Wow. Ok. First, I am very late in posting this episode's show notes. I'm sorry.

I mentioned on Tuesday that ICE is looking to set up a mini-processing/detention center within ten minutes of where my parents live. Since then, other local activists and I have been actively discussing a gathering at the Town of Chester and Village of Chester meetings this week to stop ICE from setting this up.

I had the best of intentions to get these show notes live this morning before my phone blew up. (Not literally. Despite being liberal, I assure you I'm no terrorist.)

We'll likely discuss this situation in upcoming editions of Privacy Tips. If you want to learn more, don't worry; I'll share what is appropriate soon. My hope is that it will be useful to others looking to organize and be active this year in the movement of peaceful, nonviolent resistance against fascism—not just in America, but all over the world.

That said, this week's episode and next week's are important in that regard. This week, we go right into our interview with Samuel Levine, former FTC director for the Bureau of Consumer Protection. Sam is here to help show listeners what a functional arm of the federal government looks like compared to what we have now. He also explains the numerous ways in which the federal government has helped Americans protect their privacy and wallets from things like surveillance pricing and bad-faith data brokers.

Next week, we'll feature a discussion with the Stop Gen AI group because of their work in providing mutual aid and assistance to those displaced by the use of generative AI in the workforce. Both interviews are the reason we brought Stupid Sexy Privacy back. We felt many people didn't really know or appreciate just what the federal government and its employees do for them. And given the increasing talk of some kind of general strike in the United States (May 1, 2028), we wanted to help reacquaint a new generation with the concept of mutual aid and other support organizations, which would be required to pull off a general strike.

There's a lot to look forward to here at Stupid Sexy Privacy. I hope you'll join us. Again, please pardon the late posting. I can't promise it won't happen again, but I'll do my best.

-BJ

You can follow me on BlueSky here.

Show Notes

Stupid Sexy Privacy Show Notes For Season 1, Episode 20

Episode Title: It's The End of the FTC As We Know It, and Nobody Feels Fine

Guest: Samuel Levine, former FTC Director for the Bureau of Consumer Protection

Episode Summary: This week, investigative journalist and co-producer of Stupid Sexy Privacy, interviews Samuel Levine. Mr. Levine served as Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, and was just appointed to run New York City's Consumer Protection Agency. BJ asks Mr. Levine what a functional Federal Trade Commission is supposed to do, compared to what we have right now.

Highlights From Our Interview with Samuel Levine

-What a functional federal government, such as the FTC, is supposed to do under normal circumstances.

-How Surveillance Pricing is impacting your wallet, right now

-Is the FTC as we know it over? Probably!

-Who's protecting teenagers from AI Chatbots? Not Big Tech.

Resources (NO Affiliate Links. This is what we use ourselves.)

Our Sponsor: DuckDuckGo <--Our Recommended Browser and VPN

Get Your Privacy Notebook: Get your Leuchtturm1917 notebook here.

-BitWarden.com (Password Manager: easier to use, costs money)

- KeepPassXC (Password Manager: free, harder to use, but more secure)

-Slnt Privacy Stickers for Phones and Laptops

-Slnt Faraday bag for your Stranger Danger phone.

-Mic-Lock Microphone Blockers

-Mic-Lock Camera Finder Pro

-BitDefender (best anti-virus for most people across most devices)

-Stop using SMS and WhatsApp, start using Signal.

-Use Element instead of Slack for group coordination

--Use cash whenever possible. If you have to buy something online, try to use Privacy.com to shield your actual credit or debit card when making purchases online.

Get In Touch: You can contact us here

Want the full transcript for this week's episode?

Easy. All you gotta do is sign-up for our free newsletter. If you do, you'll also get a .mp3 and .pdf of our new book, "How to Protect Yourself From Fascists & Weirdos" as soon as it's ready.

Stupid Sexy Privacy Season 1, Episode 20

DuckDuckGo Commercial #2 (Knock Knock)

Announcer: Hey, here's a joke. Knock knock.

Announcer 2: It's Google Chrome, and I don't need to ask who's there. I already know it's you. I know your search history, your email address, location, device settings, even your financial and medical data.

Announcer: Wow, that's not funny. Now I'm definitely switching to DuckDuckGo.

Announcer 2: That's smart. If you use Google Search or Chrome, your personal information is probably exposed. And that's no laughing matter. The free DuckDuckGo browser protects your personal information from hackers, scammers, and data-hungry companies.

DuckDuckGo has a search engine built in, but unlike Google, it never tracks your searches. And you can browse like on Chrome, but it blocks most cookies and ads that follow you around.

DuckDuckGo is built for data protection, not data collection. That's why it's used by millions to search and browse online. Don't wait. Download the free DuckDuckGo browser today. Visit DuckDuckGo.com or wherever you get your apps.

Stupid Sexy Privacy Intro

Rosie: Welcome to another edition of Stupid Sexy Privacy. 

Andrew: A podcast miniseries sponsored by our friends at DuckDuckGo. 

Rosie: I’m your host, Rosie Tran. 

You may have seen me on Rosie Tran Presents, which is now available on Amazon Prime.

Andrew: And I’m your co-producer, Andrew VanVoorhis. With us, as always, is Bonzo the Snow Monkey.

Bonzo: Monkey sound!

Rosie: I’m pretty sure that’s not what a Japanese Macaque sounds like.

Andrew: Oh it’s not. Not even close.

Rosie: Let’s hope there aren’t any zooologists listening.

Bonzo: Monkey Sound!

Rosie: Ok. I’m ALSO pretty sure that’s not what a Snow Monkey sounds like.

*Clear hers throat*

Rosie: Over the course of this miniseries, we’re going to offer you short, actionable tips to protect your data, your privacy, and yourself from fascists and weirdos.

These tips were sourced by our fearless leader — he really hates when we call him that — BJ Mendelson. 

Episodes 1 through 31 were written a couple of years ago. 

But since a lot of that advice is still relevant, we thought it would be worth sharing again for those who missed it.

Andrew: And if you have heard these episodes before, you should know we’ve gone back and updated a bunch of them.

Even adding some brand new interviews and privacy tips along the way.

Rosie: That’s right. So before we get into today’s episode, make sure you visit StupidSexyPrivacy.com and subscribe to our newsletter.

Andrew: This way you can get updates on the show, and be the first to know when new episodes are released in 2026.

Rosie: And if you sign-up for the newsletter, you’ll also get a free pdf and mp3 copy of BJ and Amanda King’s new book, “How to Protect Yourself From Fascists & Weirdos.” All you have to do is visit StupidSexyPrivacy.com

Andrew: StupidSexyPrivacy.com

Rosie: That’s what I just said. StupidSexyPrivacy.com.

Andrew: I know, but repetition is the key to success. You know what else is?

Rosie: What?

Bonzo: Another, different, monkey sound!

Rosie: I’m really glad this show isn’t on YouTube, because they’d pull it down like, immediately.

Andrew: I know. Google sucks.

Rosie: And on that note, let’s get to today’s privacy tip!

Our Interview With Sam Levine, New York City's Commissioner of the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection

Rosie Tran: This week, we have a very special guest, Sam A. Levine, the former director of the Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection. Mr. Levine was just appointed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to serve as the commissioner of the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. BJ wanted to speak with Mr. Levine to highlight what the Federal Trade Commission is, and what it's supposed to do under a normal functioning government. Take it away, BJ!

BJ Mendelson, Co-Producer at Stupid Sexy Privacy: Sam, would you like to take a moment just to introduce yourself to our audience?

Sam A. Levine, former director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection: Sure. So my name is Sam Levine. I'm a senior fellow at UC Berkeley's Center for Consumer Law and Economic Justice. And from 2021 to 2025, I led the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission.

BJ Mendelson: Let's talk real quick about the FTC, because our position at Stupid Sexy Privacy is, you know, we support our federal employees. Our government agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the FTC. And what we've been trying to convey to people is that what's happening now under the current administration is abnormal; and not at all how any of these agencies should work. So at a high level, I was hoping you could tell us first what the director for the Bureau of Consumer Protection is supposed to do under normal circumstances.

Sam A. Levine: Sure. So the FTC is a small agency with a very broad mission. And it's really to make markets fair. The agency has both antitrust authority to enforce the nation's fair competition laws and it shares that with the DOJ. And it also has consumer protection authority. And the main consumer protection authority is to go after practices that are unfair or deceptive. And that can cover a broad range of practices from privacy abuses, to fraud, to illegal telemarketing, you name it. It's probably within the FTC's jurisdiction.

So what I led is the sort of consumer protection half of that mission, the half of the mission that went after unfair deceptive practices. And one of my key priorities in that role was privacy. As you know, as your listeners surely know, the US does not have a general privacy law nor does it have a general privacy regulator. That role has largely fallen to the FTC true for decades. And one many markets that I looked at when I was director was the market for people's personal information.

BJ: I was hoping we might be able to drill down the hole into some of these different things. So as it relates to protecting the data privacy of consumers and protecting them from bad actors in the tech space, would you be able to highlight, I know there's a lot, but would you be able to highlight some of work the FTC did during your tenure there?

Sam: Sure. I would say the biggest push on privacy during my tenure was to formally reject and try to move away from the notice and choice regime that has governed US privacy policy for at least three decades. This notion that I'm sure your listeners are familiar with, that people can protect their own privacy by reading privacy policies and clicking I agree. It's a ridiculous notion. I thought, and I know Chair Khan, who led the FTC during my time there, believed as well, that it was time for government leaders to call that out and to actually use the tools we had to try to deliver substantive protection for people.

So under my tenure as director, we got the first bans in history on sharing health data for targeted advertising, first bans on using sensitive geolocation data and selling sensitive geolocation data, first bans on selling browser data.

We required a company to shut down its facial recognition system because it was so overrun with errors.

We required companies to stop marketing services to kids and teens when those services were putting kids and teens at risk. The whole theme across our enforcement was moving away from, 'we're just going to tell you all the ways we're going to abuse your data' and moving towards substantive protections. And we took, and we brought cases against some of the biggest companies on the planet, Meta, Amazon. Microsoft, many more. TikTok. And we notched a lot of wins for the American people and for privacy.

BJ: Let me ask about a specific example involving Gravy Analytics, because I think this might have flown under the radar for a lot of people. Can tell us about what that company was doing and what steps the FTC took to intervene?

Sam: Yeah, so Gravy Analytics was a ... is a data broker. And our case against Gravy was part of a whole series of cases we brought against data brokers that we alleged were selling highly precise geolocation data that could reveal consumers visits to health clinics. Could reveal their medical decisions. It could reveal their political activities. It could reveal their religious viewpoints. In addition to selling and sharing this location information, we alleged that Gravy segmented consumers into certain profiles.

So for example, Gravy created a list of Minnesota Christian churchgoers, of Charlotte Christian churchgoers, consumers who use VA offices, etc, etc. And what we alleged was that the sharing was unfair under the FTC Act. And the order we obtained with Gravy actually prohibited the company from selling or sharing sensitive geolocation data and also limited the company's ability to profile people based on the use of sensitive data. And it required the company to ensure that if it was obtaining data, say from an app or from another first party collector to verify that that collector actually obtained people's consent.

The order we obtained against Gravy mirrors orders we got against other companies like X-Mode and Mobile Walla. The FTCs in litigation against another data broker, Kochava, that's still in the courts. But this was part of a broader crackdown on what we saw were serious abuses in the data broker industry. And we think and hope that the case against Gravy and the other cases we brought sent a loud message to that industry.

BJ: Absolutely. And so let's dig a little into that because I think people, one of the things that we've dealt with is ... Even 2025 people are still not aware of how these data brokers can harm them. So I want to ask you about surveillance pricing generally and how it impacts people that would listen to show. So like I said, I think they have a general awareness that people are collecting their data and that might make them pay more. For example, like we have a car insurance company receiving data from a vehicle that was given to them by the car manufacturer. But like a lot of things in the privacy space, definitions vary and I'd like to put this in more concrete terms.

So how would you define surveillance pricing?

Sam: So I define surveillance pricing as companies using people's personal data to charge each person the most they're willing to pay. That's how I would define it. And what I think is in some ways revolutionary about surveillance pricing. There are a lot of things revolutionary about surveillance pricing. But one way to think about it is that people think sometimes of privacy as an abstract concept, but surveillance pricing is where the lack of privacy protections in this country really hit people's wallets.

If a company knows that a consumer, for example, lives in a area where the company has no competitors, or let's say an airline knows that from a consumer's browsing history that they are looking to go to a funeral and absolutely need to buy tickets, that makes it a lot easier for companies to price gouge. To charge consumers the most that they are willing to pay and not a penny less. And the risk there is that those companies that can collect the most data on people will have the biggest window into consumers pain points.

We're already seeing examples of this. Delta on a call with investors recently talked about how it was starting to use AI pricing to estimate how much consumers will pay. One thing the president of Delta said is they might be able to stop matching fares and start charging customers $20 to $40 more per ticket just based on the information they know about each one of their customers. So I really think as much as we all care about privacy for its own sake, and I very much do care about privacy, unsurprisingly, but even for people who might be a little more agnostic about privacy ... I think they should be very concerned about how this is going to hit their wallets.

BJ: Would you think of any other examples that come to mind? I know you had used the term hyper-personalization during a testimony before a Senate committee in July. I know Delta stood out as one, but have you seen other instances like that out in the wild?

Sam: Yes. So another example, which led to some litigation in California, there were allegations that Target, which of course has stores and then also operates apps, that consumers when they were near the store, Target actually raised prices in the apps or online, also that consumers who were near the store would not know that they were paying ... that they could purchase the same products for a lower price online. I think that reveals the ways that companies can exploit information they have about consumers, whether that's their browsing history, their location, their demographics.

Macy's tracks people's ethnic information according to their privacy policy. How companies can use this information to make sure that they're maximizing profits, which is what American businesses, of course, are supposed to do. But for American consumers, this is going to be very costly. And it's why I think it's important that policymakers step in.

Book Ad:

Hey everyone, this is Amanda King, one of the co-hosts of Stupid Sexy Privacy.

These days, I spend most of my time talking to businesses and clients about search engine optimization.  

But  that's not what this is about. 

I wanted to tell you a little bit about a book I've co-authored with BJ Mendelson called How to Protect Yourself from Fascists and Weirdos.  And the title tells you pretty much everything you would want to know about what's in the book.  

And thanks to our friends at DuckDuckGo,  we'll actually be able to give you this book for free  in 2026.

All you need to do  is go to the website stupidsexyprivacy.com  and sign up to our newsletter.  

Again, that website is stupidsexyprivacy.com and then put your name in the box and sign up for our newsletter.  We'll let you know when the  book  and the  audiobook is ready.

If you want a PDF  copy that's DRM free,  it's yours. And if you want  an MP3 of the new audiobook, also DRM free, you could get that too. 

Now, I gotta get outta here before Bonzo corners me because he doesn't think that SEO is real and I don't have the patience to argue with him. I got a book to finish.

Our Interview With Sam Levine Continued.

BJ: I started off the interview talking about how these agencies are supposed to work versus what's happening now. And so, I was hoping you might be able to help us compare and contrast the FTC under Chair Khan and under individuals such as yourself, versus what's happening right now.

Sam: Well, the biggest transformation that's happening to the FTC is in some ways the end of the FTC as we know it. I'm sorry to say.

This agency was formed ... It was created by Congress 110 years ago. So this is long before the new deal. This was during the progressive era.

And the idea was to create an independent agency with a bipartisan commission of experts to shape the laws of fair dealing in this country, shape the laws of unfair methods of competition and later on unfair receptive acts of practices.

The FTC Act says that the president of the United States can fire commissioners only for cause. That provision was challenged in the 1930s and the Supreme Court specifically upheld that provision.

Nevertheless, a few months back, the president fired both Democrats on the FTC.

I don't think there's any question that this is illegal under the FTC Act. You know, they are arguing that the FTC Act is unconstitutional. I won't get into the details of this, but the Supreme Court appears likely to agree with them. But what it means for people and what it means for the agency is that it is no longer a bipartisan commission.

There are three Republicans only on the commission. And you're already seeing how that's shaping and reshaping the agency's priorities. The click to cancel rule that Chair Khan championed over the last four years has been abandoned. They continue to bring cases, but they've given up on the rule. A rule to ban non-compete agreements that would have raised workers' wages substantially has been abandoned. A rule to make auto buying better has been abandoned.

On the privacy front, since I know that's of interest to your listeners, my successor, Chris Mufarrige, gave a speech about two or three weeks ago saying that we went too far on privacy and that notice and choice maybe isn't such a bad thing after all.

So, you know, I really believe if there were Democrats on the commission, some of these changes, they'd be able to call out.

But without Democrats on the commission, the agency's going in a different direction. And I really fear it is not a direction that will be good for privacy and not a direction that would be good for consumers.

BJ: I agree. Is there are there any particular concerns on the privacy front? I mean, I can think of examples with DOGE doing who knows what with the information that's being gathered, and potentially sharing it with companies like Palantir. But are there ... What might stand out to you as a big concern on the privacy front?

Sam: Well, first, I mean, you're absolutely right. The guardrails that were supposed to protect the data the government collects have fallen by the wayside. Now, those guardrails were never enforced by the FTC, but those are supposed to bind every agency and really ensure the data individual agencies collect from consumers remains siloed and protected. Based on all the reporting I've read, DOGE or someone in the administration really has taken a wrecking ball to those protections. So that's a big concern for anyone who's concerned about civil liberties.

But, the FTC's role is really to oversee collection of data by individual companies. And the fact is we just have not seen a lot of enforcement out of the FTC. I think they brought two children's privacy cases, which is good. One of them was against Disney. I think it is good that they're doing that. But in terms of the forward leaning work we did to try to restrict, for example, the sale of sensitive health data, to try to restrict the sale of geolocation data, to try to limit over collection and require data minimization, we really have not seen any moves by this FTC. And if the speech by my successor is any indication, I don't think we will see any moves by this FTC.

And just to give you an idea of what privacy enforcement could look like in contrast to how it looked like under Chair Khan, historically, most of the FTC's privacy enforcement was company says that they're going to do one thing with their data and they do something else instead. And what the FTC requires that the companies tell the truth. In other words, it doesn't, the FTC doesn't tell companies certain data is off limits. It just says, "Do whatever you want, but make sure you're not lying about it." And, you know, that's the heart of notice and choice. I don't think that's a good regime. I really don't. Obviously it's important that companies tell people do what they're doing with their data, but I don't think that's enough. I think there needs to be baseline protections. But my worry is that the FTC is adopting a very hollowed out vision of privacy that's based more on paperwork and check the box consent interfaces than real protections for people's data.

BJ: Let me ask you, I know this gets into the realm of like a hypothetical, but right now there's a lot of concern about chat bots and their impacts on young adults and children. So one concern is that the use or overuse of it could lead to a reduction of cognitive function. And then there's another concern. We've already seen a couple of suicides that parents have alleged have been enabled by the chat model that a teenager would be using.

So again, I know that it's a hypothetical, but like under a functioning FTC, what steps would the agency potentially take into looking into a situation like that?

Sam: Well, it's actually not that hypothetical. One of the things we did at the very end of our tenure, and this is public of course, is we referred a case against Snap related to their AI product and related to their AI chatbot product directed to kids to the Department of Justice.

And you know, I can't get into the details of what that case alleged. But you know, suffice it to say, concerns around AI chatbots and how they could be used to harm and manipulate kids were very much on our mind. And making sure we were using our tools to protect kids was very much on our mind. You know, a good example of this is a case we brought about a year and a half ago when I was at the FTC against an anonymous messaging app, whose features were leading to huge bullying of kids. And they were getting complaints from parents, complaints from kids. And one of the things we alleged was that was an unfair practice. They were using these features in a way that led to all this bullying. And we banned the company from marketing the products to kids and teens.

The FTC has powerful tools at its disposal to try to make sure that AI chatbots don't pose risk to teens. My worry though is that this administration does not want to use them. And I think there are a number of indicators of that. First, the case against Snap that I mentioned has not been filed. I understand reporters have asked the agency what's going on. They've not responded.

Second, the president has issued an executive order and, you know, the chair of the FTC has taken the position that he's bound by these executive orders. Essentially saying that the federal government shouldn't do anything that could stand in the way of AI development and that the FTC in particular should revisit all of its investigations and all of its cases. So I think there's a general chill on the FTC when it comes to bringing any cases related to AI, even if they really are about protecting kids. And have nothing to do with AI development generally.

And the third indicator is that a couple of weeks ago, the FTC announced that it would launch a study of AI chatbots and kids. And look, I'm glad that the FTC is paying attention. A study can be really revealing. We certainly did a number of studies during my tenure. The problem here is that these studies typically take many years.

But the harms that are happening to kids, as you alluded to, they include suicide, include drug use, they, you know, a lot of well-documented harms are happening in the here and now. And the same big tech companies that got a whole generation of kids hooked on social media are now eager to hook people on chatbots, whether that's Meta, whether that's Google, whether that's, you know, Snap, you name it.

So. When the agency is launching a study, my worry is that they're signaling that they won't be doing law enforcement, that instead they're going to be doing research. I think we're past that point. I think they should be doing some law enforcement.

BJ: Yeah, I agree. I mean, that's part of the reason why we brought the show back was the advocate for our agencies and for our federal employees and to actually use the law the way it's supposed to be. So before we wrap up, that's a good segue to... One of the things we're trying to convey to people is that, you know, it will probably take a lifetime to fix all of this. And so we try to lay out ideas and suggestions of things that we can work towards. And so I know you mentioned the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act 2.0. And I was kind of wondering if you could just tell us what it is, intended to do, and assuming that we get a Congress that actually does anything in the future. Is this something that we should be pushing for?

Sam: I think it is something we should be pushing for. One of the rare bipartisan bright spots over the last few years is the introduction of COPPA 2.0. So COPPA, I'm going to oversimplify. I know you have a lot of pros listening. COPPA requires that companies that collect information from kids first get the consent of their parents. They define kids as being under 13.

COPPA 2.0 would raise that age threshold to 17. So kids in the 13 to 16 range would need to get consent, companies would need to get parental consent for those kids before collecting their data. And I think just as significantly, COPPA 2.0 would prohibit targeted advertising for those groups. Now we took a lot of steps during the Biden administration to strengthen COPPA 1.0, which is already the laws on the books. Including making it much easier for parents to avoid targeted advertising. But COPPA 2.0 would go a lot further, especially by protecting teens. And I think it's the right direction to go. I said at the top, I'm not a fan of the notice and consent model. COPPA 2.0 really moves away from noticing consent and says, we're not just going to tell a parent to consent to targeted advertising. We have a lot of concerns about collecting data from kids so that we can serve ads on them. We're just going to prohibit the practice. And I think that makes a lot of sense. And I think it points the way toward how Democrats and Republicans can come together to actually pass substantive privacy protections rather than check the box paperwork requirement.

BJ: Absolutely. so let me ask you, every time I have a guess, on the show such as yourself, there's always a million questions I to already stop recording. So the last thing I always ask everyone is, is there anything on this topic of data security or privacy or just the FTC in general that I didn't ask that you'd like to expand on?

Sam: All I would say is that for those who want to see more action by policymakers and enforcers on the privacy front, I think it's really time to look away from DC and look toward your state capital.

More than a dozen states now have passed comprehensive privacy laws. They're getting stronger. Generally, Maryland passed the strongest one, and it just took effect this week, actually. We're speaking on October 3rd of 2025. I believe it took effect on October 1st.

States also have the same authority the FTC has, for the most part to go after unfair deceptive prejudices. Most states have a Mini FTC Act. But I really believe that some of the most important groundbreaking privacy work we are going to see over the next two or three years will come from the states.

I also think some of the most groundbreaking work we see on AI is going to come from the states. You've already seen State AGs express concern, for example, about some of Meta's practices with respect to sexualizing kids.

You know, there's a reason that Big Tech is pushing so hard in Washington to preempt state laws. I think they know that states today are really on the front lines of protecting the public from privacy abuses and from emerging harms posed by AI. So for all of us who are concerned about these issues, I think we should be grateful that we have state enforcers and state policymakers. And also we should push them to keep going further.

And doing more because there's a real vacuum in Washington. And I think it's really important that states fill that in and protect their citizen.

BJ: We agree. I mean, the big thing for us is going to be pushing for New York state to finally take the privacy act out of mothballs and actually get it passed.

Sam: Yeah, I'm not holding my breath, but I certainly agree.

BJ: I mean, like with anything, you know, like I said before, it'll take a lifetime to fix a lot of stuff from the current regime. But yeah. These things are worth doing.

Sam: I certainly agree.

DDG VPN Live Read Script #3 - General

Rosie: You know, it used to be we would recommend you use a Virtual Private Network, or VPN, only for specific circumstances. 

Like say, if you’re out in public, and you’re using an unfamiliar Wi-Fi network. That’s a great reason to use a VPN.

But these days, we feel a VPN has gone from a nice to have to a must have.

For example, let’s say there’s a fascist out there with a lot of power. 

And that power could be used to force your Internet Service Provider to turn over information about you. 

Like say your download history. 

Or all the websites you visit.

Our goal at Stupid Sexy Privacy is to teach you how to protect yourself from fascists and weirdos.

So, these days, we feel everyone should be using a VPN.

The thing is, the VPN space is really scammy. 

Some of the loudest advertisers have the worst track record when it comes to protecting your data.

That means you could lose money on a company promising you protection, and offering you none. 

Everyone is in a different situation when it comes to protecting their privacy and their anonymity. 

But. 

For most people, in most cases, what they need is a simple VPN solution that just works. 

And they should be able to trust the company providing that service.

That brings us to our friends at DuckDuckGo.

As part of their subscription plan, DuckDuckGo offers a VPN built for speed, security, and simplicity.

It installs right into the DuckDuckGo Browser, and you don’t need to download anything extra.

And unlike a lot of VPN companies out there, DuckDuckGo doesn’t log or store any data that can connect you to your online activity.

You can sign up for the DuckDuckGo subscription via the Settings menu in the DuckDuckGo browser, available on iOS, Android, Mac, and Windows.

Or via the DuckDuckGo subscription website: duckduckgo.com/subscriptions. 

The DuckDuckGo subscription is currently available to residents of the U.S., U.K., E.U., and Canada. Feature availability may vary by region. So, make sure you check the website for further information.

Stupid Sexy Privacy Outro

Rosie: This episode of Stupid Sexy Privacy was recorded in Hollywood, California.

It was written by BJ Mendelson, produced by Andrew VanVoorhis, and hosted by me, Rosie Tran.

And of course, our program is sponsored by our friends at DuckDuckGo.

If you enjoy the show, I hope you’ll take a moment to leave us a review on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you may be listening.

This won’t take more than two minutes of your time, and leaving us a review will help other people find us.

We have a crazy goal of helping five percent of Americans get 1% better at protecting themselves from Fascists and Weirdos.

Your reviews can help us reach that goal, since leaving one makes our show easier to find.

So, please take a moment to leave us a review, and I’ll see you right back here next Thursday at midnight. 

After you watch Rosie Tran Presents on Amazon Prime, right?