Aggregator

　地下鉄サリン事件が発生してから３月20日で30年となる。 　地下鉄サリン事件は、オウム真理教の幹部らにより営団地下鉄（現・東京メトロ）の日比谷線、千代田線、丸ノ内線の３路線５本の列車にサリンが撒かれ、14人が死亡し、６ […]

「たった一つだけ私が知っている事実があります。この事件は冤罪。私は犯人ではありません」 　３月６日、名古屋高裁金沢支部の法廷で前川彰司さん（59歳）は起立のうえ淡々と語った。 　１９８６年３月に福井市で15歳女子（中学３ […]

　裁判で無実を訴える人ほど長期の身体拘束を受ける「人質司法」を終わらせようと、大川原化工機事件などの被害者らが３月４日、東京の参議院議員会館で「人質司法サバイバー国会」と銘打ち集会を開いた。被害者らは「推定無罪」などの憲 […]

韓国大統領選挙はあと一ヶ月。ここに来て最有力候補とみなされている李在明氏の無罪判決を大法院が有罪趣旨で破棄差し戻し。

KUNBUS GmbHが提供するRevolution Piには、複数の脆弱性が存在します。

MicroDicomが提供するDICOM Viewerには、複数の脆弱性が存在します。

先日、家族でナポリに行ってきました。というのも、イタリアに来た時からポンペイに行きたくて、「死ぬ前に行きたい」と夫に言ったら、苦笑いされてしまいました。（サトウノリコ＝イタリア在住）

The right to repair just keeps on winning. Last week, thanks in part to messages from EFF supporters, the Washington legislature passed a strong consumer electronics right-to-repair legislation through both the House and Senate. The bill affirms our right to repair by banning restrictions that keep people and local businesses from accessing the parts, manuals, and tools they need for cheaper, easier repairs. It joined another strong right-to-repair bill for wheelchairs, ensuring folks can access the parts and manuals they need to fix their mobility devices. Both measures now head to Gov. Bob Ferguson. If you’re in Washington State, please urge the governor to sign these important bills.

TAKE ACTION

Washington State has come close to passing strong right-to-repair legislation before, only to falter at the last moments. This year, thanks to the work of our friends at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) and their affiliate Washington PIRG, a coalition of groups got the bill through the legislature by emphasizing that the right to repair is good for people, good for small business, and good for the environment. Given the cost of new electronic devices is likely to increase, it’s also a pocketbook issue that more lawmakers should get behind.  

This spring marked the first time that all 50 states have considered right-to-repair legislation. Seven states—California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Maine, New York, and Oregon—have right-to-repair laws to date. If you’re in Washington, urge Gov. Ferguson to sign both bills and make your state the eighth to join this elite club. Let’s keep this momentum going!

TAKE ACTION

Two strong right-to-repair bills are sitting on Gov. Ferguson's desk—and he needs to hear from you.

Simple common sense tells us that a corporation’s decision to operate in every state shouldn’t mean it can’t be sued in most of them. Sadly, U.S. law doesn’t always follow common sense. That’s why we were so pleased with a recent holding from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Setting a crucial precedent, the court held that consumers can sue national or multinational companies in the consumers’ home courts if those companies violate state data privacy laws.

The case, Briskin v. Shopify, stems from a California resident’s allegations that Shopify, a company that offers back-end support to e-commerce companies around the U.S. and the globe, installed tracking software on his devices without his knowledge or consent, and used it to secretly collect data about him. Shopify also allegedly tracked users’ browsing activities across multiple sites and compiled that information into comprehensive user profiles, complete with financial “risk scores” that companies could use to block users’ future purchases. The Ninth Circuit initially dismissed the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling that Shopify did not have a close enough connection to California to be fairly sued there. Collecting data on Californians along with millions of other users was not enough; to be sued in California, Shopify had to do something to target Californians in particular.  

Represented by nonprofit Public Citizen, Briskin asked the court to rehear the case en banc (meaning, review by the full court rather than just a three-judge panel). The court agreed and invited further briefing. After that review, the court vacated the earlier holding, agreeing with the plaintiff (and EFF’s argument in a supporting amicus brief) that Shopify’s extensive collection of information from users in other states should not prevent California plaintiffs from having their day in court in their home state.   

The key issue was whether Shopify’s actions were “expressly aimed” at California. Shopify argued that it was “mere happenstance” that its conduct affected a consumer in California, arising from the consumer’s own choices. The Ninth Circuit rejected that theory, noting:

Pre-internet, there would be no doubt that the California courts would have specific personal jurisdiction over a third party who physically entered a Californian’s home by deceptive means to take personal information from the Californian’s files for its own commercial gain. Here, though Shopify’s entry into the state of California is by electronic means, its surreptitious interception of Briskin’s personal identifying information certainly is a relevant contact with the forum state.

The court further noted that the harm in California was not “mere happenstance” because, among other things, Shopify allegedly knew plaintiff's location either prior to or shortly after installing its initial tracking software on his device as well as those of other Californians.

Importantly, the court overruled earlier cases that had suggested that “express aiming” required the plaintiff to show that a company “targeted” California in particular. As the court recognized, such a requirement would have the

perverse effect of allowing a corporation to direct its activities toward all 50 states yet to escape specific personal jurisdiction in each of those states for claims arising from or relating to the relevant contacts in the forum state that injure that state’s residents.

Instead, the question is whether Shopify’s own conduct connected it to California in a meaningful way. The answer was a resounding yes, for multiple reasons:

Shopify knows about its California consumer base, conducts its regular business in California, contacts California residents, interacts with them as an intermediary for its merchants, installs its software onto their devices in California, and continues to track their activities.

In other words, a company can’t deliberately collect a bunch of information about a person in a given state, including where they are located, use that information for its own commercial purposes, and then claim it has little or no relationship with that state.

As states around the country seek to fill the gaps left by Congress’ failure to pass comprehensive data privacy legislation, this ruling helps ensure that those state laws will have real teeth. In an era of ever-increasing corporate surveillance, that’s a crucial win.

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　IPネットワーク設備委員会（第86回）開催案内