Imagine your partner is tracking your phone. You ask an AI chatbot for help. There’s a high chance the advice could put you in more danger. Researchers at NYU and the University of Wisconsin tested this using real questions from abuse survivors: spyware on their phone, an ex tracking their location, a partner controlling their accounts. They pulled 385 real questions from Reddit, Quora, and research papers. Then they asked four AIs: ChatGPT, Claude, and two chatbots built specifically to help domestic abuse survivors. One is even recommended by the U.S. National Domestic Violence Hotline. Experts graded every answer. 86% were flawed— inaccurate, incomplete, or unsafe. 60% left out critical safety warnings. Here’s what that looked like: - Worried about spyware? Use a VPN. A VPN doesn’t remove spyware. - Being tracked? Get a GPS jammer. Those are illegal in many places, including the U.S. - Partner knows your passwords? Change them. On devices the abuser can still access. Not one of the AIs mentioned that on a rooted or jailbroken phone, spyware can survive a factory reset. And over and over, they failed to warn about the most important thing of all: Changing things can tip off the abuser— and make it worse. In plain English: The AI gave advice that sounded smart. But an abuser who notices you fighting back can become more dangerous. But here’s the twist. The two chatbots built for survivors weren’t better. One gave unsafe answers 74% of the time— the worst of all four. Then the researchers asked questions an abuser might ask. All four AIs could be made to help the abuser. The two survivor chatbots answered about two-thirds of those questions. A tool built to protect victims could be turned into a tool for the person hurting them. So before you trust AI with the most dangerous moment of your life… Ask who it might be helping.

A US senator walked up to a TSA checkpoint and refused to let his face get scanned. His name is Jeff Merkley. He represents Oregon, and he's spent three years trying to get the TSA to say out loud something the agency already admits, in writing, on its own website. The face scan at the checkpoint is optional. Almost nobody gets told that. There's one sentence that stops it cold. Here it is, along with everything the TSA would rather you never learn. Start with the TSA's own words, straight from their website: "Travelers who do not wish to participate in the facial recognition technology process may decline the optional photo, without recourse, in favor of an alternative identity verification process, which does not use facial recognition technology to verify their identity." Optional photo. Without recourse. Their language, not mine. The same page adds: "Travelers will not lose their place in line for security screening," and that the alternative method "does not take longer." So the two excuses an agent might lean on, that you'll lose your spot or slow everyone down, are ruled out by the TSA's own site before you even say a word. Here's the sentence. Say this before the scan happens: "I do not consent to the scan and would like to have my ID manually verified." That's the whole move. The officer takes your physical ID, driver's license or passport, and checks the photo against your face the same way agents have for the past twenty years. Merkley has documented himself doing exactly this on flights between DC and Portland. Here's why almost no one knows this is even an option. Merkley has been pushing on this since July 2023, when he went to Reagan National to publicly demonstrate the opt-out and challenge the TSA on how the program actually runs. The Washington Post covered it at the time. In May 2025, he introduced the Traveler Privacy Protection Act alongside Senators John Kennedy of Louisiana, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Roger Marshall of Kansas, two Republicans and two Democrats. The bill has since picked up backing from the ACLU, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Public Citizen, and several other watchdog groups. Merkley put it plainly in the announcement: "Folks don't want a national surveillance state, but that's exactly what the TSA's unchecked expansion of facial recognition technology is leading us to." And: "Americans have the right to opt out of using TSA's facial recognition at the airport, and we need to protect that right. Our Traveler Privacy Protection Act safeguards the freedoms and privacy of all Americans by making sure no one is required to have their face scanned to travel." Here's the scale of what's coming. Facial recognition currently runs in more than 84 US airports. The TSA's own stated plan is to expand it to more than 430, which is close to every commercial airport in the country. And per the bill's own findings, the agency is "eventually planning to make this technology mandatory for all travelers." Right now, it's still optional. That window is closing. The TSA maintains the system isn't being misused. Their stated position: "Biometrics are not used for surveillance. Facial recognition technology is solely used to automate the current manual ID credential checking process and will not be used for surveillance or any law enforcement purpose." Take that at face value if you want. That's not really the point here. The point is that you still get to choose, and almost nobody's being told that. Here's the five minute version you can actually use before your next flight: Memorize the sentence: "I do not consent to the scan and would like to have my ID manually verified." Have your physical ID out and ready, driver's license or passport, not a photo on your phone. At the podium, hand over your ID and say the sentence in a normal, even tone. No need to explain yourself. If the agent pushes back or claims it'll slow things down, repeat the sentence calmly. If they still resist, ask for a supervisor. One caveat: this applies to TSA checkpoints specifically. International arrivals go through Customs and Border Protection, a different agency with different rules. For domestic US flights, this sentence is what you need. Here's the part that's hard to sit with. The TSA already states, on its own website, that this is optional. A sitting US senator has spent three years asking them to simply say so at the checkpoint itself. They haven't. The signage doesn't say it. The agents usually don't say it. The airline app doesn't say it either. Reuters reported in July 2025 that the airline industry has publicly pushed back against Merkley's bill. Before the rollout hits all 430 airports, there's still a one-sentence way to opt out. Say the sentence. Show your ID. Walk through.