Revelations that the cellphone of a top opposition politician was tapped have shaken the government and stoked concerns over just how widespread such surveillance is.
Democrats should reclaim the cause of civil liberties as Republicans move to restrict them.
Beijing’s swift move to censor news about one of the largest known data breaches shows keen awareness of how major security lapses can harm its credibility.
The sheer amount of tech tools and knowledge required to discreetly seek an abortion underlines how wide open we are to surveillance.
The breach is “a big black eye” for the Chinese security apparatus, one expert says, exposing the risk of the state’s vast effort to amass citizens’ personal data.
For about $200,000, an unidentified person or group is offering what is described as data on a billion Chinese citizens. A sampling seemed to show the data to be genuine.
A Times investigation analyzing over 100,000 government bidding documents found that China’s ambition to collect digital and biological data from its citizens is more expansive and invasive than previously known.
Conservative writer Charles C.W. Cooke and Times Opinion editor at large Alex Kingsbury on three frequently cited policies.
Will we rise up to face the rising tide of violence?
Nations are accelerating efforts to control data produced within their perimeters, disrupting the flow of what has become a kind of digital currency.
Inquiries to immigration consultants have surged; social media users trade tips on how to get abroad. But the government aims to “strictly restrict nonessential exit activities.”
In a post-Roe America, we’ll bear the costs of letting data collection undermine our liberty.
Democrats advanced the legislation on a nearly party-line vote, but with Republicans opposed, it faces an uphill battle in the Senate.
Shanghai used to be the glamorous China, while Xinjiang was the dark China. Now both are casualties of authoritarian excess.
The Finnish company played a key role in enabling Russia’s cyberspying, documents show, raising questions of corporate responsibility.
Plans to use two new robot dogs only in precarious search and rescue missions may help avoid the controversy that met the Police Department’s robots last year.
In a narrow and unanimous decision, the justices ruled that a 1978 law governing national security surveillance did not displace the state secrets doctrine.
An official investigation refuted claims that the police had illegally hacked dozens of civilians using spyware from NSO Group, an Israeli company that has long attracted global scrutiny.
A partly declassified letter from two senators, Ron Wyden and Martin Heinrich, does not say what the data is.
The decision reflected rising concerns about the domestic use of spyware made by NSO Group, based in Israel, which has long been a target of criticism abroad.
As Japan rapidly ages, it is envisioning fundamental changes, even in infrastructure. Is electronic surveillance an answer to its epidemic of dementia?
A man with Covid revealed a parallel universe to well-off Chinese and became a symbol of inequality. The government found him inconvenient to its narrative.
A Times investigation reveals how Israel reaped diplomatic gains around the world from NSO’s Pegasus spyware — a tool America itself purchased but is now trying to ban.
Researchers said the app, which will store sensitive health data on participants at the Winter Games, has serious encryption vulnerabilities.
The announcement came months after the U.S. government blacklisted the Israeli firm that produces Pegasus, the technology used to target the journalists.
The U.S. intelligence community offered steps that would mitigate — but not stop — spyware developed by firms like the NSO Group.
A case involving The Times and Project Veritas. Also: Elizabeth Holmes; Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens; dangers of biometrics; healthy is hard.
The Commerce and Treasury Departments put new restrictions on an array of companies and institutions that they said were misusing biotechnology.
The Biden administration’s partnership with Australia, Denmark, Norway, Canada, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom aims to stem the flow of key technologies to authoritarian governments.
Apple accused NSO Group, the Israeli surveillance company, of “flagrant” violations of its software, as well as federal and state laws.
The accusation, which has not been independently verified, raises new questions over whether Israel is using software made by NSO Group to spy on Palestinians.
The justices considered whether the state secrets doctrine required dismissal on national security grounds of a case claiming religious discrimination.
As Uyghurs grapple with the emotional trauma of their families suffering back in Xinjiang, some are overcoming a cultural stigma to seek out counseling.
If ever an issue cried out for some lawmaking guidance, this is it.
Invasive hacking software sold to countries to fight terrorism is easily abused. Researchers say my phone was hacked twice, probably by Saudi Arabia.
A group of researchers said the “dangerous technology” was invasive and not effective at detecting images of child sexual abuse.
At a time when the basic power structures of the art world are being questioned, collectives and individuals are fighting against the very institutions funding and displaying their work.
The justices will soon consider whether to hear a case arguing that the First Amendment requires disclosure of a secret court’s major rulings.
A spyware flaw, Elizabeth Holmes and my latest Facebook alert.
Two decades after the attack on New York City, the Police Department is using counterterrorism tools and tactics to combat routine street crime.
A man who wounded seven people in a supermarket had been under surveillance for months. Officials say a loophole in the country’s laws needs to be closed.
Terry Albury, an idealistic F.B.I. agent, grew so disillusioned by the war on terror that he was willing to leak classified documents — and go to prison for doing it.
The backlash to Apple’s efforts to fight child sexual abuse show that in the debate between privacy and security, there are few easy answers.
Tucker Carlson accused the government of intercepting his emails without disclosing that he had been reaching out to the Kremlin.
An obscure federal office operated for more than a decade as an “unaccountable police force” inside the Commerce Department, using extreme and unauthorized tactics.
He found his way through the formerly unobtainable files of J. Edgar Hoover, whom he called “an insubordinate bureaucrat in charge of a lawless organization.”
The F.B.I. scored two major victories, recovering a Bitcoin ransom and tricking lawbreakers with an encryption app. But criminals may still have the upper hand.
The way we control secrets has been established by Congress and the executive branch, both accountable to the public and the courts. Daniel Ellsberg, accountable to no one, took it upon himself to steer the ship of state.
The U.S. government has long tried to prevent the sales over concerns about rights abuses and surveillance. Documents show those efforts have failed.
Many of the decisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have not seen the light of day. That’s irreconcilable with the Constitution.