicide, self-harm, violence or misogyny, from July 25. From Friday, firms hosting porn will also be required by law to introduce 'highly effective' age checks such as credit cards, photo ID matching and digital ID services to prevent any under-18s accessing their sites. The top 10 adult websites, which account for 40 per cent of porn site users, have signed up to these age checks along with over 6,000 other sites including Elon Musk's X, Grindr and Reddit. Those that fail to implement age checks at the ages of 13 and 18 will face fines of up to 10 per cent of their global turnover or be banned from operating in the UK. Mr Kyle said Ofcom must not hesitate to use its powers, including blocking sites to 'send the message that access to the British economy and society is a privilege, not a right'. At least half a dozen tech firms, including a suicide forum and micro-blogging site, have already withdrawn from the UK market by geo-blocking users rather than comply with the Online Safety Act. The changes on Friday follow the implementation in March of tougher bans on illegal online content including child sex abuse, terrorism and fraud. However, Ofcom's new powers are considered more significant for protecting children from 'legal' harms such as suicide and self harm content, which are blamed for 14-year-old Molly Russell taking her own life. Mr Kyle said the move represented the 'biggest step change in the experience of young people online since the internet was created'. It also marks the culmination of an eight-year campaign by The Telegraph for a statutory duty of care on tech giants to protect children from online harms. On behalf of the Government, he offered an apology: 'My other reflection is the huge apology we owe young people who are over the age of 13 and yet lived in the online smartphone era. 'They were unprotected from the vile, harmful and damaging forces that made their way into their feeds without any restraint. I and we as a society owe them an apology, and I certainly offer it with all sincerity.' Mr Kyle said the changes would mean tech bosses, who can face up to two years in jail under the laws for persistent breaches of regulations, would 'live in anxiety' rather than the children who have previously been fed 'harmful content'. 'It means that people who peddle harmful and criminal content will finally be the people who live in anxiety, because we can and we will come after them if they continue to peddle their content,' said Mr Kyle. 'I expect the law to be enforced to the full extent of the powers that Parliament has granted.' He also warned there would be tough penalties for tech firms that tried to circumvent the new laws with, for example, Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) where users can disguise their IDs and bypass blocks on content. 'If platforms or sites signpost towards workarounds like VPNs, then that itself is a crime and will be tackled by these codes,' said Mr Kyle. 'If a company directly delivers harmful content into the feeds of children, it is the arrival into their feeds which is the offence. If they direct children via other means to that content, it has the same outcome.' He confirmed the Government was considering further measures to combat the 'addictive' nature of social media by introducing two-hour caps on app time and curfews to limit use before bedtime. They are expected to be unveiled in the Autumn. 'In the offline world, parents set boundaries on diet, exercise, social networks and sleep time but we've never had that conversation about the online world. It's time we did,' said Mr Kyle. He added: 'It is not telling parents how to parent, but offering tools to parents to set the kind of family life that they think appropriate.' Mr Kyle revealed that at every meeting with tech bosses, he imagined there was a camera in the room where parents like Molly Russell's father who lost their children in online tragedies could watch him. 'Would they feel their views and their children's experiences had been represented? I hope that they would,' he said. 'Some of those conversations I've had have been uncomfortable and ended uncomfortably.' He said that was the reason why he was aiming for all harmful content to be removed from children's feeds. 'I'm aiming for 100 per cent but I need to be realistic with people,' he said. 'If we take steps forward where 70, 80, or even more per cent of vile, hateful, damaging content disappears from children's feeds, that's a win that I'll take to the bank and move forward from. 'But these companies have the capacity to allow hundreds of millions, if not billions, of posts to go online rapidly. Don't tell me they don't have the infrastructure that enables it to be removed too. 'This Act has been one of the longest pieces of legislation in gestation, in its passage through Parliament and its pathway to implementation, than any other. They have had time. They have seen the direction of travel. Now it's time to act.'
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Why Tesla shares fell as Musk issues warning
Tesla shares fell after CEO Elon Musk warned of The electric vehicle maker reported a 12 per cent drop in revenue and a 16 per cent fall in profit, facing increased competition and the impact of Musk's political affiliations. Tesla's financial challenges include the loss of a $7,500 EV tax credit, reduced income from regulatory credits, and hundreds of millions in costs due to tariffs imposed by Donald Trump. Musk indicated a strategic shift towards self-driving taxis, automated driving software, and robotics, rather than focusing primarily on car sales. The company began rolling out its paid robo-taxi service in Austin, Texas, in June, with plans to expand to other cities soon
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Trump fires back at reports he's trying to destroy Musk's companies
President Donald Trump shot back at reports that he will try to destroy the companies of former best friend Elon Musk, clarifying his intent when it comes to the world's richest man. Trump had previously threatened to take away the billions in government contracts that Musk's various companies hold. The duo had a very public fallout over Trump's one big beautiful bill, which resulted in each man making threats against the other But the president now says he wants Musk to 'thrive.' 'Everyone is stating that I will destroy Elon's companies by taking away some, if not all, of the large scale subsidies he receives from the U.S. Government. This is not so!,' the president wrote on Truth Social. 'I want Elon, and all businesses within our Country, to THRIVE, in fact, THRIVE like never before! The better they do, the better the USA does, and that's good for all of us,' Trump wrote. The clarification came after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked in her briefing on Wednesday if Trump supports federal agencies contracting with Musk's artificial intelligence company, xAI. 'I don't think so, no,' she replied and then added she would speak to the president about the matter. xAI won a contract for up to $200 million with the Department of Defense, alongside Anthropic, Google and OpenAI, last week. Additionally, this week, xAI unveiled a suite of products for U.S. government customers, which it refers to as Grok for Government. Trump and Musk have had a hot and cold relationship since the Tesla founder left government service in May. After his departure, Musk publicly turned on Trump's signature bill, complaining it would increase the country's debt and undo much of the savings his Department of Government Efficiency had sought. Trump was furious at Musk's public criticism and, at one point, responded: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' 'We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,' Trump added. Musk, for his part, threatened to start a third political party to go after Republican candidates and posted on his X account that the reason the Jeffrey Epstein files hadn't been released because Trump is in them. He later took that post down.
