EU Forces Google to Open Android Microphone, Camera and Screen Access for Rival AI Assistants
The European Union has directed Google to grant competing AI assistants equivalent access to sensitive Android resources, including the microphone, camera, and screen content. The decision aims to ensure that third-party services receive the same capabilities currently available to Gemini.
The measures encompass eleven core system functions such as voice-command activation, home-button invocation, background execution, and direct access to on-device AI models. Alternative assistants will be able to use these resources without being set as the default service.
Environmental data access will provide real-time streams from the microphone, camera, screen, and speakers. All releases must follow the same consent and notification standards that apply to Google’s own services.
AI tools will also be permitted to interact with other applications, send messages, schedule appointments, adjust device settings, and execute multi-step tasks. Screen automation will enable assistants to open applications inside a virtual window and simulate taps and typing while the user continues other activities.
The majority of these changes are required to ship in Android 18 by 1 August 2027. Simultaneous activation of multiple assistants via voice keywords will be implemented in Android 19, with a final deadline of 1 August 2028.
Every function will remain subject to explicit user authorization. For particularly sensitive operations such as screen automation, system integration, and centralized app-data queries, Google may impose objective security and certification requirements.
Related articles
Costly Mistakes: How Russian Businesses Risk Millions in Fines for Personal Data Violations
A year after stricter Russian personal data protection fines took effect, many entrepreneurs continue to commit violations that could trigger multimillion-ruble penalties from Roskomnadzor. The article details ten common breaches, including the prohibited use of Google Forms for data collection, missing cookie banners, absent or invalid consent forms under forms, and failure to obtain separate consents for publishing reviews. Additional violations cover missing privacy policies, outdated notifications to Roskomnadzor, improper transfer of employee data to third parties without written consent, lack of data processing agreements, and absence of records for paper-based data storage locations. Each violation is explained with direct references to the Law on Personal Data, the Code of Administrative Offenses, and specific government orders, along with exact fine ranges for citizens, individual entrepreneurs, and legal entities. Practical remediation steps are provided, such as replacing foreign services with Yandex Forms, drafting compliant consent texts per Article 9, and submitting updated notifications under Order No. 180. The guidance emphasizes conducting a full site audit and implementing all required documents to avoid penalties throughout 2026.
Rethinking SSO: Centralized User Data Provision and Authorization Processing in Corporate Systems
The article examines Single Sign-On systems not merely as authentication gateways but as architectural hubs for delivering user attributes and executing additional authorization logic. It highlights how SSO can aggregate data from sources like Active Directory, HR systems, and IDM platforms, then deliver it via OIDC claims to downstream applications. The discussion covers the shift from fragmented integrations across dozens of apps to a single trusted enforcement point using standards such as aggregated and distributed claims. It also explores the authorization pipeline where SSO acts as a Policy Enforcement Point querying external Policy Decision Points via the AuthZEN Authorization API 1.0. Practical examples include electronic business cards, role assignment, access routing, and mandatory MFA checks before token issuance. The piece stresses maintaining data ownership with source systems while establishing SSO as the single point of trust for applications.
Bitrix24 Releases Fully On-Premise BI Constructor for Regulated Enterprises
Bitrix24 has introduced a new delivery model for its BI Constructor that allows complete deployment inside a customer's own infrastructure. The update eliminates any requirement for external servers, cloud APIs, or internet connectivity, ensuring that all corporate data remains within the organization's closed perimeter. Previously, even the boxed version of the platform needed access to external infrastructure for updates and auxiliary services, creating conflicts with internal security policies and regulatory demands in highly regulated sectors. The new on-premise variant performs all data processing and storage exclusively on customer servers, giving organizations full control over access rights, backups, updates, and integration with internal protection tools. The solution is compatible with the boxed edition of Bitrix24 running on PostgreSQL and does not connect to external CDNs or cloud services. Bitrix24 expects strong interest from large enterprises and organizations handling restricted-access data that must stay inside the corporate network. Pilot implementations have already been completed, with broader customer pilots planned in the coming months.
Russia's Data Leak Penalties: 2.6 Million Rubles in Fines Despite 1.58 Billion Records Exposed in 2025
Russia introduced turnover-based fines for personal data leaks through Federal Law 420-FZ in late 2024, fundamentally altering the economics of information security investments. Over the first 18 months, Roskomnadzor opened 52 administrative investigations and issued 40 protocols totaling just 2.6 million rubles in penalties, with zero turnover fines applied. This occurred against a backdrop of 1.58 billion compromised records in 2025 alone. Public data leaks dropped fourfold in the first half of 2026, yet trading activity on underground forums rose nearly 60 percent as operators shifted to private sales. The law now ties penalties directly to the number of affected individuals and adds a turnover component for repeat violations under Article 13.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Analysts note that the mere threat of larger fines has prompted companies to reassess data retention policies and risk models even without actual enforcement precedents.