日中韓自由貿易協定(FTA)交渉の第10 回交渉会合(局長/局次長会合)が開催されます
「活力あふれる『ビンテージ・ソサエティ』の実現に向けて」(研究会報告書)をとりまとめました
自動走行との連携が期待される、地図情報に関する国際規格が発行されました
東京電力株式会社の会社分割について、電気事業法に基づき認可しました
‘News’ Site Keeps Hallucinating EFF Staffers
What do EFF staffers Sarah Chen, Javier Morales, Caitlin Chin, Emma Rodriguez, and Mikko Kopponen have in common?
For one thing, they don’t exist.
For another, all have been quoted as EFF experts in articles published in the past two months on a site called News-USA Today, which describes itself as “an independent news publisher focused on clear, accurate, and useful journalism.”
Uh…
(Please don’t confuse this site with USA Today, in which real EFF experts are accurately quoted on a regular basis.)
News-USA Today is hardly the only slagheap that’s hallucinating or fabricating EFF personnel and quotes; as we wrote last September, media companies large and small are using AI to generate news content because it’s cheaper than paying for journalists’ salaries, but that savings can come at the cost of the outlets’ reputations— assuming they care about reputation at all.
But this many fake EFF sources in two months? That’s making a play for the championship title of bogus news content.
News-USA Today’s site proclaims, “Our goal is simple: give readers the facts and the context they need to make informed decisions.” It then defines its mission:
- “Deliver timely, factual reporting grounded in verifiable sources and public documents.”
- “Make complex topics understandable without losing nuance or accuracy.”
- “Serve the public interest by surfacing stories that affect lives, institutions, and communities.”
- “Maintain a clear separation between news, analysis, opinion, and sponsored content.”
Attempts to reach contacts listed on the site went unanswered. In fact, after we reached out to them, they published a story on June 9 with quotes from Electronic Frontier Foundation Executive Director Jared Cohen — who also doesn’t exist.
As we noted last year, EFF is all about having our words spread far and wide. Per our copyright policy, any and all original material on the EFF website may be freely distributed at will under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY), unless otherwise noted.
However, we don't want disreputable sites making up words (or false identities!) for us, whether or not they’re using AI. False quotations that misstate our positions damage the trust that the public and reputable media outlets have in us.
The best thing a news consumer can do is invest a little time and energy to learn how to discern the real from the fake. It’s unfortunate that it's the public’s burden to put in this much effort, but while we're adjusting to new tools and a new normal, a little effort now can go a long way.
As we’ve noted before in the context of election misinformation, the nonprofit journalism organization ProPublica has published a handy guide about how to tell if what you’re reading is accurate or “fake news,” as has FactCheck.org.
【月刊マスコミ評・新聞】自衛隊の統制と政治の責任への視点=六光寺 弦
LGBT Q&A: We’re Back With Season 2!
Last June during Pride, we launched a new initiative—LGBT Q&A—where we answered your most pressing queer-related digital rights questions on EFF’s Instagram and TikTok accounts. No question was too big or too small! You asked us things like what pictures to use on dating apps; how to remove your name from internet searches; why homophobic content doesn't get removed after you report it; and how to stay safe at Pride marches.
And this year, we’re doing it all again.
Both online and offline, LGBTQ+ individuals and the fight for queer liberation are under threat; and the need for guidance and protection from prying eyes and oppressive structures is increasingly pertinent. This is particularly true for those of us who face consequences when intimate details around gender or sexual identities are revealed without consent.
But we know that it can feel overwhelming to even start thinking about how you can protect yourself online in the face of these issues. That's why this Pride, we’re answering all your digital rights questions.
How to submit your questions?
- If you would like to remain anonymous and away from social platforms, you can submit questions via this secure link.
- Head to EFF’s Reddit or the r/LGBTQ subreddit and submit your questions underneath the posts.
- Your questions can also be submitted under the linked posts on EFF’s Instagram and TikTok, as well as on our stories where you can submit questions directly.
- If you prefer Mastodon and Bluesky, comment your questions under the linked posts.
As always, we will not engage with comments that discriminate against marginalized groups, including the LGBTQ+ community.
We’re here to help build an online space where you get to decide what aspects of yourself you share with others, how you present to the world, and what things you keep private. Join us to make the internet private, safe, and full of pride.
農薬第二専門調査会(第52回)の開催について(非公開)【6月22日開催】
薬剤耐性菌に関するワーキンググループ(第63回)の開催について(非公開)【6月22日開催】
薬剤耐性菌に関するワーキンググループ(第62回)の開催について【6月22日開催】
微生物・ウイルス専門調査会(第100回)の開催について【6月18日開催】
食品安全委員会(第1028回)の開催について【6月16日開催】
JVN: 複数の三菱電機製家電製品に搭載されているRealtek社製チップ向けWi-Fiドライバにおけるヒープベースのバッファオーバーフローの脆弱性
お知らせ:JPCERT/CC Eyes「ツール分析結果シートのアップデート」
法人企業景気予測調査(令和8年4-6月期)
Congress Just Rushed Through a Disastrous Copyright Office Overhaul
In a voice vote earlier this week, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6028, the “Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act.” The legislation is presented as a technical reorganization of some government agencies, but it’s much more than that.
H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office, and not in a good way. The bill removes the Library of Congress’ current supervisory role over the Copyright Office, transfers several powers directly to the Register of Copyrights, and makes the Register a presidential appointee, confirmed by the Senate.
These changes would make an office that’s already hugely influential in copyright and tech policy much more political. EFF first explained why that’s a terrible idea when it came up nearly a decade ago. This bill, like the older one, weakens the few public-interest checks and balances that do exist. We hope the Senate promptly rejects this bill.
The Copyright Office Doesn’t Need More Politics—Or More PowerThe Copyright Office's main responsibilities are administrative and advisory. It registers copyrights, maintains records, grows the Library of Congress’s collections, and provides expertise to Congress on copyright law. But over the past two decades, the Office has also become increasingly influential in copyright policy debates that affect free expression, libraries, educators, competition—and everyday internet users. Unfortunately, it has not been a neutral advocate. The office’s recent report on the role of AI severely bungled the issue of fair use, prioritizing private licensing market “solutions” over user rights.
Going further back, the Copyright Office supported one of the most infamous anti-internet proposals of all time—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a disastrous internet censorship proposal that sparked one of the largest online protests in history. The Office has repeatedly advanced positions that favored large entertainment-industry interests over the public interest.
The Office also plays a major role in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Section 1201 rulemaking process, which determines when the public may lawfully bypass digital locks for activities such as security research, repair, preservation, or accessibility. EFF has used this process repeatedly to mitigate some of the worst harms of the DMCA. H.R. 6028 would move rulemaking authority over 1201 from the Librarian of Congress to the Register of Copyrights, further consolidating power within the Copyright Office itself.
The bill also makes the Register of Copyrights a presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate. Each administration will be pressured to pick nominees aligned with their own policy preferences, and the powerful copyright owning industries will invest even more heavily in lobbying to get their way, and influence the selection. This position should be focused on administrative ability and actual expertise, not lobbying and politics.
The Copyright Office Should Stay Connected To The Library of CongressH.R. 6028 would do more than change who appoints the Register of Copyrights. It would sever the Copyright Office from Library of Congress supervision and transfer many Librarian powers directly to the Register.
The supervisory relationship exists for good reason, as the nation’s libraries have pointed out for years. The Library, while far from perfect, at least has the mission of preserving and providing access to knowledge. That should be an important public-interest counterweight in copyright debates. Congress has not explained how weakening the ties between the Library and the Copyright Office would serve the public better, or even seriously inquired about it.
This Bill Was Rushed ThroughBack in March, EFF joined Public Knowledge, the Center for Democracy and Technology, library organizations and tech groups, urging Congress not to fast-track this legislation. We told them changes to the Copyright Office will have major consequences for the “speech rights, educational opportunities, and creative freedoms of all Americans.”
Yet Congress moved forward without any hearings on the bill, and without meaningful examination. H.R. 6028 creates a years-long separation of the Copyright Office from the Library of Congress, transfers significant legal authority, and restructures the appointment process for the nation’s top copyright official. Changes like that deserve hearings, debate, and public scrutiny. H.R. 6028 got none of that.
The Senate Should Stop This BillCopyright law exists to serve the public and “promote the progress” of science and learning. The institutions that administer copyright law should do the same.
H.R. 6028 would move the Copyright Office further away from that goal. Congress should be strengthening public-interest oversight of copyright policymaking, not looking for ways to concentrate more authority in a single presidentially appointed official.
The Senate should reject H.R. 6028. The Copyright Office should serve the public—not presidential administrations, and not industry lobbyists.