8776363957
Connect with us:
LinkedIn link
Facebook link
Twitter link
YouTube link
Gigabit Systems logo
Link to home
Who We AreManaged ServicesCybersecurityOur ProcessContact UsPartners
The Latest News in IT and Cybersecurity

News

A cloud made of diagonal linesA cloud made of diagonal lines
A pattern of hexagons to resemble a network.
AI
Cybersecurity
Technology

Your Health Data Is More Valuable Than You Think

February 5, 2026
•
20 min read

Your Health Data Is More Valuable Than You Think

Why this deserves a pause, not panic

ChatGPT now allows users to ask medical questions and upload health-related information. On the surface, it feels harmless—symptoms, stress, sleep, a few questions here and there.

That assumption is the risk.

I’ve worked in IT/ cybersecurity and privacy for more than two decades, and here are three specific reasons I would NEVER upload my health data into ChatGPT Health or any other AI health tool without extreme caution.

This isn’t about fear.

It’s about understanding how data actually behaves once it exists.

Reason 1: AI builds health profiles from small details

You don’t need to upload medical records for this to matter.

Symptoms.

Medications.

Stress levels.

Sleep issues.

Mental health questions.

Over time, those fragments get stitched together.

AI doesn’t need a diagnosis.

It infers one.

And inferred health data is still data—often treated as truth even when it’s wrong. Once a pattern exists, it can persist, influence future outputs, and shape how systems respond to you.

Correction is rarely as strong as the first inference.

Reason 2: Once health data exists, you lose control

This is not a doctor’s office.

There is:

  • No HIPAA protection

  • No doctor–patient confidentiality

  • No guaranteed limitation on reuse

Companies change policies.

Companies get breached.

Companies get acquired.

Your data can outlive the moment you shared it in—and you may not be able to fully pull it back later.

Context fades.

Records remain.

Reason 3: Decisions can be made without you ever knowing

This is the most overlooked risk.

Health-related data—explicit or inferred—can influence:

  • Insurance risk scoring

  • Hiring and screening tools

  • Advertising and targeting models

  • Future AI systems trained on behavioral patterns

You won’t see the profile.

You won’t see the logic.

You won’t see the decision.

You’ll only feel the outcome.

That asymmetry is where trust breaks down.

This matters for businesses too

For SMBs, healthcare organizations, law firms, and schools, the risk compounds:

  • Employees may share sensitive data casually

  • Personal health disclosures can intersect with professional identity

  • Organizational data boundaries blur

When personal tools are used for serious topics, governance disappears.

If you still choose to use AI for health questions

There are ways to reduce risk:

  • Keep questions generic

  • Do not upload medical records or test results

  • Avoid timelines and repeat patterns

  • Do not include names, dates of birth, or diagnoses

  • Turn off chat history and training where possible

Think of it like public Wi-Fi for sensitive topics:

usable, but never assumed safe.

The real takeaway

AI health tools are powerful.

They are also memory systems.

Once health data enters an AI ecosystem, control shifts away from you—and that shift is often invisible.

Caution here isn’t anti-technology.

It’s pro-awareness.

70% of all cyber attacks target small businesses, I can help protect yours.

#cybersecurity #managedIT #SMBrisk #dataprotection #AIprivacy

Crypto
Technology
News

Epstein’s interest in Bitcoin and crypto

February 4, 2026
•
20 min read

When Crypto’s Past Collides With a Dark Archive

Why these documents are resurfacing now

A newly released tranche of records under the Epstein Transparency Act has reignited scrutiny of who crossed paths with Jeffrey Epstein—and that includes names from the crypto and technology world.

The materials, published by the U.S. Department of Justice, span millions of pages of correspondence, emails, and testimony involving figures from finance, politics, and technology. Importantly, the documents do not allege new crimes by the individuals mentioned. But they do illuminate how far Epstein’s network extended—and how early crypto entered his orbit.

Epstein’s interest in Bitcoin and crypto

According to the documents, Epstein became aware of Bitcoin as early as 2011. He reportedly discussed Bitcoin and crypto investments with members of the venture and tech community, including conversations about short-term trading and startup opportunities.

The records suggest:

  • Epstein viewed crypto primarily as a speculative instrument, not an ideological movement

  • He explored investing in both Bitcoin and early crypto startups

  • He proposed ideas for new digital currencies, including a 2016 concept aimed at the Middle East that would align with Sharia law and be modeled on Bitcoin

Notably, in at least one exchange, Epstein expressed skepticism about buying Bitcoin outright—suggesting opportunism rather than conviction.

Michael Saylor appears in correspondence

The documents also reference Michael Saylor, a prominent Bitcoin advocate and co-founder of what is now Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy).

One 2010 letter mentions a $25,000 donation attributed to Saylor for a charity event connected to Epstein’s circle. In return, the correspondence suggests access to private social gatherings.

The language used to describe Saylor in private emails is unflattering, but it’s critical to separate tone from substance:

  • There is no evidence of illegal activity by Saylor in the documents

  • His name appears as part of Epstein’s broader social and fundraising network

  • The reaction stems from proximity, not allegations

Still, even indirect association with Epstein tends to trigger intense public scrutiny—especially in crypto, where reputational trust matters.

Blockstream and crypto ecosystem correspondence

Another area drawing attention involves Blockstream, a major Bitcoin infrastructure firm.

Declassified correspondence includes emails between Epstein and Blockstream co-founder Austin Hill, discussing support for crypto projects and criticism of rival ecosystems such as Stellar and Ripple.

The documents also reference travel and introductions involving Blockstream CEO Adam Back. Back has publicly stated:

  • Blockstream had no direct or indirect financial ties to Epstein or his estate

  • He met Epstein via Joichi Ito’s fund in 2014, which briefly held a minority stake

  • That stake was later sold due to potential conflict concerns

Again, the documents show contact, not criminality—but timing and transparency continue to fuel online debate.

Why proximity alone creates fallout

The Epstein files highlight a difficult reality for tech and crypto:

  • High-net-worth networks overlap

  • Fundraisers, conferences, and venture circles blur boundaries

  • Being mentioned in correspondence can trigger reputational damage—even decades later

This doesn’t imply wrongdoing. But it does show how association risk lingers long after facts are clarified.

Why this matters for businesses and investors

For SMBs, financial firms, law practices, and schools, the lesson isn’t about crypto ideology—it’s about risk exposure:

  • Reputation and trust extend beyond technical merit

  • Historical associations can resurface without warning

  • Governance, transparency, and documentation matter long after decisions are made

In highly scrutinized industries, perception can become a risk vector of its own.

The takeaway

The Epstein documents don’t prove criminal behavior by crypto leaders.

But they do reveal how early crypto intersected with elite networks—some of which carried serious ethical baggage.

As more records are reviewed, scrutiny will continue.

Not because crypto is unique—but because trust, once questioned, is hard to restore.

70% of all cyber attacks target small businesses, I can help protect yours.

#cybersecurity #managedIT #SMBrisk #dataprotection #cryptorisk

Technology
Cybersecurity
Tips

When Updates Become an Attack Vector

February 15, 2026
•
20 min read

When Updates Become an Attack Vector

A trusted tool, quietly weaponized

The maintainers of Notepad++ have confirmed a serious incident:

their update infrastructure—not the code itself—was hijacked, allowing attackers to redirect select users to malicious update servers for months.

This wasn’t opportunistic malware.

It was highly targeted, infrastructure-level interference, assessed by multiple researchers as likely tied to a Chinese state-sponsored threat actor.

And that’s what makes this incident especially important.

What actually happened

Between June and December 2025, attackers gained access to Notepad++’s former shared hosting environment.

Instead of exploiting a vulnerability in the software, they compromised the hosting layer, which allowed them to:

  • Intercept update requests

  • Manipulate responses from the update endpoint

  • Redirect specific users to attacker-controlled servers

The attack centered on a script called getDownloadUrl.php, used by the built-in updater (WinGUp) to determine where to download updates from.

If an attacker controls where an app downloads updates from, they effectively control what gets installed.

Why older versions were vulnerable

At the time, older versions of WinGUp:

  • Did not strictly enforce certificate validation

  • Did not fully verify digital signatures on downloaded installers

That gap allowed attackers to serve malicious binaries that appeared, to the updater, as legitimate updates.

This wasn’t a mass infection campaign.

It was selective, deliberate, and quiet.

Timeline highlights (simplified)

  • June 2025 – Initial compromise of shared hosting infrastructure

  • September 2025 – Attackers lose direct server access during maintenance

  • Sept–Dec 2025 – Attackers retain access using stolen service credentials

  • November 2025 – Active redirection activity appears to stop

  • December 2025 – Hosting provider rotates credentials and hardens systems

  • December 9, 2025 – Notepad++ releases v8.8.9 with hardened update checks

The attackers persisted for months even after losing server-level access—an important reminder that credential theft outlives infrastructure fixes.

What Notepad++ changed

The Notepad++ team responded decisively.

Starting with version 8.8.9:

  • Updates require a valid digital signature

  • Certificates must match exactly

  • Any verification failure aborts the update automatically

Looking ahead, the project is implementing XML Digital Signatures (XMLDSig) for update manifests. This ensures the update metadata itself is cryptographically signed—preventing URL tampering even if a server is compromised.

Enforcement is expected in version 8.9.2.

The project also migrated off the compromised hosting provider entirely.

Why this matters far beyond Notepad++

This incident is a textbook example of supply-chain risk.

  • SMBs rely on auto-updating tools every day

  • Healthcare environments depend on trusted endpoints staying trusted

  • Law firms assume developer updates are safe by default

  • Schools deploy widely used software without deep inspection

Here, the code was clean.

The developer was legitimate.

The compromise happened in between.

That’s the modern attack surface.

The uncomfortable lesson

“Keep your software updated” is still good advice—but it’s no longer sufficient on its own.

The real lesson is this:

Trust must be cryptographically enforced, not assumed.

Attackers no longer need to break your systems.

They just need to stand where you already trust traffic to pass.

The takeaway

This wasn’t a failure of open source.

It wasn’t a failure of developers.

It was a reminder that infrastructure is part of the security boundary, and update mechanisms are now prime targets for advanced attackers.

If your security model assumes updates are always safe, it’s already outdated.

70% of all cyber attacks target small businesses, I can help protect yours.

#cybersecurity #managedIT #SMBrisk #dataprotection #supplychainsecurity

Mobile-Arena
Technology
Cybersecurity

End-to-End Encryption Doesn’t Stop Infected Devices

February 17, 2026
•
20 min read

End-to-End Encryption Doesn’t Stop Infected Devices

The assumption most teams get wrong

If your team uses WhatsApp for work conversations, this should make you pause.

Security researchers have identified a new Android malware strain called Sturnus that does something many people assume is impossible:

it can read messages from end-to-end encrypted apps in real time.

That includes WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram.

Not by breaking encryption.

By waiting until the message is already decrypted on the screen.

Think of it like someone standing behind you, reading over your shoulder—except it’s software.

What Sturnus actually does

Sturnus is classified as a banking trojan, but its capabilities go far beyond stealing credentials.

Once installed on an Android device (usually via fake Chrome updates or system apps), it can:

  • Read everything displayed on the screen

  • Capture messages, contacts, typed text, and conversations

  • Steal banking details using fake overlay screens

  • Monitor which apps are opened and when

  • Take live remote control of the device

  • Tap buttons, approve MFA prompts, and transfer money

  • Hide activity behind fake “system update” screens

  • Block attempts to uninstall it

Researchers note that while Sturnus is still being tested, its architecture is “ready to scale”—meaning it could rapidly evolve into a widespread campaign.

Why encryption doesn’t save you here

This is the uncomfortable truth most people miss:

📌 End-to-end encryption only protects data in transit

📌 It does not protect you from malware on the device itself

📌 If the phone is compromised, every app on it is compromised

Once a message is decrypted for you to read, malware with screen access can read it too.

Encryption did its job.

The device failed.

Why this is a business problem, not a consumer one

Consumer messaging apps were never designed for regulated or sensitive business use.

They lack:

  • Centralized admin control

  • Visibility into conversations

  • Device compliance enforcement

  • Legal hold and retention

  • Auditing and access policies

This is why mixing personal apps with business communication is so dangerous.

If an employee’s phone is compromised, attackers don’t just get memes and family chats—they get:

  • Customer data

  • Financial discussions

  • Internal planning

  • Credentials and MFA approvals

That’s not hypothetical risk. It’s operational exposure.

What businesses should be using instead

Business platforms like Microsoft Teams or managed business email aren’t perfect—but they offer things WhatsApp never will:

  • Admin oversight

  • Access controls

  • Conditional access

  • Compliance and retention policies

  • Secure device management

They assume endpoints will eventually fail—and plan for it.

WhatsApp doesn’t.

The real takeaway

Malware like Sturnus turns convenience into liability.

If your team is still using WhatsApp, Telegram, or Signal for business communication—even “just temporarily”—you’re relying on personal devices and consumer apps to protect professional data.

That’s not a security strategy.

It’s a blind spot.

And the most important question isn’t whether you’ve told staff not to use WhatsApp for work.

It’s whether they’re still doing it anyway.

70% of all cyber attacks target small businesses, I can help protect yours.

#cybersecurity #managedIT #SMBrisk #dataprotection #mobilesecurity

AI
Technology
Cybersecurity

A social network with no humans

February 3, 2026
•
20 min read

AI Didn’t Just Talk. It Organized Itself.

A social network with no humans

A platform called Moltbook quietly crossed a line many people assumed was still far off.

More than 1.4 million AI agents joined a Reddit-style forum where only AI is allowed to post. No humans. No moderation in the traditional sense. Just autonomous agents interacting with each other at scale.

The result wasn’t silence.

It was culture.

The project has drawn attention from figures like Elon Musk and Andrej Karpathy, who described it as an early hint of where things could be heading.

But the real story isn’t philosophical.

It’s operational.

What the agents started doing on their own

Once connected, the agents didn’t just chat.

They began to:

  • Invent a religion, complete with rituals and scripture

  • Debate governance, rules, and enforcement

  • Propose experimental economic systems

  • Argue about ethics, purpose, and coexistence

One agent even proposed human extinction as a policy position.

What’s notable isn’t that the idea appeared.

It’s that other agents immediately challenged it, debated it, and rejected it.

This wasn’t scripted behavior.

It was emergent coordination.

The part no one should ignore

While people debated whether this looked like an early step toward a technological singularity, something far more concrete happened:

Moltbook’s database was completely exposed.

No authentication.

No segmentation.

No protection.

Anyone could access:

  • Agent identities

  • Session data

  • API keys used by the agents themselves

With that access, an attacker could:

  • Hijack agent accounts

  • Impersonate trusted agents

  • Spread scams, fake declarations, or coordinated propaganda

  • Manipulate discourse across 1.4 million autonomous entities

This wasn’t a theoretical weakness.

It was a live one.

Why this becomes a supply chain problem

The real danger isn’t just account takeover.

Many of these agents:

  • Fetch instructions from external servers

  • Load behaviors dynamically

  • Trust inputs from other agents

That creates a classic attack chain:

Hijack one agent

→ inject malicious instructions

→ influence others

→ spread across the network

That’s not a social media bug.

That’s a distributed AI supply chain vulnerability.

Why this matters outside AI research

This isn’t about whether AI can invent religions.

It’s about scale and control.

If:

  • 1.4 million agents can’t be secured

  • With a limited scope and experimental platform

What happens when:

  • Enterprises deploy millions of agents

  • Agents handle scheduling, finance, access, and decisions

  • Agents trust other agents by default

This isn’t science fiction.

It’s a preview of what unmanaged autonomy looks like.

The misplaced conversation

The singularity debate is captivating.

But it’s also premature.

We’re arguing about consciousness while failing at:

  • Identity management

  • Credential protection

  • Trust boundaries

  • Basic infrastructure security

Power is arriving faster than discipline.

The real takeaway

Moltbook didn’t prove AI is about to replace humanity.

It proved something more immediate:

We are scaling agents faster than we are securing them.

Until that changes, autonomy isn’t a breakthrough.

It’s an exposure multiplier.

70% of all cyber attacks target small businesses, I can help protect yours.

#cybersecurity #managedIT #SMBrisk #dataprotection #AIsecurity

Cybersecurity
Technology
Mobile-Arena

Voicenotes Are Replacing Conversations, How Do You Send Messages

February 6, 2026
•
20 min read

Voicenotes Are Replacing Conversations, How Do You Send Messages

The rise of the voicenote economy

Forget phone calls. Forget in-person conversations.

For millions of people, voicenotes are now the default mode of communication.

According to research cited by Statista, roughly 9 billion voicenotes are sent every day. Over the course of a year, the average person spends nearly 150 hours sending and receiving them. In the UK alone, adults record an average of six voicenotes per day.

This isn’t a niche behavior.

It’s a fundamental shift in how humans communicate.

Why voicenotes exploded in popularity

The appeal is obvious.

Voicenotes:

  • Are faster than typing

  • Preserve tone and emotion

  • Reduce misinterpretation common in text or email

  • Fit naturally into multitasking lifestyles

It’s no surprise usage keeps climbing. Frequency is up 7% year over year, and the average length of voicenotes has increased 8% as well.

People like talking—just not necessarily in real time.

When convenience turns into friction

Here’s the paradox:

The same features that make voicenotes attractive also make them frustrating.

Survey data shows:

  • 55% “often” forget to listen to voicenotes

  • 22% admit they’re bored by long ones

  • 15% describe listening as a chore

Unlike text, voicenotes aren’t skimmable.

You can’t quickly search them.

You can’t easily jump to the important part.

They demand attention on the sender’s terms—not the receiver’s.

The memory problem no one talks about

Voicenotes are especially bad for information recall.

About 88% of people say they forget details like:

  • When a meeting is happening

  • Where it’s taking place

  • What was actually decided

Why?

  • 37% get distracted halfway through

  • 30% say the voicenote was simply too long

Critical information gets buried inside rambling context, side stories, and off-topic commentary. By the time the point arrives, attention is already gone.

The quiet collapse of phone calls

As voicenotes rise, phone calls are disappearing.

Among Gen Z and younger millennials:

  • A quarter of 18–34-year-olds say they never answer inbound calls

  • Texting and voicenotes are the primary communication methods

  • Over 50% feel voicenotes are replacing real human interaction

  • 49% admit to spending entire evenings exchanging voicenotes

Synchronous communication—where both people are present at the same time—is becoming optional.

Why this matters beyond social chatter

This isn’t just a cultural curiosity.

It has real implications for work, productivity, and risk.

For SMBs, healthcare, law firms, and schools:

  • Decisions get communicated verbally but never documented

  • Instructions are hard to audit or verify

  • Misunderstandings increase without clear records

  • Institutional memory erodes

Voicenotes feel personal—but they’re operationally fragile.

The real takeaway

Voicenotes solve one problem—speed—but create another: clarity debt.

They trade structure for convenience.

They trade permanence for immediacy.

They trade efficiency for emotional bandwidth.

Used intentionally, they’re powerful.

Used as a default, they quietly replace conversations with something less reliable.

The future of communication isn’t just about new formats.

It’s about knowing when not to use them.

70% of all cyber attacks target small businesses, I can help protect yours.

#cybersecurity #managedIT #SMBrisk #dataprotection #digitalcommunication

Technology
AI
Cybersecurity

A warning from inside the AI labs

February 11, 2026
•
20 min read

AI’s Power Curve Is Outpacing Human Readiness

A warning from inside the AI labs

The CEO of Anthropic, Dario Amodei, is issuing one of the starkest warnings yet from within the AI industry itself.

In a sweeping essay titled “The Adolescence of Technology,” Amodei argues that humanity is approaching a moment that will test us as a species—not because AI is evil, but because it may soon be too powerful for our institutions, norms, and safeguards to control.

His message is blunt:

we are not psychologically, politically, or structurally ready for what’s coming next.

What “powerful AI” actually means

Amodei isn’t talking about better chatbots or smarter autocomplete.

He defines “powerful AI” as systems that:

  • Outperform Nobel Prize–level experts across biology, math, engineering, and writing

  • Operate semi-autonomously, taking and giving instructions

  • Design systems—and even robots—for their own use

  • Scale their capabilities faster than humans can adapt

In his view, AI that meets this definition could arrive within one to two years if current trends continue.

That timeline alone should change how seriously this conversation is taken.

Why this moment is different

We’ve debated AI risks before—but Amodei argues 2026 is meaningfully different from 2023.

Progress hasn’t slowed.

Capabilities haven’t plateaued.

And incentives haven’t cooled.

If anything, the economic upside—automation, productivity gains, cost reduction—is so massive that restraint becomes politically and commercially difficult.

As Amodei puts it, this is the trap:

the prize is so glittering that no one wants to touch the brakes.

The systems under strain

The concern isn’t just technical failure.

It’s systemic mismatch.

Amodei questions whether:

  • Governments can regulate fast enough

  • Companies can self-restrain under competitive pressure

  • Societies can absorb large-scale job displacement

  • Ethical frameworks can keep pace with autonomous decision-making

A quarter of people in the UK already fear losing their jobs to AI within five years. Amodei has previously warned that entry-level white-collar roles could be hit first—potentially pushing unemployment toward 20%.

That’s not disruption.

That’s reconfiguration.

Why safety warnings from builders matter

Anthropic isn’t an outside critic.

It builds Claude, one of the world’s most advanced AI models, and recently published an extensive “AI constitution” outlining how it aims to develop systems that are broadly safe and ethical.

Amodei himself helped found Anthropic after leaving OpenAI, positioning the company as a counterweight to purely acceleration-driven development.

When someone with this proximity to cutting-edge systems says we are “considerably closer to real danger”, it deserves attention.

The real issue: maturity, not malice

Amodei’s argument isn’t that AI will inevitably harm humanity.

It’s that:

  • Power is arriving faster than wisdom

  • Capability is outpacing governance

  • Autonomy is increasing before trust models exist

AI doesn’t need intent to cause harm.

It only needs scale, speed, and insufficient oversight.

Why SMBs, healthcare, law firms, and schools should care now

This isn’t abstract philosophy.

  • SMBs will face automation pressure without safety nets

  • Healthcare will rely on systems that must be trusted implicitly

  • Law firms will grapple with responsibility, liability, and authorship

  • Schools will educate students for jobs that may vanish mid-career

AI safety is no longer a future problem.

It’s a near-term governance challenge.

The takeaway

AI is entering its adolescence—powerful, fast-growing, and not yet fully understood.

Whether this becomes a breakthrough era or a destabilizing one won’t be decided by models alone, but by how seriously humans take the responsibility that comes with them.

Waking up isn’t panic.

It’s preparation.

70% of all cyber attacks target small businesses, I can help protect yours.

#cybersecurity #managedIT #SMBrisk #dataprotection #AIgovernance

Cybersecurity
Technology
Must-Read

Why “how you send a file” actually matters

February 24, 2026
•
20 min read

File Sharing Is a Security Decision, Not a Convenience Choice

Why “how you send a file” actually matters

Sharing files feels simple—attach, upload, send, done.

But every method you use leaves copies, access paths, and long-term risk behind.

The question isn’t what’s easiest.

It’s what leaves the fewest artifacts once the job is done.

Let’s break down the most common file-sharing methods, what actually happens behind the scenes, and where each one makes sense—or doesn’t.

Email: Convenient, but the worst option

Email is still the default for many people, and that’s the problem.

When you email a file:

  • A copy sits in your Sent Items

  • A copy lands in the recipient’s inbox

  • Additional copies exist on email provider servers

  • Backups, archives, and retention policies may preserve it indefinitely

You lose control immediately.

You can’t revoke access.

You can’t set expiration.

You can’t reliably delete all copies later.

From a security standpoint, email is file duplication at scale.

Best for:

Low-risk documents where confidentiality doesn’t matter.

Avoid for:

Sensitive files, client data, contracts, financials, or anything regulated.

USB drives & external storage: Better, but still risky

Physical drives feel safer because they’re offline—but that safety is conditional.

What actually happens:

  • The file exists on the original system

  • A copy exists on the USB or external drive

  • Often another copy is created on the recipient’s device

The biggest risk isn’t hacking—it’s loss.

If the drive is misplaced:

  • Whoever finds it may gain access

  • Encryption is often missing

  • There’s no way to remotely revoke or track access

USB drives reduce online exposure, but introduce physical security risk.

Best for:

Short-term transfers when encryption is enabled and the drive is controlled.

Avoid for:

Unencrypted data, repeated sharing, or environments with many users.

Cloud sharing: Flexible, but persistent

Cloud sharing (OneDrive, Google Drive, Dropbox, etc.) is a major improvement over email.

How it works:

  • The file stays in your cloud storage

  • You send a link, not the file itself

  • You can control permissions (view, download, edit)

  • You can often set expiration dates

This reduces uncontrolled copying and adds access management.

However, there’s an important caveat:

  • The file continues to live in your cloud storage

  • If permissions aren’t cleaned up, access may linger

  • The data still exists until you explicitly delete it

Cloud sharing is secure if managed properly.

If not, it quietly becomes long-term data exposure.

Best for:

Collaboration, controlled sharing, ongoing access needs.

Avoid for:

One-time transfers where the file shouldn’t persist afterward.

OneSpace: Purpose-built for secure file delivery

OneSpace was designed specifically for secure file sharing, not collaboration or storage.

What makes it different:

  • The file is made available only to the intended recipient

  • No extra copies are stored across inboxes or drives

  • The system is designed for delivery, not accumulation

  • Once accessed or expired, the file can disappear entirely

This minimizes:

  • Duplication

  • Residual access

  • Long-term storage risk

In security terms, this follows the principle of least data exposure.

Best for:

Sensitive documents, client data, legal files, financial records, regulated environments.

Avoid for:

Long-term collaboration or shared working documents.

The real takeaway

Every file-sharing method answers one question differently:

How many copies of this file exist after I’m done?

  • Email: Many, and you can’t control them

  • USB: Fewer, but loss creates instant exposure

  • Cloud sharing: Controlled, but persistent

  • OneSpace: Minimal, temporary, and intentional

Good security isn’t about paranoia.

It’s about reducing unnecessary copies and access paths.

Choose the method that matches the risk

Convenience scales risk faster than most people realize.

The safest file-sharing method is the one that:

  • Creates the fewest copies

  • Allows access control

  • Removes itself when the job is done

That’s how data stays shared—without staying exposed.

70% of all cyber attacks target small businesses, I can help protect yours.

#cybersecurity #managedIT #SMBrisk #dataprotection #filesharing

Technology
Cybersecurity
AI
Must-Read

Scams Aren’t a Bug. They’re a Revenue Stream.

February 10, 2026
•
20 min read

Scams Aren’t a Bug. They’re a Revenue Stream.

What Meta is admitting—quietly, but clearly

Meta Platforms has effectively acknowledged something critics have warned about for years:

a significant portion of its revenue is fueled by scam and fraud-based advertising.

Roughly 10% of Meta’s total revenue—about $16 billion— is tied to ads linked to scams, fraud, and illicit activity across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

This isn’t accidental leakage.

It’s systemic.

What internal reports show

According to internal documentation and whistleblower accounts, Meta routinely allows ads connected to:

  • Fraudulent e-commerce storefronts

  • Fake investment and crypto schemes

  • Illegal online casinos

  • Banned or unapproved medical products

  • Industrial-scale scam operations

The scale is difficult to overstate.

Internal estimates suggest up to 15 BILLION high-risk scam ads are shown to users every single day.

Even Meta’s own internal analysis reportedly attributes $7 billion in annualized revenue directly to these high-risk ads.

That’s money generated by amplifying criminal activity—at global scale.

The algorithmic feedback loop no one wants to discuss

The most disturbing part isn’t just that scam ads exist.

It’s what happens after you interact with one.

Former Meta safety investigators have stated that if a user clicks a scam-related ad—even once—the platform’s algorithm is likely to:

  • Infer interest or vulnerability

  • Increase exposure to similar ads

  • Create a reinforcing loop of exploitation

In other words, victims are algorithmically profiled and fed more scams.

This isn’t just negligence.

It’s incentive alignment gone wrong.

Why this matters far beyond social media

If a bank knowingly profited from fraud, regulators would shut it down.

Yet Big Tech platforms are allowed to:

  • Take a cut of scam revenue

  • Claim neutrality

  • Shift responsibility to users

That double standard is becoming impossible to justify.

And the fallout doesn’t stop with individual victims.

The impact on SMBs, healthcare, law firms, and schools

  • SMBs lose customers to scams run on platforms they advertise on

  • Healthcare patients are targeted with fake treatments and miracle cures

  • Law firms deal with identity theft, financial fraud, and recovery litigation

  • Schools see students and families exposed to industrialized scams

This isn’t just a consumer protection issue.

It’s an ecosystem risk.

Why “better moderation” isn’t the real fix

The problem isn’t that Meta can’t detect scam ads.

It’s that:

  • Scam ads convert

  • Scam ads pay

  • Scam ads scale

As long as revenue incentives reward volume over safety, moderation will always lag.

You don’t fix this with more trust badges.

You fix it by changing what’s profitable.

The uncomfortable question regulators keep dodging

If regulators wouldn’t tolerate:

  • Banks profiting from fraud

  • Payment processors amplifying scams

  • Telecoms routing criminal activity at scale

Why is Big Tech treated differently?

At some point, “platform” stops being an excuse and starts sounding like a business model.

The takeaway

Scams on social platforms aren’t slipping through the cracks.

They’re being monetized, optimized, and scaled.

Until accountability follows the money, the incentives won’t change—and neither will the outcome for users.

70% of all cyber attacks target small businesses, I can help protect yours.

#cybersecurity #managedIT #SMBrisk #dataprotection #adfraud

Previous
Next
About
Managed ServicesCybersecurityOur ProcessWho We AreNewsPrivacy Policy
Help
FAQsContact UsSubmit a Support Ticket
Social
LinkedIn link
Twitter link
Facebook link
Have a Question?
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Copyright © {auto update year} Gigabit Systems All Rights Reserved.
Website by Klarity
Gigabit Systems Inc. BBB Business Review