東日本電信電話株式会社（NTT東日本）が提供する複数のホームゲートウェイ/ひかり電話ルータには、アクセス制限不備の脆弱性が存在します。

2024年11月8日、フィッシング対策協議会は「フィッシング対策セミナー 2024（オンライン）」を開催します。フィッシング詐欺に関わる法執行機関、金融機関、EC関連事業者からの有識者を招き、最新のフィッシング詐欺の傾向や対策を紹介するとのことです。また、協議会の会員組織によるフィッシング対策サービスや各種の解決策も紹介予定としています。

Big Tech is borrowing a page from Big Tobacco's playbook to wage war on your privacy, according to Jake Snow of the ACLU of Northern California. We agree.  

In the 1990s, the tobacco industry attempted to use federal law to override a broad swath of existing state laws and prevent states from future action on those areas. For Big Tobacco, it was the “Accommodation Program,” a national campaign ultimately aimed to override state indoor smoking laws with weaker federal law. Big Tech is now attempting this with federal privacy bills, like the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA), that would preempt many state privacy laws.  

In “Big Tech is Trying to Burn Privacy to the Ground–And They’re Using Big Tobacco’s Strategy to Do It,” Snow outlines a three-step process that both industries have used to weaken state laws. Faced with a public relations crisis, the industries:

1. Muddy the waters by introducing various weak bills in different states.
2. Complain that they are too confusing to comply with, 
3. Ask for “preemption” of grassroots efforts.

“Preemption” is a legal doctrine that allows a higher level of government to supersede the power of a lower level of government (for example, a federal law can preempt a state law, and a state law can preempt a city or county ordinance).  

EFF has a clear position on this: we oppose federal privacy laws that preempt current and future state privacy protections, especially by a lower federal standard.  

Congress should set a nationwide baseline for privacy, but should not take away states' ability to react in the future to current and unforeseen problems. Earlier this year, EFF joined ACLU and dozens of digital and human rights organizations in opposing APRA’s preemption sections. The letter points out that, "the soundest approach to avoid the harms from preemption is to set the federal standard as a national baseline for privacy protections — and not a ceiling.” EFF led a similar coalition effort in 2018.  

Companies that collect and use our data—and have worked to kill strong state privacy bills time and again— want Congress to believe a "patchwork" of state laws is unworkable for data privacy. But many existing federal laws concerning privacy, civil rights, and more operate as regulatory floors and do not prevent states from enacting and enforcing their own stronger statutes. Complaints of this “patchwork” have long been a part of the strategy for both Big Tech and Big Tobacco.  

States have long been the “laboratories of democracy” and have led the way in the development of innovative privacy legislation. Because of this, federal laws should establish a floor and not a ceiling, particularly as new challenges rapidly emerge. Preemption would leave consumers with inadequate protections, and make them worse off than they would be in the absence of federal legislation.  

Congress never preempted states' authority to enact anti-smoking laws, despite Big Tobacco’s strenuous efforts. So there is hope that Big Tech won’t be able to preempt state privacy law, either. EFF will continue advocating against preemption to ensure that states can protect their citizens effectively. 

Read Jake Snow’s article here.

社会の変革に対応した地方公務員制度のあり方に関する検討会 働き方分科会（第1回）

特定基地局開設料の標準的な金額に関する研究会 （4.9GHz帯　第2回）

第50回衆議院議員総選挙の在外公館投票における静岡県第1区候補者届出政党名の誤りについて

総務省「地域課題解決のためのスマートシティ推進事業」を活用した新サービスの開始に関する大阪府主催セレモニーの開催

情報通信審議会　郵政政策部会　郵便料金政策委員会（第3回）　開催案内

情報通信審議会 情報通信技術分科会 陸上無線通信委員会 5.2GHz帯及び6GHz帯無線LAN作業班（第13回）

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　陸上無線通信委員会 5.2GHz帯及び6GHz帯無線LAN作業班　 AFCシステム運用検討アドホックグループ（第1回）

第5回中央選挙管理会において決定された事項

ユニバーサルサービスワーキンググループ（第11回）配布資料・議事概要

公正競争ワーキンググループ（第9回）配布資料・議事概要

Some people just don’t know how to take a hint. For more than a decade, giant standards development organizations (SDOs) have been fighting in courts around the country, trying use copyright law to control access to other laws. They claim that that they own the copyright in the text of some of the most important regulations in the country – the codes that protect product, building and environmental safety--and that they have the right to control access to those laws. And they keep losing because, it turns out, from New York, to Missouri, to the District of Columbia, judges understand that this is an absurd and undemocratic proposition. 

They suffered their latest defeat in Pennsylvania, where  a district court held that UpCodes, a company that has created a database of building codes – like the National Electrical Code--can include codes incorporated by reference into law. ASTM, a private organization that coordinated the development of some of those codes, insists that it retains copyright in them even after they have been adopted into law. Some courts, including the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, have rejected that theory outright, holding that standards lose copyright protection when they are incorporated into law. Others, like the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in a case EFF defended on behalf of Public.Resource.Org, have held that whether or not the legal status of the standards changes once they are incorporated into law, posting them online is a lawful fair use. 

In this case, ASTM v. UpCodes, the court followed the latter path. Relying in large part on the DC Circuit’s decision, as well as an amicus brief EFF filed in support of UpCodes, the court held that providing access to the law (for free or subject to a subscription for “premium” access) was a lawful fair use. A key theme to the ruling is the public interest in accessing law: 

incorporation by reference creates serious notice and accountability problems when the law is only accessible to those who can afford to pay for it. … And there is significant evidence of the practical value of providing unfettered access to technical standards that have been incorporated into law. For example, journalists have explained that this access is essential to inform their news coverage; union members have explained that this access helps them advocate and negotiate for safe working conditions; and the NAACP has explained that this access helps citizens assert their legal rights and advocate for legal reforms.

We’ve seen similar rulings around the country, from California to New York to Missouri. Combined with two appellate rulings, these amount to a clear judicial consensus. And it turns out the sky has not fallen; SDOs continue to profit from their work, thanks in part to the volunteer labor of the experts who actually draft the standards and don’t do it for the royalties.  You would think the SDOs would learn their lesson, and turn their focus back to developing standards, not lawsuits.

Instead, SDOs are asking Congress to rewrite the Constitution and affirm that SDOs retain copyright in their standards no matter what a federal regulator does, as long as they make them available online. We know what that means because the SDOs have already created “reading rooms” for some of their standards, and they show us that the SDOs’ idea of “making available” is “making available as if it was 1999.” The texts are not searchable, cannot be printed, downloaded, highlighted, or bookmarked for later viewing, and cannot be magnified without becoming blurry. Cross-referencing and comparison is virtually impossible. Often, a reader can view only a portion of each page at a time and, upon zooming in, must scroll from right to left to read a single line of text. As if that wasn’t bad enough, these reading rooms are inaccessible to print-disabled people altogether.. 

It’s a bad bargain that would trade our fundamental due process rights in exchange for a pinky promise of highly restricted access to the law. But if Congress takes that step, it’s a comfort to know that we can take the fight back to the courts and trust that judges, if not legislators, understand why laws are facts, not property, and should be free for all to access, read, and share. 

航空宇宙分野に関わる国内外の企業が自社製品を展示する「国際航空宇宙展」が16日、東京ビッグサイト（江東区）で始まった。航空宇宙展では、昨秋以降、パレスチナ自治区ガザ地区で“ジェノサイド”を続けるイスラエルや、それを支援する米国の軍事企業などもブースを出展しており、一部では“武器見本市だ”と懸念する声も出ている。（藤ヶ谷魁）