Aggregator

令和7年度補正予算「地域社会DX推進パッケージ事業 （推進体制構築支援）」における支援地域の募集及び公募説明会の開催

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　ITU 部会　放送業務委員会（第60回）配布資料

一般職技術系（情報通信行政）の情報を更新しました

　国は核のゴミの最終処分地として日本最東端で国有地の南鳥島に文献調査することを東京都小笠原村に申し入れた。筆者はこの南鳥島が「最適地」と3年前２３年6月２５日にDaily JCJに掲載した。以下はその記事（http://jcj-daily.seesaa.net/article/499817294.html）だ。【焦点】核のゴミ処分「南鳥島」最適地 　静岡知事が小池都知事に提案　地質学者との対談が引き金＝橋詰雅博　東京の都道府県会館で５月末に開かれた関東地方知事会議で静岡県の川..

Digital Dragnets Violate Fourth Amendment, Brief Argues

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Virginia, and the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law filed a brief Monday urging the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that invasive geofence warrants are unconstitutional.

The brief argues that geofence warrants—which compel companies to provide information on every electronic device in a given area during a given time period—are the digital version of the exploratory rummaging that the drafters of the Fourth Amendment specifically intended to prevent. 

Unlike typical warrants, geofence warrants do not name a suspect or even target a specific individual or device. Instead, police cast a digital dragnet, demanding location data on every device in a geographic area during a certain time period, regardless of whether the device owner has any connection to the crime under investigation. These searches simultaneously impact the privacy of millions and turn innocent bystanders into suspects, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The Supreme Court agreed earlier this year to hear Chatrie v. United States, in which a 2019 geofence warrant  compelled Google to search the accounts of all its hundreds of millions of users to see if any one of them was within a radius police drew around a Northern Virginia crime scene. This area amounted to several football fields in size and encompassed numerous homes, businesses, and a church. In an amicus brief filed Monday, the brief argues that allowing this sweeping power to go unchecked is inconsistent with the basic freedoms of a democratic society. 

"This is not traditional police work, but rather the leveraging of new and powerful technology to claim a novel and formidable power over the people," the brief states. "By their very nature, geofence searches turn innocent bystanders into suspects and leverage even purportedly limited searches into larger dragnets, causing intrusions at a scale far beyond those held unconstitutional in the physical world." 

The brief also cautioned the Court not to authorize future geofence warrants based on the facts of the Chatrie case, which reflect how such searches were conducted in 2019. Since July 2025, mass geofence searches of Google users’ location data have not been possible. However, Google is not the only company collecting location data, nor the only way for police to access mass amounts of data on people with no connection to a crime. All suspicionless searches drag a net through vast swaths of information in hopes of identifying previously unknown suspects—ensnaring innocent bystanders along the way. 

"To courts, to lawmakers, and to tech companies themselves, EFF has repeatedly argued that these high-tech efforts to pull suspects out of thin air cannot be constitutional, even with a warrant," said EFF Surveillance Litigation Director Andrew Crocker. "The Supreme Court should find once and for all that geofence searches are just the kind of impermissible general warrants that the Framers of the Constitution so reviled."

For the brief: https://www.eff.org/document/chatrie-v-united-states-eff-supreme-court-amicus-brief

Tags: geofence warrantsContact:  AndrewCrockerSurveillance Litigation Directorandrew@eff.org

トレンドマイクロ株式会社から、企業向けエンドポイントセキュリティ製品向けのアップデートが公開されました。

三菱電機製MELSEC iQ-FシリーズのEtherNet/IPユニットおよびEthernetユニットのEthernet機能には、複数の脆弱性が存在します。

キヤノン株式会社が提供するIJ Scan UtilityはWindowsサービスを登録しますが、登録されるプログラムのファイルパスは引用符で囲まれていません。

The NGI Zero Commons Fund provides grants to people who help build the digital commons. Meet the new projects.

Who should be directly liable for online infringement – the entity that serves it up or a user who embeds a link to it? For almost two decades, most U.S. courts have held that the former is responsible, applying a rule called the server test. Under the server test, whomever controls the server that hosts a copyrighted work—and therefore determines who has access to what and how—can be directly liable if that content turns out to be infringing. Anyone else who merely links to it can be secondarily liable in some circumstances (for example, if that third party promotes the infringement), but isn’t on the hook under most circumstances.

The test just makes sense. In the analog world, a person is free to tell others where they may view a third party’s display of a copyrighted work, without being directly liable for infringement if that display turns out to be unlawful. The server test is the straightforward application of the same principle in the online context. A user that links to a picture, video, or article isn’t in charge of transmitting that content to the world, nor are they in a good position to know whether that content violates copyright. In fact, the user doesn’t even control what’s located on the other end of the link—the person that controls the server can change what’s on it at any time, such as swapping in different images, re-editing a video or rewriting an article.

But a news publisher, Emmerich Newspapers, wants the Fifth Circuit to reject the server test, arguing that the entity that embeds links to the content is responsible for “displaying” it and, therefore, can be directly liable if the content turns out to be infringing. If they are right, the common act of embedding is a legally fraught activity and a trap for the unwary.

The Court should decline, or risk destabilizing fundamental, and useful, online activities. As we explain in an amicus brief filed with several public interest and trade organizations, linking and embedding are not unusual, nefarious, or misleading practices. Rather, the ability to embed external content and code is a crucial design feature of internet architecture, responsible for many of the internet’s most useful functions. Millions of websites—including EFF’s—embed external content or code for everything from selecting fonts and streaming music to providing services like customer support and legal compliance. The server test provides legal certainty for internet users by assigning primary responsibility to the person with the best ability to prevent infringement. Emmerich’s approach, by contrast, invites legal chaos.

Emmerich also claims that altering a URL violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s prohibition on changing or deleting copyright management information. If they are correct, using a link shortener could put users at risks of statutory penalties—an outcome Congress surely did not intend.

Both of these theories would make common internet activities legally risky and undermine copyright’s Constitutional purpose: to promote the creation of and access to knowledge. The district court recognized as much and we hope the appeals court agrees.

Related Cases: Emmerich Newspapers v. Particle Media

第2回「日韓ICT政策対話」の開催結果

令和7年度「消防団地域貢献表彰」の受賞団体の決定及び表彰式の開催

林総務大臣閣議後記者会見の概要

労働力調査（基本集計）2026年（令和8年）1月分

総合通信基盤局総務課 非常勤職員採用情報

「未来社会を見据えた人とデジタルの関係の在り方に関する研究会」の開催

未来社会を見据えた人とデジタルの関係の在り方に関する研究会（第1回）開催案内

夕張市財政再生計画の変更の同意