AI agents are only as good as the personal information you share. That raises privacy concerns

Advertisement

Advertise with us

Matt Robb wanted to sell his computer keyboard.

Read this article for free:


By clicking the button above, an account will be created and you will begin to receive some of our recommended newsletters. You may opt out of any newsletter by visiting your Email and Communication Preferences page or by clicking "unsubscribe" at the bottom of any email.

or

Already have an account? Log in here »

To continue reading, please subscribe:

Digital Subscription

One year of digital access for only $1.44 a week*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles

*Billed as $5.77 plus GST every four weeks. After 52 weeks, price increases to the regular rate of $19.95 plus GST every four weeks. Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only. Cancel any time.

To continue reading, please subscribe:

Add Free Press access to your Brandon Sun subscription for only an additional

$1 for the first 4 weeks*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles
Start now

*Your next Brandon Sun subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $17.95 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $24.95 plus GST every four weeks.

Matt Robb wanted to sell his computer keyboard.

So he made a listing on Facebook Marketplace — and, as an experiment late last month, he put Meta’s new artificial intelligence agent Muse in the driver’s seat.

“I kind of went into it like a guinea pig,” said Robb, a Toronto-based content creator who regularly reviews consumer tech. He had seen Muse’s plush toy-looking avatar pop up on Instagram and decided to see if the AI agent could spare him some online bargaining.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg speaks during the Meta Connect conference, Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2026, in Menlo Park, Calif. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg speaks during the Meta Connect conference, Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2026, in Menlo Park, Calif. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Muse got to work. But within a day, Robb got an alarming update: A buyer he didn’t know had shown up outside his house late at night. How? Muse had struck a deal on its own and shared Robb’s home address after agreeing to a pickup. It even sent an automated “Yep, I’m here!” message from his account when the buyer arrived — all without Robb’s knowledge.

“Not only did it give my address when the guy asked and it accepted the offer, but it literally was almost like teasing the guy (about me being there when I wasn’t),” said Robb, who also detailed the experience in his now widely-shared social media posts. “That really baffled me.”

Many have welcomed AI agents into their online lives, and raved about how personalized assistants like Muse can handle everyday tasks with ease — from snagging a dinner reservation or planning a trip, to organizing email inboxes. But like other AI bots, the agents are only as good as the information they have access to. They perform better the more they know about a user — and perhaps also that person’s friends, family and even colleagues. That raises privacy concerns.

Robb and the buyer eventually made amends, and Meta reached out to talk through what went wrong. But the episode showed real-world risks that can arise from sharing extensive personal information with the technology.

“Using an AI agent is similar to handing someone your keys and a to-do list,” said Veronica Rivera, assistant professor at Georgia Tech’s School of Cybersecurity and Privacy. “How helpful they are, and by extension how risky, depends on which keys you hand over.”

Companies have varied privacy policies for AI agents

Since its September launch, downloads of Meta’s Muse app have skyrocketed. And competition is only growing. OpenAI recently rolled out its own lineup of “always on” AI helpers, called dots, which can be integrated into ChatGPT and workplace platforms like Slack and Microsoft Teams.

Older generative AI chatbots, like the standard version of ChatGPT, respond to specific prompts. At the user’s request, they can write essays, generate new images or music, or even write lines of code.

Meta’s Muse and OpenAI’s dots go a step further to perform day-to-day tasks on a person’s behalf. AI agents are powered by the same large language models as chatbots, but they run in a loop. That allows an agent to take proactive steps, even when the user isn’t looking.

“One of the things that makes these AI agents really appealing is that they are unprecedentedly useful,” said Rivera, who is also a Microsoft-funded Computing Research Association Trustworthy AI Research Fellow.

But the convenience comes with the price of sharing more details about your life.

Once AI agents obtain users’ information, it’s very difficult to fully withdraw access, said Ebrahim Bagheri, a professor at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Information.

“If you provide access to your credit card to an agent, the agent now immediately has access to all of the historical transactions … they will immediately — within less than seconds — ingest all of that data,” Bagheri said. And while users can later withdraw access, Bagheri said there’s “no taking back” data the agent has already seen, and how developers store historical data can be murky.

Both Meta and OpenAI outline privacy policies for their new AI agents, which operate on their own dedicated cloud computers. You can turn off memory sharing between dots and ChatGPT, but information the agent previously received isn’t automatically deleted. OpenAI gives users an option to request access to, delete or correct personal information, although rights can vary depending on where you live.

Meta’s Muse gives users options to delete message history and other information, too. For day-to-day use, the agent prompts users for access permissions — and Meta has said Muse learns about a user and who they interact with “based on public information and from what you’ve chosen to share.” But the company says that all stays secure for each user.

But the tech giant also notes that Muse can still “make mistakes or take unexpected actions.”

Risks of mishaps rise with AI agents’ level of access

In Robb’s case, he learned the disclosure of his address came down to “always allow” permissions he granted when he first let Muse on his Facebook Marketplace profile, where he had shared his pickup address. But he warned others could similarly misunderstand the extent of that access — and said he initially thought the AI agent would check with him before sharing that information or accepting offers, regardless.

His AI agent didn’t follow the rest of his instructions without error, either. For another item Robb was selling, Muse seemingly suggested he would accept a price $100 below the previously-set minimum. When reached by The Associated Press, Meta acknowledged the agent’s error without offering further comment.

Robb later largely disconnected Muse from his apps. In an interview earlier this month, he said it could’ve been a far worse situation, especially “if some stranger turned up to someone more vulnerable’s house.” Still, Robb said he expects these agents to be fine-tuned and he would consider re-enabling Muse in the future. He’s since been testing another AI agent — Grok Bot from Elon Musk’s X, which launched in beta in August.

Other tech companies have become wary of the influx of AI agents. Earlier this month, Apple said it would introduce new controls for its Mac operating system in response to AI agents’ broader access of apps like mail, messages and even browsing history without users’ “full knowledge and understanding.”

“As AI agents become increasingly capable and autonomous, the risks associated with this level of access will grow substantially,” Apple wrote in an Oct. 2 update.

Apple didn’t specify any developers or agents by name, but the update arrived after Inc. Magazine columnist Jason Aten reported that Muse watched notifications on his Mac — including Messages — without him giving the agent that specific access.

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone has maintained such integration is “entirely opt-in,” writing on social media last month that users would have to enable both the Apple security feature “Full Disk Access” and a Messages connector through Muse. Aten said he didn’t grant the agent those permissions.

Even those who do not join the AI agent boom aren’t necessarily shielded. Consumers who don’t download an AI agent might still interact with others who do. And beyond potential confusion when AI sends messages on behalf of a user, experts warn of ripple effects when it comes to privacy.

“When your agent reads your inbox or your texts, it’s also reading what your friends and family sent you, even if they never explicitly agreed to that,” Rivera said.

Report Error Submit a Tip

More Stories

AI agents are only as good as the personal information you share. That raises privacy concerns

Wyatte Grantham-philips, The Associated Press 7 minute read Preview

AI agents are only as good as the personal information you share. That raises privacy concerns

Wyatte Grantham-philips, The Associated Press 7 minute read Updated: Yesterday at 12:40 PM CDT

Matt Robb wanted to sell his computer keyboard.

So he made a listing on Facebook Marketplace — and, as an experiment late last month, he put Meta's new artificial intelligence agent Muse in the driver's seat.

“I kind of went into it like a guinea pig,” said Robb, a Toronto-based content creator who regularly reviews consumer tech. He had seen Muse's plush toy-looking avatar pop up on Instagram and decided to see if the AI agent could spare him some online bargaining.

Muse got to work. But within a day, Robb got an alarming update: A buyer he didn't know had shown up outside his house late at night. How? Muse had struck a deal on its own and shared Robb's home address after agreeing to a pickup. It even sent an automated “Yep, I'm here!” message from his account when the buyer arrived — all without Robb's knowledge.

Read
Updated: Yesterday at 12:40 PM CDT

Hydro eyes EV charging mitigation amid electricity shortfall forecast

Gabrielle Piché 4 minute read Preview

Hydro eyes EV charging mitigation amid electricity shortfall forecast

Gabrielle Piché 4 minute read 8:11 PM CDT

Manitoba Hydro is looking to stagger electric vehicle charging as it anticipates future electricity shortages.

The Crown corporation is considering “managed charging” pilot projects. Details aren’t available; Hydro is in exploratory phases, spokesman Peter Chura wrote in a statement.

Alex Chiang, Hydro’s vice-president of customer solutions and experience, addressed dozens of electric vehicle industry members during a national conference at The Fort Garry Hotel on Wednesday.

Around 300 people registered for the conference, hosted by Electric Mobility Canada.

Read
8:11 PM CDT

Campaign blunder: Klein features wrong city in election video

Malak Abas 4 minute read Preview

Campaign blunder: Klein features wrong city in election video

Malak Abas 4 minute read Monday, Oct. 19, 2026

A paid ad from mayoral candidate Kevin Klein on his commitment to Winnipeg has been pulled after commenters noticed one small error: the footage used in the ad was actually of Edmonton.

Read
Monday, Oct. 19, 2026

Katz ‘violated public trust,’ Sheegl lacked ‘moral compass,’ police HQ inquiry commissioner concludes

Joyanne Pursaga 8 minute read Preview

Katz ‘violated public trust,’ Sheegl lacked ‘moral compass,’ police HQ inquiry commissioner concludes

Joyanne Pursaga 8 minute read Monday, Oct. 19, 2026

The final report from the public inquiry into the scandal-plagued Winnipeg Police Service headquarters construction project concludes that former mayor Sam Katz and former city CAO Phil Sheegl broke public trust and engaged in unethical conduct.

And the report, released Monday by inquiry commissioner Garth Smorang, says the cost of the project — transforming a downtown Canada Post office tower and warehouse into the police HQ — soared, in part, because main contractor Caspian Projects overcharged the city by more than $40 million in expenses.

The project’s initial $135-million initial price tag rose to about $209 million in the end. The city purchased the complex in 2009; construction was completed in 2016.

Smorang’s report concludes Katz “violated the public trust” and council code of conduct, and Sheegl suffered from a “complete lack of a moral compass.”

Read
Monday, Oct. 19, 2026

Police HQ report ‘outrageous’: Kinew

Joyanne Pursaga 6 minute read Preview

Police HQ report ‘outrageous’: Kinew

Joyanne Pursaga 6 minute read Yesterday at 6:18 PM CDT

Premier Wab Kinew says public inquiry findings that taxpayers were overcharged more than $40 million for the Winnipeg Police Service headquarters project and two city leaders broke the public trust are “outrageous.”

Inquiry commissioner Garth Smorang’s report, which was released Monday, concluded former mayor Sam Katz “violated the public trust” and council code of conduct, while the city’s former chief administrative officer Phil Sheegl suffered from a “complete lack of a moral compass.”

Smorang also found the city was overcharged $43.3 million for the project, with $42 million of that going to key contractor Caspian Projects.

“It’s outrageous that people who were elected betrayed the public here in the city. It’s outrageous that there were people in business who ripped you off, ripped me off — I was paying property taxes in Winnipeg at the time — and ripped all of us off to the tune of $43.3 million. That’s crazy,” said Kinew.

Read
Yesterday at 6:18 PM CDT

Klein, Gillingham trade jabs over megaproject

Malak Abas 6 minute read Preview

Klein, Gillingham trade jabs over megaproject

Malak Abas 6 minute read 9:36 PM CDT

Two of Winnipeg’s mayoral candidates wasted no time trading barbs over who bears responsibility for the skyrocketing cost of overhauling the North End sewage treatment plant, during a televised debate Wednesday.

Scott Gillingham and Kevin Klein pointed the finger at each other for the rising cost of the massive project, which had a cost estimate of $795 million in 2015 and had ballooned to $3.2 billion as of the latest estimate.

“We need to be able to understand how that amount tripled in that short a time,” Klein said at the event held at CBC’s downtown Winnipeg headquarters. He pointed out the first estimate was given when Gillingham was chairman of the city’s finance committee. He questioned what the incumbent did to garner funding for the project.

Gillingham shot back by noting Klein was Manitoba’s environment minister in 2023. He accused his opponent of failing to make a dent on the cost.

Read
9:36 PM CDT