デジタル空間における情報流通の諸課題への対処に関する検討会デジタル広告ワーキンググループ(第6回)開催案内
令和6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
第41回政策評価審議会(第40回政策評価制度部会と合同)(令和6年12月24日開催)資料・議事要旨・議事録
【オピニオン】増える貧困若者、高齢者たたく〝世代間対立〟の解決法は=木下寿国
あるくラジオ第30回 : 「山谷をめぐる旅−織田忍さんに聞く」
[B] 「炭鉱に眠る犠牲者たちを返して」~市民団体による2回目の遺骨調査実施~
【署名活動】今しかない!メディアは ”オールドボーイズクラブ ” からの脱却を!はじめの一歩として女性役員を3割にすることを求めます=MIC
たんぽぽ舎メルマガ (2/8)アレから14年、反省なき原発回帰
経産省前脱原発テント日誌(8/3)忘れるな:伊達判決・普天間少女暴行事件・東電福島事故
The UK's Demands for Apple to Break Encryption Is an Emergency for Us All
The Washington Post reported that the United Kingdom is demanding that Apple create an encryption backdoor to give the government access to end-to-end encrypted data in iCloud. Encryption is one of the best ways we have to reclaim our privacy and security in a digital world filled with cyberattacks and security breaches, and there’s no way to weaken it in order to only provide access to the “good guys.” We call on Apple to resist this attempt to undermine the right to private spaces and communications.
As reported, the British government’s undisclosed order was issued last month, and requires the capability to view all encrypted material in iCloud. The core target is Apple’s Advanced Data Protection, which is an optional feature that turns on end-to-end encryption for backups and other data stored in iCloud, making it so that even Apple cannot access that information. For a long time, iCloud backups were a loophole for law enforcement to gain access to data otherwise not available to them on iPhones with device encryption enabled. That loophole still exists for anyone who doesn’t opt in to using Advanced Data Protection. If Apple does comply, users should consider disabling iCloud backups entirely. Perhaps most concerning, the U.K. is apparently seeking a backdoor into users’ data regardless of where they are or what citizenship they have.
There is no technological compromise between strong encryption that protects the data and a mechanism to allow the government special access to this data. Any “backdoor” built for the government puts everyone at greater risk of hacking, identity theft, and fraud. There is no world where, once built, these backdoors would only be used by open and democratic governments. These systems can be, and quickly will be, used by more repressive governments around the world to read protesters’ and dissenters’ communications. We’ve seen and opposed these sorts of measures for years. Now is no different.
Perhaps most concerning, the U.K. is apparently seeking a backdoor into users’ data regardless of where they are or what citizenship they have.
Of course, Apple is not the only company who uses end-to-end encryption. Some of Google’s backup options employ similar protections, as do many chat apps, cloud backup services, and more. If the U.K. government secures access to the encrypted data of Apple users through a backdoor, every other secure file-sharing, communication, and backup tool is at risk.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., just last year we had a top U.S. cybersecurity chief declare that “encryption is your friend,” taking a welcome break from the messaging we’ve seen over the years at EFF. Even the FBI, which has frequently pushed for easier access to data by law enforcement, issued the same recommendation.
There is no legal mechanism for the U.S. government to force this same sort of rule on Apple, and we’d hope to see Apple continue to resist it as they have in the past. But what happens in the U.K. will still affect users around the world, especially as the U.K. order specifically stated that Apple would be prohibited from warning its users that its Advanced Data Protection measures no longer work as initially designed.
Weakening encryption violates fundamental human rights and annihilates our right to private spaces. Apple has to continue fighting against this ruling to keep backdoors off users’ devices.
EFF to Ninth Circuit: Young People Have a First Amendment Right to Use Social Media (and All of Its Features)
Minors, like everyone else, have First Amendment rights. These rights extend to their ability to use social media both to speak and access the speech of others online. But these rights are under attack, as many states seek to limit minors’ use of social media through age verification measures and outright bans. California’s SB 976, or the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, prohibits minors from using a key feature of social media platforms—personalized recommendation systems, or newsfeeds. This law impermissibly burdens minors’ ability to communicate and find others’ speech on social media.
On February 6th, 2025, EFF, alongside the Freedom to Read Foundation and Library Futures, filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in NetChoice v. Bonta urging the court to overturn the district court decision partially denying a preliminary injunction of SB 976.
SB 976 passed into law in September of 2024, and prohibits various online platforms from providing personalized recommendation systems to minors without parental consent. For now, this prohibition only applies where the platforms know a user is a minor. Starting in 2027, however, the platforms will need to estimate the age of all their users based on regulations promulgated by the California attorney general. This means that (1) all users of platforms with these systems will need to pass through an age gate to continue using these features, and (2) children without parental consent will be denied access to the protected speech that is organized and distributed via newsfeeds. This is separate from the fact that feeds are central to most platforms’ user experience, and it’s not clear how social media platforms can or will adapt the experience for young people to comply with this law. Because these effects burden both users and platforms’ First Amendment rights, EFF filed this friend-of-the-court brief. This work is part of our broader fight against similar age-verification laws at the state and federal levels.
EFF got involved in this suit both to advocate for the First Amendment rights of adult and minor users and to correct the dangerous logic by the district court. The district court, hearing NetChoice’s challenge on behalf of online platforms, ruled that the personalized feeds covered by SB 976 are not expressive, and therefore not covered by the First Amendment. The lower court took an extremely narrow view of what constitutes expressive activity, writing that algorithms behind personalized newsfeeds don’t reflect the messages or editorial choices of their human creators and therefore do not trigger First Amendment scrutiny. The Ninth Circuit has since stayed the district court’s ruling, preliminarily blocking the law from taking effect until it has a chance to consider the issues.
EFF pushed back on this flawed reasoning, arguing that “the personalized feeds targeted by SB 976 are inherently expressive, because they (1) reflect the choices made by platforms to organize content on their services, (2) incorporate and respond to the expression users create to distribute users’ speech, and (3) provide users with the means to access speech in a digestible and organized way.” Moreover, the presence of these personalized recommendation systems informs the speech that users create on platforms, as users often create content with the intent of it getting “picked up” by the algorithm and delivered to other users.
SB 976 burdens the First Amendment rights of minor social media users by blocking their use of primary systems created to distribute their own speech and to hear others’ speech via those systems, EFF’s brief argues. The statute also burdens all internet users’ First Amendment rights because the age-verification scheme it requires will block some adults from accessing lawful speech, make it impossible for them to speak anonymously on these services, and increase their risk of privacy invasions. Under the law, adults and minors alike will need to provide identifying documents to prove their age, which chills users of any age who wish to remain anonymous from accessing protected speech, excludes adults lacking proper documentation, and exposes those who do share their documentation to data breaches or sale of their data.
We hope the Ninth Circuit recognizes that personalized recommendation systems are expressive in nature, subjects SB 976 to strict scrutiny, and rejects the district court ruling.
Related Cases: NetChoice Must-Carry Litigation【おすすめ本】田中優子『蔦屋重三郎 江戸を編集した男』─女性の国・吉原という活きた悪所への思い=渡辺憲司(立教大学名誉教授)
[B] 「不動産屋トランプがガザ乗っ取り」【西サハラ最新情報】 平田伊都子
「ベントする時、東電はためらわなかったのか」〜井戸川前双葉町長の訴え
The silence of Italy’s Guardia di Finanza on drones deployed in the Mediterranean
"As much as both agencies insist that drones are «helping to save human lives», according to Chris Jones, executive director of the NGO Statewatch, the facts say otherwise: «We know that stopping migrants from reaching Italy is a priority for both Italy and the EU, and we know that one way to achieve this is by using drones to detect migrants and then send them back to Tunisia and Libya». It is up to Frontex and the Guardia di Finanza to dispel these concerns."
Full story: The silence of Italy’s Guardia di Finanza on drones deployed in the Mediterranean