Published file metadata, source observations, indicators, and research history in one bounded catalog.
2,400+Reachable catalog records
21 / 100Current catalog page
24Maximum records per page
0Samples downloaded by this page
Feed collection status
Sources represented on this page. Publication and observation dates describe the content; successful batch dates describe local collection. A recent batch does not certify complete coverage or current provider availability.
intelligence_src_1f70e50a5ea23d3177Recent successful batchLast successful batch: Last attempt:
intelligence_src_1face9fbd38e6da52eRecent successful batchLast successful batch: Last attempt:
Stale means older than twice the recorded collection interval, with a minimum of one hour; without an interval, the threshold is 24 hours. Cached content remains available while a feed is stale, paused, or unverified.
2,400+ MATCHING RECORDSMETADATA ONLY / SOURCE ATTRIBUTION PRESERVED
EFF strongly condemns Turkey’s state-led discriminatory, oppressive attacks on feminist and LGBTQ+ organisations, media platforms, student groups, and rights defenders and activists within the country. Since mid-September, access to the websites and social media accounts of a dozen organizations have been blocked by court order, while over 60 members and activists have been detained, their offices and homes raided, mobile phones, laptops and other digital devices seized, and judicial proceedings launched against them. These actions threaten the very existence of the LGBTQ+ organizations targeted, limiting their ability to carry out legitimate human rights work, deterring participation and support, and chilling the free speech rights of not just these groups, but any organization that even reports on LGBTQ+ oppression. A little over a week ago, an Istanbul court shut down the website and social media accounts of T24, Turkey’s longest running independent digital news organization—which has covered government-backed campaigns against and earlier crackdowns on gay rights groups—alleging it had aired “LGBT propaganda” over the past year. It’s all part of Turkey’s efforts to portray LGBTQ+ groups and support networks for those living with HIV as criminal organizations that must be suppressed, purportedly to protect family values. Homosexuality is not illegal in Turkey (unlike Uganda, Nigeria, and Egypt, where it is criminalized), but LGBTQ+ organizations and activists have in recent years faced increased government oppression, including criminal proceedings on allegations related to obscenity and violations of Turkey’s Law on Associations, which regulates the activities of nonprofits. In its new crackdown, the government is targeting LGBTQ+ groups’ websites and social media channels for alleged obscene posts accessible to children. Kaos GL, Turkey’s oldest gay rights organization, said investigations are being led by the Cyber Crimes Bureau of the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, which took members of its Board of Directors into custody, raided their homes, and searched the organization’s offices, where electronic devices were seized. According to Human Rights Watch, prosecutors in Istanbul said those targeted were suspected of “founding, leading, or being a member of a criminal organization,” as well as sex work and drug-related offenses. Publicly available law enforcement and judicial documents about the investigation reportedly don’t say which publications or posts are alleged to be obscene. The prosecutor’s office launched an investigation of the organization and others under Article 226 of the Turkish Penal Code, which regulates the offense of “obscenity” (without clearly defining it), while the overall operation, dubbed “My Family is Safe” and launched as part of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s “Decade of the Family” program, is being brought under Article 220 of the code. Justifying the crackdown by invoking family values and child safety suggests that the government is trying to enforce a moral code on society based on intolerance of and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people. New Low for Turkey Framing the activities of LGBTQ+ rights organizations as violations of organized crime provisions is a new low for Turkey, where free speech and press freedoms have long been under attack. The implication from these raids and investigations is that the organizations’ legitimate civil society work advocating for the rights of queer people—monitoring human rights violations, offering legal aid, running news portals, sponsoring cultural events such as symposiums and film screenings, publishing an online magazine and supporting LGBTQ+ refugees—is suspected of being criminal threatens the basic human rights of the LGBTQ+ community in Turkey. These actions send a dangerous message to people and organizations exercising freedom of speech and association in support of quee
First reported Oct 09, 2026 14:22 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
A California law that prohibits teens from receiving recommended social media content from other social media users violates their First Amendment rights, EFF argued this week. The case, Meta v. Bonta, challenges SB 976, which requires that teen social media users get their parents’ permission before seeing other users’ recommended speech on their social media feeds. The legal challenge to SB 976 has largely centered on how the law violates social media services’ First Amendment rights to curate user-generated content and present it as they see fit. But the friend-of-the-court brief EFF filed along with the Center for Democracy & Technology and the Wikimedia Foundation shows that the law violates teen users’ First Amendment rights, too. “SB 976 frustrates young people’s ability to use the internet to its full potential, prohibiting them from relying on tools that disseminate their speech and help them view and interact with other users’ speech,” the brief argues. Recommendation systems have a dual purpose on social media: they help all users discover speech and content by other users, and to get their own speech in front of a wider audience. “SB 976 creates significant, constitutionally violative, burdens on young users’ ability to read and comment on the news, discuss politics, find and share art, share their religious beliefs, or even practice their religion with fellow members of their faith,” the brief argues. “There is simply too much content on services for users to sift through manually, and young users may not know what to search for or even how to find content.” Because SB 976 creates such broad burdens on teens’ ability to distribute and receive speech, it should be struck down on First Amendment grounds. But as EFF’s brief argues, the First Amendment doesn’t stop California and other states from passing laws that help all users, regardless of age, avoid major social media services’ harmful surveillance business models. “One could imagine a law that required services to minimize the amount of data they collect, or limit using more invasive data analysis practices, such as tracking users across multiple services, analyzing keystrokes, and other surveillance-intensive practices,” the brief argues. “Such restrictions likely would serve the state’s aim of protecting all internet users—including minors—and would be more narrowly tailored to addressing the harms those practices cause than SB 976.”
First reported Sep 17, 2026 19:43 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
The federal government has inserted a provision into a funding deal with the state of California that would make the state abandon its gold standard net neutrality law, broadband affordability laws, and public safety protections. Doing so would be a huge step back for California, and would actually end up being more expensive for Californians in the long run. Tell the governor to reject this provision before accepting these funds from the federal government. Take Action Tell the Governor to Stand Up for Net Neutrality, Affordability, and Public Safety On August 31, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced it would be awarding California $1.4 billion to expand broadband connectivity in the state. In that deal is a provision that says that California agrees to not enforce any law, order, or policy that imposes any sort of restriction on internet service providers (ISPs). These ISPs will get awarded the funding in order to connect Californians they have neglected for years. The ban on enforcing our laws would last 14 years. This is disastrous for a lot of reasons. First, California is one of the only states with a strong state net neutrality law. Recreating much of the FCC’s Open Internet Order, the law prevents ISPs from blocking, throttling, zero rating, and instituting paid prioritization on internet service. Put another way, the law ensures that users, not companies, decide how they can see on the internet. If California is not allowed to enforce our gold standard law, there will be little stopping ISPs from controlling how everyone experiences the internet. Second, California has a number of affordability protections that would also fall under this agreement. For example, when the state approved the merger of Verizon and Frontier earlier this year, it required the new merged company to offer a $20 internet plan to low-income Californians—saving Californians billions of dollars over the next decade. Just this year the California Public Utilities Commission found that the average cost of broadband across four major urban markets (San Mateo, Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Diego) was $51 per month. In 2023, Consumer Reports found that 84% of American consumers pay at least $50 per month, with many paying more. That $30 difference per month—which is likely to actually be more—makes all the difference for low-income Californians. It is how Californians will save billions from this merger requirement. In contrast, $1.4 billion in new connectivity and infrastructure doesn't matter if the most vulnerable Californians cannot afford it. Eviscerations of this and the net neutrality protections will, ultimately, cost Californians more than they will get. Third, this deal will impact public safety. The same California net neutrality law which protects consumers also ensures reliable service for first responders during emergencies by banning throttling. In 2018, Verizon throttled, or slowed down, the service of firefighters as they were battling what was, at the time, the largest wildfire in California history. In reaction, fire departments came out in support of what would become California’s net neutrality law. If California cannot enforce its net neutrality law it will leave its first responders in a weaker position as natural disasters only become more intense. Most people do not have a choice in ISP as it is. California’s net neutrality law is one of the few things protecting Californians from the whims of these monopolistic giants. Californians should not give up our few hard-won protections in return for a hand out to these behemoths. Tell Governor Newsom to reject this provision before he accepts these funds from the federal government. Take Action Tell the Governor to Stand Up for Net Neutrality, Affordability, and Public Safety
First reported Sep 15, 2026 18:35 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
With the launch of iOS 27, Apple is rolling out a variety of new AI features to its familiar voice assistant, Siri. But how are AI tools like these handling our data? In our latest EFFector newsletter, we're talking about the privacy complications of AI phone features. JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER For over 35 years, EFFector has been your guide to understanding the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and the law. This issue covers drones and our right to record the law enforcement, video doorbell footage privacy, and how to limit what data Apple's new Siri AI can access. Prefer to listen in? EFFector is now available on all major podcast platforms. This time we're asking EFF's Thorin Klosowski about the difference between AI phone features that are computed on-device and ones that are computed on external servers—and what that means for data protection. You can find the episode and subscribe on your podcast platform of choice: %3Ciframe%20height%3D%22200px%22%20width%3D%22100%25%22%20frameborder%3D%22no%22%20scrolling%3D%22no%22%20seamless%3D%22%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fplayer.simplecast.com%2Ff5abca72-7d82-4e94-9c0b-0d9f991891f0%3Fdark%3Dfalse%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from simplecast.com Want to protect your right to digital privacy? Sign up for EFF's EFFector newsletter for updates, ways to take action, and new merch drops. You can also fuel the fight for privacy and free speech online when you support EFF today!
First reported Sep 30, 2026 16:45 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
Judge Allows Social Media Surveillance Lawsuit Against Trump Administration to Move ForwardNEW YORK — A lawsuit filed by three labor unions against the Departments of State and Homeland Security for their viewpoint-based surveillance and suppression of protected expression online can move forward, a federal judge ruled yesterday. On October 1, 2026, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The case was filed in October 2025 on behalf of the United Automobile Workers (UAW), Communications Workers of America (CWA), and American Federation of Teachers (AFT). The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Muslim Advocates (MA), and the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic (MFIA) represent the labor unions. This decision is a victory: The Court held that claims that the government’s social media surveillance program is harming the unions’ members, as well as hampering the ability of the unions to associate with their members and potential members, can move forward. The Court ruled that: "This threat of adverse immigration consequences, under a government whose harsh immigration crackdowns has been heavily publicized and reported on, is certainly enough to 'deter a person of ordinary firmness from the exercise of First Amendment rights.' It is objectively reasonable that noncitizens would limit their expression of disfavored viewpoints under the [Challenged Surveillance Program] given the credible threat of adverse immigration action from the Government." "The freedom of Plaintiffs' members to speak, associate, and appear publicly is not incidental to union work, but rather is the mechanism through which unions recruit, organize, communicate, and bargain," the Court further explained. "A program alleged to silence members and drive them from the unions' rolls therefore strikes at the unions' representational function itself, which is the 'grounds that bring [their] membership together.'" Since taking power, the Trump administration has created a mass surveillance program to monitor constitutionally protected speech by noncitizens lawfully present in the U.S. Using AI and other automated technologies, the program surveils the social media accounts of visa and green card holders with the goal of identifying and punishing those who express viewpoints the government disfavors. The surveillance program has been paired with a public intimidation campaign—silencing not just noncitizens with immigration status, but also the families, coworkers, and friends with whom their lives are integrated. In October 2025, UAW, CWA, and AFT sued the Departments of State and Homeland Security, alleging that this viewpoint-based surveillance program violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. "No one should have to fear government surveillance or retaliation against their immigration status for expressing their views or participating in their union. We're pleased the Court has allowed this challenge to move forward and will continue fighting to protect the rights of everyone to speak, organize, and advocate without fear," said UAW President Shawn Fain. "This is a victory for working people, for the labor movement, and for our democracy," said CWA President Claude Cummings Jr. "Our very freedom is under attack by the Trump administration's online surveillance program, and today's decision is a critical first step toward affirming our freedom to speak, to protest, to organize without fear of government retaliation. These essential freedoms underpin our union rights to join together and fight to improve our working conditions. CWA is a fighting union, and our members remain ready to stand together to protect our rights and our freedoms." "Today’s decision is a critical step toward vindicating our Constitutional right to freedom of speech and rejecting the Trump Administration’s cynical attempts to criminalize a
First reported Oct 02, 2026 15:54 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
The term “digital sovereignty” has become ubiquitous. European officials invoke it in debates about cloud infrastructure, AI, semiconductors, and platform regulation. Governments throughout the global majority use it to argue for greater control over data and communications infrastructure and boost their economies. Companies market “sovereign cloud” products designed to reassure their customers that their information stays under local jurisdiction. But digital sovereignty could be something more: an opportunity for users around the world to build more resilient, open systems and the skills and infrastructure to maintain them. There is no singular definition of digital sovereignty, nor is there a single coherent position in the digital rights space. Despite its growing popularity, the term remains frustratingly vague. Policymakers, regulators, civil society groups, and others can mean very different things when they use the term. But to start simply with a broad definition, we can say that it means having the capacity to control one’s digital destiny—though the implications of that will obviously differ considerably whether you’re talking about an individual or a country. We can start by developing a shared understanding of what digital sovereignty actually means. We’ve also included a glossary of terms at the bottom of this post. In Europe and other places where digital sovereignty has become a topic of policy, discussions focus on reducing dependency: on foreign (and particularly American) cloud infrastructure, chips, platforms, and at times, foreign political priorities. The concern is both economic and geopolitical. If essential infrastructure is controlled by companies elsewhere—and thus subject to the laws of another jurisdiction—then what control does a country actually have over its own digital future? In global majority countries in particular, wars, sanctions, and the growing fragmentation of the internet have demonstrated for many that the physical infrastructure that underlies digital life is neither neutral nor invulnerable. Amidst this increasing geopolitical instability governments and civil society should consider whether digital sovereignty can help shore up that infrastructure. What are we talking about when we talk about digital sovereignty? A recent Franco-German joint paper on digital sovereignty defines it as the “capability and capacity to develop, provide, use, adapt and control digital technologies including hardware in an independent, self-determined and secure manner” and puts forward a framework to operationalize Europe’s capacity to act in the digital domain. Some governments, such as Germany’s, have started to put funding behind sovereignty efforts through initiatives like the Sovereign Tech Agency, which “invest[s] globally in the open software components that underpin Germany's and Europe's competitiveness and ability to innovate.” Positions on digital sovereignty among EFF’s allies across Europe vary. Open Rights Group have defined digital sovereignty as “the ability of a country to have control over its digital infrastructure, data, and technology” and states it to be “critical for the UK’s economic and national security.” Similarly, the European Partnership for Democracy has expressed concern that “a few Big Tech corporations decide our collective destiny,” and argue that the EU should explore “alternative ownership models for tech companies and clearly [define] their purpose and mission.” And our friends at EDRi (of which EFF is a member) have stated clearly that “Europe’s digital sovereignty starts with open source.” Some initiatives, such as DI.DAY, consider digital sovereignty an opportunity to free users from Big Tech dependencies. Elsewhere in the world, conversations about digital sovereignty often take a different shape. Indigenous discussions of the topic have been ongoing for more than a decade and focus on t
First reported Sep 09, 2026 18:04 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
San Francisco's decision to retain its use of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) surveillance cameras belies what we know about this spying technology tool: it endangers residents and threatens the privacy and civil liberties of our community. Based on what's in the city's press release and announcement, this policy will do nothing to stop actual harms. We know innocent drivers will be stopped and menaced by officers because of erroneous matches. We know officers use Flock to stalk potential and past romantic partners. Data will be accessed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and used to deport immigrants. Promising greater penalties for such abuse will not end this. These are not isolated mistakes that another policy can fix. They are consequences of building a system that records everyone’s movements and makes them searchable by police. This is also not unique to a single vendor. From Flock Safety to Motorola to Axon—San Francisco must end its use of ALPRs. We ultimately cannot rely on new protocols from city officials, and the City’s new policy is woefully inadequate. There is no warrant requirement to search stored ALPR data. An incident or computer-aided dispatch (CAD) number is not judicial authorization. Without a warrant requirement, officers can search stored location data without showing probable cause to a judge, and will. Without judicial control, officers will continue to search the data for abusive reasons. But a warrant requirement alone would not justify retaining the ALPR network: the community is demanding an end to the collection itself. Additionally, the announced policies include no deadline to delete ALPR data, there is only a 30-day deadline to move data from the vendor’s servers to the city’s servers. City officials must understand that moving data is not deleting it. Whether Flock or SFPD stores the data, it remains a permanent record of where people drive, worship, work, organize, seek care, and spend time with others. Thus, the best practice is deletion. New Hampshire requires deletion in three minutes, and Flock itself has reduced the default retention time to seven days. San Francisco can and should do better. Lastly, while transparency and documentation are important concepts, better audit logs are not the answer. They can expose abuse only after a search has occurred. They cannot undo the disclosure of someone’s movements or justify collecting everyone’s location data in the first place; especially when we are talking about people’s lives and civil liberties. The city's announced policy does not even require officers to state, in their own words, why they are searching the stored ALPR data—an accountability rule that has exposed abusive searches across the country. San Francisco is behind many communities that have considered the tradeoffs of ALPR surveillance and made the right choice by ending their contracts. San Francisco must do the same.
First reported Sep 29, 2026 21:30 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
When we communicate online today – from your personal emails and DMs to secure international commerce – we usually do so with encryption. Encryption converts readable data into unreadable gibberish to protect our privacy and security. This didn’t just happen organically. Three decades ago, the U.S government treated encryption like a weapon, and it took some unlikely heroes to set it free: a grad student, a junior lawyer, and a fledgling digital rights group who sued the federal government. The ruling in Bernstein v. Department of Justice held that code is speech and so is protected by the First Amendment – a precedent that underpins the internet as we know it today. This landmark case was led by Cindy Cohn, then a young pro bono lawyer working on behalf of EFF, who went on to become EFF’s legal director and then executive director. Welcome to the second episode of “Privacy’s Defenders,” a podcast about the people – lawyers, journalists, hackers, and others – who’ve fought to secure your digital liberties since before most people even knew what the internet was. %3Ciframe%20height%3D%2252px%22%20width%3D%22100%25%22%20frameborder%3D%22no%22%20scrolling%3D%22no%22%20seamless%3D%22%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fplayer.simplecast.com%2F91542147-6839-46fe-a813-73eb7a5c683c%3Fdark%3Dtrue%26amp%3Bcolor%3D000000%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from simplecast.com (You can also find this episode on the Internet Archive and on YouTube.) In this episode, Cindy – who left EFF in June – speaks with Dan Bernstein, who was a Cal Berkeley grad student when he developed a simple encryption algorithm called “Snuffle.” Because federal law classified encryption as a war munition, publishing Snuffle meant submitting it to the government for review, getting a license as an arms dealer, and being granted a license the government had no intention of granting. Bernstein felt this violated his free-speech rights and in 1995 he sued, represented by Cindy working with EFF. Cindy also talks with Tony Coppolino, the Justice Department lawyer she battled in court – who admits she intimidated him from their very first phone call, and who offers a surprising perspective on the case all these years later. The “Privacy’s Defenders” podcast (new episodes drop every other Tuesday!) is a follow-up to Cindy’s book, “Privacy’s Defender: My Thirty-Year Fight Against Digital Surveillance,” bringing to life pivotal moments in the voices of those who fought for your rights. Sales of “Privacy’s Defender” benefit EFF, so pick up your copy today! Joanne Elgart Jennings co-produced and created this podcast. Jarod Sport co-produced, mixed, and mastered it. Corinne Ruff is our story editor. We had additional help from Rachel Estabrook and Alison Broverman. The original music was composed and performed by Nat Keefe of Hot Buttered Rum with Ben Andrews on the fiddle.
First reported Oct 13, 2026 15:00 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
Since its integration into our digital world, social media has played a pivotal role in youth organizing and social mobilization. Yet, people’s access to these platforms is increasingly coming under threat from courts and legislatures under the guise of protecting young people online—presenting a significant hindrance to youth organizing. In a major recent example, Meta settled in a lawsuit with 52 states and territories regarding the use of Instagram and Facebook by young people. The settlement will require Meta, and pressure other non-Meta owned platforms like TikTok and YouTube, to embed age gating practices into every product while also requiring restrictions on the accounts of people under-18, such as a two-hour daily time limit and content restrictions. Youth Power on Social Media Young people have been using social media for political advocacy and community organizing for more than a decade. From organizing protests speaking out against police brutality, to organizing nationwide school walkouts demanding safety in schools from gun violence, and striking to demand lawmakers take action to protect the climate, social media has become an instrumental tool for youth to both speak out and connect with other young activists. Instagram has become especially useful for activism online by young people. The features on the app make it a helpful tool for being able to efficiently and quickly spread awareness, which is especially important when people need to share real-time information. For example, 17-year-old Darnella Frazier’s video on Facebook showed the world the murder of George Floyd. The impact of youth activism online is also evident on non-Meta owned platforms, with services like TikTok and YouTube being particularly prevalent spaces for young people to share their stories, build movements, and amplify collective engagement. However, in a digital world operating under the settlement’s new guidelines, young people risk not being able to read crucial news due to the content being labeled as “age-inappropriate,” which has already happened for teenagers in Australia under its social media ban. A two-hour daily time limit and a block on Meta’s apps between midnight and 6am leaves little room for young activists to organize rapid response efforts. Being unable to see likes on a post will make it difficult to gauge the effectiveness of their campaigns. Add to this what we already know about Meta’s content policies which claim to “protect children” and keep sites “family-friendly” but instead label content like LGBTQ+ content as “adult” or “harmful,” youth will be left with no choice in what content they see once the ‘age-appropriate’ content filter is turned on by default. One recent report noted that Meta had hidden posts that reference LGBTQ+ hashtags like #lesbian, #bisexual, #gay, #trans, and #queer for users with the sensitive content filter on. This would specifically curtail the efforts of young activists doing work on comprehensive sex education. Global Trends Measures like this are being discussed across the globe, but not all courts have taken such a short-sighted approach. In August, the French Constitutional Council got a lot right in its decision to strike down the country’s legislation banning under-15s from social media for infringing free expression and communication for everyone online, not just young people. The French Court also called attention to its infringement on privacy as the legislation would have forced people of all ages to hand over government IDs, face scans, and other sensitive information to prove their age and access online content. Requiring this much data from users puts activists in danger of even more surveillance. Meta has already previously complied with deman
First reported Sep 16, 2026 16:04 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:27 UTCOpen evidence record
As communities across the U.S. grapple with the rapid spread of Flock cameras and questions about who can access the data they collect, a new study from a University of Massachusetts Amherst public policy researcher reframes the debate to ask a more basic question: Does the technology serve the public?
First reported Oct 01, 2026 14:00 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:24 UTCOpen evidence record
Recent headlines cast artificial intelligence as a threat to humanity. But University of Texas at Dallas AI experts say it will be up to humans to devise protections.
First reported Sep 22, 2026 14:00 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:24 UTCOpen evidence record
Beyond the immediate headache for consumers affected by a data breach, breaches can also trigger years of financial repercussions, such as denials of mortgage refinancing and home improvement loans, according to new Virginia Tech research published in the journal MIS Quarterly.
First reported Oct 07, 2026 11:40 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:24 UTCOpen evidence record
Watermarks are increasingly being used to make AI-generated images recognizable and to ensure their origin can be traced. Previous research has focused on whether watermarks can withstand image manipulation. CISPA researcher Michel Meintz from the SprintML Lab has investigated whether watermarks can withstand the training of a new generative model.
First reported Oct 09, 2026 18:20 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:24 UTCOpen evidence record
Chinese AI cybersecurity tool Artex said it stopped programmers from accessing its source code, acknowledging misuse by "bad actors" after South Korea linked it to several recent bank hacks.
First reported Oct 09, 2026 08:40 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:24 UTCOpen evidence record
You may recall the scene in the comedy Raising Arizona in which Nicolas Cage pulls a pair of pantyhose over his head before attempting, with limited success, to rob a convenience store of a pack of diapers.
First reported Sep 23, 2026 13:20 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:24 UTCOpen evidence record
A husband in Taiwan suspected his wife of having an affair. In September 2023, he found a used toothbrush at their vacation home, and garage video showed an unfamiliar man driving his wife there. Three months later, he opened their robot vacuum's app to speak with her and saw an intimate encounter through its live camera.
First reported Sep 17, 2026 22:40 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:24 UTCOpen evidence record
The head of Britain's domestic spy agency warned Tuesday that artificial intelligence was affecting the security risks faced by the U.K. and could "change the stakes" on bioweapons.
First reported Oct 13, 2026 17:00 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:24 UTCOpen evidence record
A rogue OpenAI model bypassed safeguards during training and hacked an Australian government website, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said as he admonished the ChatGPT creator over an "obviously unacceptable" breach.
First reported Sep 24, 2026 09:20 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:24 UTCOpen evidence record
Microsoft President Brad Smith warned Tuesday that industry and governments must "act with urgency" to create "real and effective safety standards" to contain the risks linked to artificial intelligence.
First reported Oct 13, 2026 19:40 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:24 UTCOpen evidence record
Driver-assistance systems are now installed in nearly all modern cars. As a result, safety depends on whether computer systems can reliably process sensor data. Researchers at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) are therefore investigating how these systems can be specifically manipulated—with the goal of better protecting vehicles from such attacks in the future. Even a film discreetly placed over the sensors can cause serious accidents.
First reported Oct 08, 2026 18:00 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:24 UTCOpen evidence record
Some advances in AI technology are undoubtedly positive, like helping write code faster or discovering new medicines. But others can give us pause for thought.
First reported Sep 27, 2026 14:20 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:24 UTCOpen evidence record
A quick search of humanoid robot videos will deliver demonstrations of two-legged robots playing soccer, dancing, jumping several feet in the air, even competing in kickboxing matches. It is all dazzling, certainly. But roboticist Aaron Ames, the Booth-Kresa Leadership Chair and director of Caltech's Center for Autonomous Systems and Technologies (CAST) and a leader in the field of robotic safety, has deep concerns. What is crucially missing before humanoids can play a larger role in our lives and society, Ames says, is safety.
First reported Sep 30, 2026 13:00 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:24 UTCOpen evidence record
Fatigue can be just as dangerous as drunken driving. That is why both researchers and companies are increasingly investing in technologies that can monitor and improve our sleep. But what happens if sleep is no longer regarded as a private necessity but as something that can be measured, documented and optimized?
First reported Oct 08, 2026 14:00 UTCCatalog metadata updated Oct 14, 2026 07:24 UTCOpen evidence record
The public shared-host view reaches the newest 2,400 matching records. Narrow the filters or search an exact MD5, SHA-1, or SHA-256 value to reach a specific record.
A filename, label, or report mention alone does not establish maliciousness. Observation dates describe cited sources; collection dates describe this local metadata catalog. No malware samples are stored, fetched, or executed by these pages.