Aggregator

衛星放送ワーキンググループ（第10回）

「サービス産業動向調査」2024年（令和6年）5月分（速報）

令和6年7月25日からの大雨に関する被害状況等について（第17報）

令和6年7月31日付　総務省人事

San Mateo County’s policy of digitizing and destroying physical mail sent to people in its jails violates the privacy and free expression rights of both incarcerated people and those who communicate with them. The County’s contract with Smart Communications—the company that digitizes mail sent to people in San Mateo’s jails—expires on August 31, 2024. We need your help to ensure the County doesn’t renew it: tell the County and the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office that they should let their contract with Smart Communications expire.

The Senate just passed a bill that will let the federal and state governments investigate and sue websites that they claim cause kids mental distress. It’s a terrible idea to let politicians and bureaucrats decide what people should read and view online, but the Senate passed KOSA on a 91-3 vote.   

TAKE ACTION

Don't let congress censor the internet

Bill proponents have focused on some truly tragic stories of loss, and then tied these tragedies to the internet. But anxiety, eating disorders, drug abuse, gambling, tobacco and alcohol use by minors, and the host of other ills that KOSA purports to address all existed well before the internet. 

The Senate vote means that the House could take up and vote on this bill at any time. The House could also choose to debate its own, similarly flawed, version of KOSA. Several members of the House have expressed concerns about the bill. 

The members of Congress who vote for this bill should remember—they do not, and will not, control who will be in charge of punishing bad internet speech. The Federal Trade Commission,  majority-controlled by the President’s party, will be able to decide what kind of content “harms” minors, then investigate or file lawsuits against websites that host that content. 

Politicians in both parties have sought to control various types of internet content. One bill sponsor has said that widely used educational materials that teach about the history of racism in the U.S. causes depression in kids. Kids speaking out about mental health challenges or trying to help friends with addiction are likely to be treated the same as those promoting addictive or self-harming behaviors, and will be kicked offline. Minors engaging in activism or even discussing the news could be shut down, since the grounds for suing websites expand to conditions like “anxiety.” 

KOSA will lead to people who make online content about sex education, and LGBTQ+ identity and health, being persecuted and shut down as well. Views on how, or if, these subjects should be broached vary widely across U.S. communities. All it will take is one member of the Federal Trade Commission seeking to score political points, or a state attorney general seeking to ensure re-election, to start going after the online speech his or her constituents don’t like. 

All of these speech burdens will affect adults, too. Adults simply won’t find the content that was mass-deleted in the name of avoiding KOSA-inspired lawsuits; and we’ll all be burdened by websites and apps that install ID checks, age gates, and invasive (and poorly functioning) software content filters. 

The vast majority of speech that KOSA affects is constitutionally protected in the U.S., which is why there is a long list of reasons that KOSA is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the lawmakers voting for this bill have hand-waved away those concerns. They’ve also blown off the voices of millions of young people who will have their free expression constricted by this bill, including the thousands who spoke to EFF directly about their concerns and fears around KOSA. 

We can’t rely solely on lawsuits and courts to protect us from the growing wave of anti-speech internet legislation, with KOSA at its forefront. We need to let the people making the laws know that the public is becoming aware of their censorship plans—and won’t stand for them.

TAKE ACTION

Our Freedom Of Speech Doesn't End Online

　防衛省は　東京から１９００㎞の日本最南端の小さな島、南鳥島（小笠原村の一部）に陸上自衛隊が保有する「１２式地対空ミサイル」の射撃場を整備する。このミサイルは地上から海上の艦艇に攻撃するもので、射程１００㌔を超える射撃場の整備は国内で初めて。すでに小笠原村へは計画を説明済みで、２０２６年以降、年数回訓練を実施する見込み。　実はこの南鳥島は、核のゴミの地層処分の適地に挙げられたことがある。３年前、文化庁芸術祭優秀賞を受賞したドキュメンタリー番組「ネアンデルタール人は核の夢をみる..

The proposed UN Cybercrime Convention dangerously undermines human rights, opening the door to unchecked cross-border surveillance and government overreach. Despite two and a half years of negotiations, the draft treaty authorizes extensive surveillance powers without robust safeguards, omitting essential data protection principles.

This risks turning international efforts to fight cybercrime into tools for human rights abuses and transnational repression.

Safeguards like prior judicial authorization call for a judge's approval of surveillance before it happens, ensuring the measure is legitimate, necessary and proportionate. Notifying individuals when their data is being accessed gives them an opportunity to challenge requests that they believe are disproportionate or unjustified.

Additionally, requiring states to publish statistical transparency reports can provide a clear overview of surveillance activities. These safeguards are not just legal formalities; they are vital for upholding the integrity and legitimacy of law enforcement activities in a democratic society.¸

Unfortunately the draft treaty is severely lacking in these protections. An article in the current draft about conditions and safeguards is vaguely written, permitting countries to apply safeguards only "where appropriate," and making them dependent on States domestic laws, some of which have weak human rights protections.¸This means that the level of protection against abusive surveillance and data collection can vary widely based on each country's discretion.

Extensive surveillance powers must be reined in and strong human rights protections added. Without those changes, the proposed treaty unacceptably endangers human rights around the world and should not be approved.

Check out our two detailed analyses about the lack of human rights safeguards in the draft treaty. 

鉛山鉱山が発見されたのは１６６５年。操業は長い間中止されていたが、昭和に入り再開された。戦争が始まり、必要になったのだろう。この鉱山に朝鮮人が連れてこられたのは、旧厚生省の文書では１９４５年７月３日。敗戦まじかである。坑口や鉱石を運んだトロッコのレールは今も残っている。（大野和興）

株式会社ＦＦＲＩセキュリティが提供するFFRI AMCには、OSコマンドインジェクションの脆弱性が存在します。

株式会社イーシーキューブが提供するEC-CUBE 4系用プラグイン「EC-CUBE Web API プラグイン」には、格納型クロスサイトスクリプティングの脆弱性が存在します。

株式会社イーシーキューブが提供するEC-CUBE 4系には、プラグインインストール時の入力値チェックに不備（CWE-349）があります。

In a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) last week, Senators Ron Wyden and Edward Markey urged the FTC to investigate several car companies caught selling and sharing customer information without clear consent. Alongside details previously gathered from reporting by The New York Times, the letter also showcases exactly how much this data is worth to the car companies selling this information.

Car companies collect a lot of data about driving behavior, ranging from how often you brake to how rapidly you accelerate. This data can then be sold off to a data broker or directly to an insurance company, where it’s used to calculate a driver’s riskiness, and adjust insurance rates accordingly. This surveillance is often defended by its promoters as a way to get discounts on insurance, but that rarely addresses the fact your insurance rates may actually go up.

If your car is connected to the internet or has an app, you may have inadvertently “agreed” to this type of data sharing when setting it up without realizing it. The Senators’ letter asserts that Hyundai shares drivers’ data  without seeking their informed consent, and that GM and Honda used deceptive practices during signup.

When it comes to the price that companies can get for selling your driving data, the numbers range wildly, but the data isn’t as valuable as you might imagine. The letter states that Honda sold the data on about 97,000 cars to an analytics company, Verisk—which turned around and sold the data to insurance companies—for $25,920, or 26 cents per car. Hyundai got a better deal, but still not astronomical numbers: Verisk paid Hyundai $1,043,315.69, or 61 cents per car. GM declined to share details about its sales.

The letter also reveals that while GM stopped sharing driving data after The New York Times’ investigation, it did not stop sharing location data, which it’s been sharing for years. GM collects and shares location data on every car that’s connected to the internet, and doesn’t offer a way to opt out beyond disabling internet-connectivity altogether. According to the letter, GM refused to name the company it’s sharing the location data with currently. While GM claims the location data is de-identified, there is no way to de-identify location data. With just one data point, where the car is parked most often, it becomes obvious where a person lives.

Car makers should not sell our driving and location history to data brokers or insurance companies, and they shouldn’t make it as hard as they do to figure out what data gets shared and with whom. This level of tracking is a nightmare on its own, and is made worse for certain kinds of vulnerable populations, such as survivors of domestic abuse.

The three automakers listed in the letter are certainly not the only ones sharing data without real consent, and it’s likely there are other data brokers who handle this type of data. The FTC should investigate this industry further, just as it has recently investigated many other industries that threaten data privacy. Moreover, Congress and the states must pass comprehensive consumer data privacy legislation with strong data minimization rules and requirements for clear, opt-in consent.

令和6年度地方財政審議会（7月2日）議事要旨

令和6年度地方財政審議会（7月5日）議事要旨

令和6年度地方財政審議会（7月9日）議事要旨

令和6年度地方財政審議会（7月19日）議事要旨