Aggregator

株式会社バッファローが提供するWi-FiルーターWXR9300BE6Pシリーズには、パストラバーサルの脆弱性が存在します。

利用者情報に関するワーキンググループ（第33回）

令和7年度新潟県国民保護共同実動・図上訓練の実施

第53回独立行政法人評価制度委員会　議事録

第71回独立行政法人評価制度委員会評価部会　議事録

令和6年能登半島地震に係る被害状況等について（第122報）

陸上無線通信委員会報告（案）に対する意見募集

「電話リレーサービスの在り方に関する検討会」の開催

陸上無線通信委員会報告（案）に対する意見募集

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非常時における事業者間ローミング等に関する検討作業班（第6回）開催案内

電話リレーサービスの在り方に関する検討会（第1回）の開催について

公職選挙法施行規則等の一部を改正する省令（案）に対する意見募集

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　電波有効利用委員会電波上空利用作業班（第1回）　開催案内

総務省顧問の発令

一般職事務系（高卒者/行政評価・管理分野）の採用面接情報を更新しました。

国立研究開発法人審議会　情報通信研究機構部会（第50回）

国立研究開発法人審議会　情報通信研究機構部会（第51回）

国立研究開発法人審議会（第23回）

第53回独立行政法人評価制度委員会　議事概要

California Governor Newsom has signed S.B. 524, a bill that begins the long process of regulating and imposing transparency on the growing problem of AI-written police reports. EFF supported this bill and has spent the last year vocally criticizing the companies pushing AI-generated police reports as a service. 

S.B.524 requires police to disclose, on the report, if it was used to fully or in part author a police report. Further, it bans vendors from selling or sharing the information a police agency provided to the AI. 

The bill is also significant because it required departments to retain all the various drafts of the report so that judges, defense attorneys, or auditors could readily see which portions of the final report were written by the officer and which portions were written by the computer. This creates major problems for police who use the most popular product in this space: Axon’s Draft One. By design, Draft One does not retain an edit log of who wrote what. Now, to stay in compliance with the law, police departments will either need Axon to change their product, or officers will have to take it upon themselves to go retain evidence of what each subsequent edit and draft of their report looked like. Or, police can drop Axon’s Draft One all together. 

EFF will continue to monitor whether departments are complying with this state law.

After Utah, California has become the second state to pass legislation that begins to address this problem. Because of the lack of transparency surrounding how police departments buy and deploy technology, it’s often hard to know if police departments are using AI to write reports, how the generative AI chooses to translate audio to a narrative, and which portions of reports are written by AI and which parts are written by the officers. EFF has written a guide to help you file public records requests that might shed light on your police department’s use of AI to write police reports. 

It’s still unclear if products like Draft One run afoul of record retention laws, and how AI-written police reports will impact the criminal justice system. We will need to consider more comprehensive regulation and perhaps even prohibition of this use of generative AI. But S.B. 524 is a good first step. We hope that more states will follow California and Utah’s lead and pass even stronger bills.