KPMG’s audit covered Tether’s 2025 financial statements and found its reserves exceeded liabilities by $6.8 billion.
More than a year after being indicted on fraud charges related to his activities at crypto company Delio, Jeong Sang-ho faces prison time in South Korea.
The plaintiffs say they invested nearly $1.2 million in the company, and are accusing Gomez of failing to build and market the startup.
Read more The surveillance company announced it’s making a tool called “Audit Assistance” mandatory for all customers, claiming it’s already helped catch abuse. But the company has yet to explain how the tool works in detail, raising questions about its effectiveness.
Read more Apple now sends out push notifications to iPhone lock screens when the company identifies government spyware targeting someone’s devices.
Read more Built as a post-training variation on Z.ai’s open source model GLM-5.2, Writer says the new system should provide deployment-ready capabilities at a much lower price.
Read more AI is expensive, Ali Ghodsi tells TechCrunch. With so many investors wanting into his latest round, he said yes to more than planned.
Read more Listen to the session or watch below
The “censorship-industrial complex” is an idea that a network of government, tech, and research groups is collaborating to suppress conservative online speech. This was fodder for the right-wing information sphere for years—then it began making its way into US policy. Watch a conversation exploring how it started, where it’s going, and what it means for the future of democracy and the internet.
Speakers: Amy Nordrum, Executive Editor, Operations, and Eileen Guo, Senior Reporter, Features & Investigations
Recorded on August 13, 2026
Related Story:
Quantum computing has alternated between breakthrough darling and overhyped promise in technology circles. Its powerful new capabilities come with a threat to break current cryptography, but for business leaders navigating the noise, the signal should be clear: post-quantum cryptography (PQC) is a manageable evolution, not a crisis.
The mathematics behind today’s encrypted digital transactions may yield to quantum computers one day, but the transition to quantum-resistant algorithms is neither sudden nor insurmountable. For executives concerned about disruption, cost, or complexity, a structured and phased approach exists with trusted technology partners like Intel that are already beginning to deliver the infrastructure to make it possible.
A natural evolution, not a cliff edge
The “quantum threat” narrative often swings between two extremes: imminent catastrophe or distant irrelevance. The reality occupies a more pragmatic middle ground. Quantum computers are highly specialized accelerators that exploit quantum physics to solve specific hard problems. They have the potential to crack modern encryption, but they will not replace classic servers overnight, nor will they instantly break every encryption protocol on the internet. What they will do is gradually shift the security landscape, much as previous cryptographic transitions have done over the past three decades.
In late 2024, the Global Risk Institute, a Toronto-based financial services think tank, surveyed 32 quantum computing experts on when a quantum computer could break a 2048-bit RSA key within 24 hours. An average of optimistic and pessimistic estimates from the experts gave it an even 50-50 probability of reaching this code-breaking milestone by 2040. This timeline, uncertain but measurable, creates space for deliberate planning rather than emergency reaction. The near-term focus should be on “harvest now, decrypt later” scenarios, where adversaries collect encrypted data today and then hold it for future decryption later when that capability becomes possible. This is particularly applicable for information requiring confidentiality beyond 10 years.
For most enterprises, this can be a manageable risk when addressed through methodical modernization.
Government signals as confidence builders
The U.S. government has issued new directives for National Security Systems (NSS), which would likely be first on the list for potential quantum attack. Beginning in January 2027, new NSS acquisitions must be capable of supporting Commercial National Security Algorithm Suite 2.0 (CNSA 2.0) requirements for PQC algorithms standardized by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and selected by the National Security Agency, the U.S. intelligence agency responsible for signals intelligence and information assurance. Implementation for new systems (with certain exceptions) is then required by 2031, with 100% adoption targeted by 2035.
For commercial enterprises, these timelines are not mandates, but could be signposts. They indicate where vendors, standards bodies, and auditors are headed, providing a reference architecture for responsible stewardship. Organizations can borrow this discipline without necessarily copying the exact timelines, using government guidance to calibrate their own risk tolerance and investment cadence.
Intel’s role: Infrastructure ready for the transition
Intel is at the heart of the AI revolution by delivering quantum-resistant capabilities across our product portfolio. This is not just aspirational roadmap language; it is starting to be shipping technology.
For instance, the Intel Xeon 6 Processor already incorporates quantum-safe memory encryption (AES-256) and microcode signing to protect processor integrity. Upcoming platforms will extend post-quantum algorithms to more firmware and software signing, device interconnects, attestations, and secure boot functions, aligning with the most stringent government and industry directives.
Post-quantum algorithms carry different key sizes and computational overhead than legacy methods. Intel addresses this through dedicated cryptographic accelerators, optimized libraries, and specialized CPU instructions that reduce latency and preserve service-level agreements. Technologies such as Intel QuickAssist Technology offload cryptographic workloads, enabling enterprises to adopt stronger algorithms without sacrificing performance.
PQC is not a processor-alone problem. System builders and application owners must take a comprehensive view spanning solid-state drives, network interface cards, operating systems, hypervisors, applications, and connected services. Intel is delivering its pieces of the stack, while collaborating with ecosystem partners to ensure interoperability and smooth transition paths.
A more in-depth discussion of post-quantum algorithms and attacks can be found in my recent blog posted on Intel’s Community forum: “Post-Quantum Crypto: Panic Like It’s 1999?“
A practical roadmap for enterprises
The path forward does not require upheaval, just discipline. Organizations can follow a phased approach that mirrors patterns emerging in government and critical infrastructure sectors:
- Approach PQC as modernization, not mitigation. Frame the transition as an opportunity to strengthen cryptographic foundations, reduce technical debt, and improve system maintainability.
- Leverage trusted partners. Technology suppliers like Intel are already shipping quantum-resistant capabilities with performance acceleration. Evaluate platform readiness and vendor roadmaps as part of procurement decisions.
- Start with visibility. Cryptography is embedded throughout modern technology stacks: not just in database encryption settings but in data at rest, data in transit, digital signatures, code signing, device identity, password hashing, and software update mechanisms. Start by mapping where cryptographic assets live, what algorithms protect them, and which data sets have the longest confidentiality requirements.
- Protect long-lived data first. Not all cryptographic uses age at the same rate. Encryption protecting long-lifespan intellectual property, personal data, or state secrets faces more immediate attention than short-lived session keys or rotating certificates. Focus initial investments on high-value, long-retention data stores and the trust anchors (root certificates, firmware signing keys) that underpin system integrity.
- Design for evolution and agility. Post-quantum algorithms are not simple drop-in replacements. They carry different key sizes, performance characteristics, and integration requirements that ripple through protocols, APIs, and hardware. Design systems that can transition algorithms without business disruption: testing compatibility, ensuring vendor roadmaps align, and engineering for rotation.
The bottom line
Quantum computing will reshape cryptography, but despite what occasional click-bait headlines say, it will not upend business overnight. The transition to post-quantum algorithms is a measured, multi-year journey, one that organizations can navigate with confidence by partnering with capable technology providers, prioritizing long-lived data, and designing for agility. Leaders who approach this as an engineering evolution rather than a threat response will not only be ready for whatever timeline quantum delivers; they will emerge with more robust, transparent, and maintainable cryptographic foundations across their platforms.
This content was produced by Intel. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.
The police-tech giant Flock is announcing today that it will change officers’ access to its nationwide network of license plate readers, in an apparent effort to quell a growing backlash and win back contracts lost amid concerns about mass surveillance and police abuse.
Several changes aim directly at a problem that has made recent headlines: officers abusing Flock’s technology to stalk and harass current or former romantic partners. Flock’s 120,000 cameras form a nationwide network that police departments can use, giving officers access to an enormous pool of searchable location data. A recent Washington Post investigation found 46 cases in which officers were accused of using Flock’s cameras for unauthorized purposes like stalking.
To combat that, the company will start requiring officers to enter a criminal case number before conducting a search. The system was launched as an option last year but is now required. It’s meant to verify that each search has a legitimate purpose.
This is a baseline standard that civil liberties groups have asked for, but officers have found ways around similar safeguards. The ACLU recently found that when Flock required officers to enter a reason for a search, some used generic terms like “investigation” or mocked the prompt entirely; at one Oregon department, officers entered “hehehe” 20 times. Because Flock won’t verify case numbers, officers could circumvent the new safeguard just as easily.
But Flock is now expanding an automatic auditing system that is supposed to catch those who try that, the firm announced today. The feature analyzes officer search activity and flags to administrators anyone with suspicious searches. This was also introduced as an option last year but is now mandatory. Flock has not shared specifics on how accurate the automatic auditing tool is, nor opened it up to independent evaluators.
Beyond trying to prevent officer abuse, Flock is making changes meant to address broader backlash about how much data its network collects and who can search it. The company now recommends that agencies hold onto data for seven days rather than 30 (though they can choose to overrule this). Departments can also now limit other departments’ searches of data from their cameras to those made for certain stated reasons; for example, they might allow investigations related to “kidnapping” but not for purposes of “immigration enforcement.” It’s another safeguard that depends on officers to accurately report why they’re conducting a search.
The changes come as a backlash against Flock has started to come from all angles. Tucker Carlson has said its technology is contributing to a “slave state.” Some cities have reportedly dropped Flock contracts because of such protest, though it’s difficult to estimate how many: In February, NPR found that at least 30 cities had dropped in the last year, but the activist group DeFlock puts the number higher. Some states or municipalities are passing laws to ban license plate readers altogether, while some that allow them are switching away from Flock to the other industry leaders, Axon and Motorola. Flock has said these cancellations represent a small number of the 5,000 agencies that have contracted with the company.
Chad Marlow, a senior policy counsel at the ACLU who has become a sort of nemesis to Flock and other companies making automatic license plate readers, says the backlash is driven less by individual abuses—though those don’t help—than by the sheer scale of surveillance that Flock’s cameras enable.
“In America, you only get to investigate someone if you think they’ve done something wrong,” Marlow says. As license plate readers grow more ubiquitous, officers have increasing latitude to investigate people without first establishing suspicion of a crime, since searching the troves of data the readers collect does not require a warrant. He adds, “Is it worth it to catch a certain number of criminals, return a certain number of stolen cars, to eviscerate Americans’ privacy?”
Flock CEO Garrett Langley traces the backlash to a different issue. “If you look at the main reason we’ve lost customers, it’s misinformation,” Langley told MIT Technology Review. He says people mistakenly believe Flock does facial recognition or sells the data it collects to commercial buyers. (The misinformation charge cuts both ways, however; the ACLU and other critics have published accounts of the company repeatedly lying to city councils and other decision-makers about what its technology can do.)
Though the company has taken steps in response to public concerns, “our change in stance is more of one from building things that are optional,” Langley says, to “building more confidence that as a technology company we have a responsibility to enforce guardrails, not provide optionality.”
Flock’s new rules are undeniably small and incremental compared with what the ACLU has advocated. Marlow is broadly supportive of them but notes that judging whether they reduce abuse would require the company to open its systems to independent researchers for the first time rather than citing internal studies.
More broadly, though, he says the backlash is putting the company at a crossroads.
“Flock has come to the table because this incredible, unprecedented nationwide uprising against their company has scared them,” Marlow says. “But at the same time, they are just absolutely unwilling to make the actual changes they need to make in order to legitimately respond to these concerns. So this is the best that the company is willing to do.”