Aggregator

一般職技術系（情報通信行政）の情報を更新しました

　２０２４年の東京都知事選や衆院選、兵庫県知事選で、ＳＮＳが既存の報道メディアを凌駕したと指摘される。　特に兵庫県知事選では報道メディアは攻めの姿勢を欠いた。「選挙結果 に影響を与えない」ためなどの理由は、米国などでは成り立たない。投票に影響を与えないとは、有権者の判断に役立たないという意味しかない。　頼られる報道はどうあるべきか。まずフリージャーナリストの横田増生『潜入取材、全手法』（角川新書）を挙げたい。身 分を隠して取材対象に入り込む潜入取材は英ＢＢＣの得意技だが、日本..

In the second of their two-part article about community-centred connectivity, Michael Jensen and Adriana Labardini examine the types of community network currently operating around the world and…

ABBが提供する複数の製品には、複数の脆弱性が存在します。

Nedap Librixが提供するEcoreaderには、重要な機能に対する認証の欠如の脆弱性が存在します。

プラネックスコミュニケーションズ株式会社が提供するMZK-DP300Nには、クロスサイトスクリプティングの脆弱性が存在します。

富士フイルムビジネスイノベーション株式会社が提供するXerox FreeFlow デジタル・ワークフロー・コレクションに含まれるXerox FreeFlow Coreには、複数の脆弱性が存在します。

JPCERT/CCは、「サイバーセキュリティの「有事」に何が必要なのか - Locked Shields2024演習参加からの考察 -」を公開しました。本記事では、サイバー演習に官民双方が参加することの意義について考察を述べています。

Update: After this blog post was published (addressing Meta's blog post here), we learned Meta also revised its public "Hateful Conduct" policy in ways EFF finds concerning. We address these changes in this blog post, published January 9, 2025.

In general, EFF supports moves that bring more freedom of expression and transparency to platforms—regardless of their political motivation. We’re encouraged by Meta's recognition that automated flagging and responses to flagged content have caused all sorts of mistakes in moderation. Just this week, it was reported that some of those "mistakes" were heavily censoring LGBTQ+ content. We sincerely hope that the lightened restrictions announced by Meta will apply uniformly, and not just to hot-button U.S. political topics. 

Censorship, broadly, is not the answer to misinformation. We encourage social media companies to employ a variety of non-censorship tools to address problematic speech on their platforms and fact-checking can be one of those tools. Community notes, essentially crowd-sourced fact-checking, can be a very valuable tool for addressing misinformation and potentially give greater control to users. But fact-checking by professional organizations with ready access to subject-matter expertise can be another. This has proved especially true in international contexts where they have been instrumental in refuting, for example, genocide denial. 

So, even if Meta is changing how it uses and preferences fact-checking entities, we hope that Meta will continue to look to fact-checking entities as an available tool. Meta does not have to, and should not, choose one system to the exclusion of the other. 

Importantly, misinformation is only one of many content moderation challenges facing Meta and other social media companies. We hope Meta will also look closely at its content moderation practices with regards to other commonly censored topics such as LGBTQ speech, political dissidence, and sex work.  

Meta’s decision to move its content teams from California to “help reduce the concern that biased employees are overly censoring content” seems more political than practical. There is of course no population that is inherently free from bias and by moving to Texas, the “concern” will likely not be reduced, but just relocated from perceived “California bias” to perceived “Texas bias.” 

Content moderation at scale, whether human or automated, is impossible to do perfectly and nearly impossible to do well, involving millions of difficult decisions. On the one hand, Meta has been over-moderating some content for years, resulting in the suppression of valuable political speech. On the other hand, Meta's previous rules have offered protection from certain types of hateful speech, harassment, and harmful disinformation that isn't illegal in the United States. We applaud Meta’s efforts to try to fix its over-censorship problem but will watch closely to make sure it is a good-faith effort and rolled out fairly and not merely a political maneuver to accommodate the upcoming U.S. administration change. 

電波監理審議会　有効利用評価部会(第40回)会議資料

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2回）

情報通信行政・郵政行政審議会　郵政行政分科会（第96回）

「日本スタートアップ大賞2025」の募集を開始します！

緊急消防援助隊の出動に係る総務大臣感謝状贈呈及び消防庁長官賞状授与

一般職事務系業務説明会の情報を更新しました

Last week, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the FCC, rejecting its authority to classify broadband as a Title II “telecommunications service.” In doing so, the court removed net neutrality protections for all Americans and  took away the FCC’s ability to meaningfully regulate internet service providers.

This ruling fundamentally gets wrong the reality of internet service we all live with every day. Nearly 80% of Americans view broadband access to be as important as water and electricity. It is no longer an extra, non-necessary “information service,” as it was seen 40 years ago, but it is a vital medium of communication in everyday life. Business, health services, education, entertainment, our social lives, and more have increasingly moved online. By ruling that broadband “information service” and not a “telecommunications service” this court is saying that the ISPs that control your broadband access will continue to face little to no oversight for their actions.

This is intolerable.

Net neutrality is the principle that ISPs treat all data that travels over their network equally, without improper discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites, or services. At its core, net neutrality is a principle of equity and protector of innovation—that, at least online, large monopolistic ISPs don’t get to determine winners and losers. Net neutrality ensures that users determine their online experience, not ISPs. As such, it is fundamental to user choice, access to information, and free expression online.

By removing protections against actions like blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, the court gives those willing and able to pay ISPs an advantage over those who are not. It privileges large legacy corporations that have partnerships with the big ISPs, and it means that newer, smaller, or niche services will have trouble competing, even if they offer a superior service. It means that ISPs can throttle your service–or that of, say, a fire department fighting the largest wildfire in state history. They can block a service they don’t like. In addition to charging you for access to the internet, they can charge services and websites for access to you, artificially driving up costs. And where most Americans have little choice in home broadband providers, it means these ISPs will be able to exercise their monopoly power not just on the price you pay for access, but how you access and engage with information as well.

Moving forward, now more than ever it becomes important for individual states to pass their own net neutrality laws, or defend the ones they have on the books. California passed a gold standard net neutrality law in 2018 that has survived judicial scrutiny. It is up to us to ensure it remains in place.

Congress can also end this endless whiplash of reclassification and decide, once and for all, by passing a law classifying broadband internet services firmly under Title II. Such proposals have been introduced before; they ought to be introduced again.

This is a bad ruling for Team Internet, but we are resilient.  EFF–standing with users, innovators, creators, public interest advocates, librarians, educators, and everyone else who relies on the open internet–will continue to champion the principles of net neutrality and work toward an equitable and open internet for all.