Aggregator

Approaching San Diego’s first annual review of the city's controversial Flock Safety contract, a local coalition is calling on the city council to roll back this dangerous and costly automated license plate reader (ALPR) program.

The TRUST Coalition—a grassroots alliance including Electronic Frontier Alliance members Tech Workers Coalition San Diego and techLEAD—has rallied to stop the unchecked spread of ALPRs in San Diego. We’ve previously covered the coalition’s fight for surveillance oversight, a local effort kicked off by a “smart streetlight” surveillance program five years ago. 

In 2024, San Diego installed hundreds of AI-assisted ALPR cameras throughout the city to document what cars are driving where and when, then making that data accessible for 30 days.

ALPRs like Flock’s don’t prevent crime—they just vacuum up data on everyone who drives past. The resulting error-prone dragnet can then chill speech and be weaponized against marginalized groups, like immigrants and those seeking trans or reproductive healthcare. 

Despite local and state restrictions barring the sharing of ALPR with federal and out of state agencies, San Diego Police have reportedly disclosed license plate data to federal agencies—including Homeland Security Investigations and Customs and Border Patrol.

Also, despite a local ordinance requiring city council approval before deployment of surveillance technology, San Diego police have reportedly deployed ALPRs and smart streetlights at Comic-Con and Pride without the required approval.

The local coalition is not alone in these concerns. The San Diego Privacy Board recently recommended the city reject the Surveillance Use Policy for this technology. All of this costs the community over $3.5 million last year alone. That is why the TRUST coalition is calling on the city to reject this oppressive surveillance system, and, instead, invest in other essential services which improve day-to-day life for residents.

San Diegans who want to push back can get involved by signing the TRUST Coalition’s  petition, follow the campaign online, and contact their council members to demand the city end its contract with Flock and start respecting the privacy rights of everyone who lives, works, or visits through their community.

情報通信審議会　情報通信政策部会（第67回）開催案内

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5回）

消防庁消防庁総務課 非常勤職員採用情報

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　陸上無線通信委員会　V-High帯公共BB／狭帯域無線システム作業班（第7回）の開催について

情報通信行政・郵政行政審議会　電気通信事業部会（第156回）

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　陸上無線通信委員会（第92回）

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会（第187回）配布資料・議事概要・議事録

沖縄行政評価事務所の業務説明会情報を更新しました

New reporting has revealed that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is attempting to create the Intelligence Community’s Data Consortium–a centralized online marketplace where law enforcement and spy agencies can peruse and buy very personal digital data about you collected by data brokers. Not only is this a massive escalation of the deeply unjust data broker loophole: it’s also another repulsive signal that your privacy means nothing to the intelligence community.

Imagine a mall where every store is run by data brokers whose goods include your information that has been collected by smartphone applications. Depending on your permissions and what applications are on your phone, this could include contacts, behavioral data, financial information, and even your constant geolocation. Now imagine that the only customers in this mall are federal law enforcement officers and intelligence agents who should be going to a judge, presenting their evidence, and hoping the judge grants a warrant for this information. But now, they don’t need evidence or to justify the reason why they need your data. Now they just need taxpayer money, and this newly centralized digital marketplace provides the buying opportunities.

This is what the Office of the Director of National Intelligence wants to build according to recently released contract documents.

Across the country, states are trying desperately to close the loophole that allows the government to buy private data it would otherwise need a warrant to get. Montana just became the first state to make it illegal for police to purchase data, like geolocation data harvested by apps on smartphones. At the federal level, EFF has endorsed Senator Ron Wyden’s Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act, which closes this data broker loophole. The bill passed the House last year, but was rejected by the Senate.

And yet, the federal government is doubling down on this very obviously unjust and unpopular policy.

An ODNI that wants to minimize harms against civil liberties would be pursuing the opposite tact. They should not be looking for ways to formalize and institutionalize surveillance loopholes. That is why we not only call on the ODNI to reverse course and scrap the Intelligence Community’s Data Consortium–we also call on lawmakers to finish what they started and pass the Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act and close the databroker loophole at the federal level once and for all. We urge all of our supporters to do the same and help us keep the government accountable.

　病院などでの窓口負担の軽減や保険適用範囲の拡大などを求め医療関係者らが４月２３日、北九州市小倉北区のJR小倉駅前で署名活動を行った＝写真＝。福岡県歯科保険医協会と健和会附属大手町歯科診療所が実施し、30分ほどで50筆超の署名が集まった。北九州支部の会員も参加し行きかう市民らと対話した。　中には、「街頭活動に賛同する」と活動に飛び入りで加わる市民も。「高額療養費は重病に陥った人を支援する最後のセーフティネット。一旦、負担増は凍結となったが参院選後に強行されるかも」と医療関係者..

The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is back—and it still threatens free expression online. It would let government officials pressure or sue platforms to block or remove lawful content—especially on topics like mental health, sexuality, and drug use.

To avoid liability, platforms will over-censor. When forums or support groups get deleted, it’s not just teens who lose access—we all do. KOSA will also push services to adopt invasive age verification, handing private data to companies like Clear or ID.me.

Lawmakers should reject KOSA. Tell your Senators to vote NO.

Thanks in part to your support, the right to repair is now law in Washington.

Gov. Bob Ferguson signed two bills guaranteeing Washingtonians' right to access tools, parts, and information so they can fix personal electronics, appliances, and wheelchairs. This is the epitome of common-sense legislation. When you own something, you should have the final say about who fixes, adapts, or modifies it—and how.

When you own something, you should have the final say about who fixes, adapts, or modifies it—and how.

Advocates in Washington have worked for years to pass a strong right-to-repair law in the state. In addition to Washington’s Public Interest Research Group, the consumer electronics bill moved forward with a growing group of supporting organizations, including environmental advocates, consumer advocates, and manufacturers such as Google and Microsoft. Meanwhile, advocacy from groups including  Disability Rights Washington and the Here and Now Project made the case for the wheelchair's inclusion in the right-to-repair bill, bringing their personal stories to Olympia to show why this bill was so important.

And it’s not just states that recognize the need for people to be able to fix their own stuff.  Earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a memo stating that the Army should “[identify] and propose contract modifications for right to repair provisions where intellectual property constraints limit the Army's ability to conduct maintenance and access the appropriate maintenance tools, software, and technical data – while preserving the intellectual capital of American industry.” The memo said that the Army should seek this in future procurement contracts and also to amend existing contracts to include the right to repair.

This is a bedrock of sound procurement with a long history in America. President Lincoln only bought rifles with standardized tooling to outfit the Union Army, for the obvious reason that it would be a little embarrassing for the Commander in Chief to have to pull his troops off the field because the Army’s sole supplier had decided not to ship this week’s delivery of ammo and parts. Somehow, the Department of Defense forgot this lesson over the ensuing centuries, so that today, billions of dollars in public money are spent on material and systems that the US military can only maintain by buying service from a “beltway bandit.”

This recognizes what millions of people have said repeatedly: limiting people’s ability to fix their own stuff stands in the way of needed repairs and maintenance. That’s true whether you’re a farmer with a broken tractor during harvest, a homeowner with a misbehaving washing machine or a cracked smartphone screen, a hospital med-tech trying to fix a ventilator, or a soldier struggling with a broken generator.

The right to repair is gaining serious momentum. All 50 states have now considered some form of right-to-repair legislation. Washington is the eighth state to pass one of these bills into law—let’s keep it up.

Correction: An earlier version of this post misstated that Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll issued the memo, rather than U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. This post has been corrected.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued a troubling order to all state agency directors of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP): hand over your data.

This is part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to gain “unfettered access to comprehensive data from all state programs that receive federal funding,” through Executive Order 14243. While the order says this data sharing is intended to cut down on fraud, it is written so broadly that it could authorize almost any data sharing. Such an effort flies in the face of well-established data privacy practices and places people at considerable risk. 

A group SNAP recipients and organizations have thankfully sued to try and block the data sharing granted through the Executive Order.  And the state of New Mexico has even refused to comply with the order, “due to questions and concerns regarding the legality of USDA’s demand for the information,” according to Source NM.

The federal government has said very little about how they will use this information. Several populations targeted by the Trump Administration are eligible to be on the SNAP program, including asylum seekers, refugees, and victims of trafficking. Additionally, although undocumented immigrants are not eligible for SNAP benefits, their household members who are U.S. citizens or have other eligible immigration statuses may be—raising the distinct concern that SNAP information could be shared with immigration or other enforcement authorities.

We all deserve privacy rights. Accessing public benefits to feed yourself shouldn't require you to give those up.

EFF has long advocated for privacy policies that ensure that information provided in one context is not used for other reasons. People who hand over their personal information should do so freely and with full information about how their information will be used. Whether you're seeking services from the government or a company, we all deserve privacy rights. Accessing public benefits to feed yourself shouldn't require you to give those up.

It's particularly important to respect privacy for government programs that provide essential support services to vulnerable populations such as SNAP.  SNAP supports people who need assistance buying food—arguably the most basic need. Often, fear of reprisal and inappropriate government data sharing, such as immigration status of household members not receiving benefits, prevents eligible people from enrolling in food assistance despite need.  Discouraging eligible people from enrolling in SNAP benefits runs counterproductive to the goals of the program, which aim to reduce food insecurity, improve health outcomes, and benefit local economies.

This is just the latest government data-sharing effort that raises alarm bells for digital rights. No one should worry that asking their government for help with hunger will get them in trouble. The USDA must promise it will not weaponize programs that put food on the table during times of need. 

Two dangerous bills have been reintroduced in Congress that would reverse over a decade of progress in fighting patent trolls and making the patent system more balanced. The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the PREVAIL Act would each cause significant harm on their own. Together, they form a one-two punch—making it easier to obtain vague and overly broad patents, while making it harder for the public to challenge them.

These bills don’t just share bad ideas—they share sponsors, a coordinated rollout, and backing from many of the same lobbying groups. Congress should reject both.

TAKE ACTION

Tell Congress: Don't Bring Back The Worst Patents

PERA Would Legalize Patents on Basic Software—and Human Genes

PERA would overturn long-standing court decisions that have helped keep some of the worst patents out of the system. This includes the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision, which bars patents on abstract ideas, and Myriad v. AMP, which correctly ruled that naturally occurring human genes cannot be patented.

Thanks to the Alice decision, courts have invalidated a rogue’s gallery of terrible software patents—such as patents on online photo contests, online bingo, upselling, matchmaking, and scavenger hunts. These patents didn’t describe real inventions—they merely applied old ideas to general-purpose computers.

PERA would wipe out the Alice framework and replace it with vague, hollow exceptions. For example: it would ban patents on “dance moves” and “marriage proposals,” but would allow nearly anything involving a computer or machine—even if it only mentions the use of a computer. This is the same language used in many bad software patents that patent trolls have wielded for years. If PERA passes, patent claims  that are currently seen as weak will become much harder to challenge. 

Adding to that, PERA would bring back patents on human genes—exactly what was at stake in the Myriad case. EFF joined that fight, alongside scientists and patients, to prevent patents that interfered with essential diagnostic testing. Congress should not undo that victory. Some things just shouldn’t be patented. 

PERA’s requirement that living genes can constitute an invention if they are “isolated” is meaningless; every gene used in science is “isolated” from the human body. This legal wordplay was used to justify human gene patents for decades, and it’s deeply troubling that some U.S. Senators are on board with bringing them back. 

PREVAIL Weakens the Public’s Best Defense Against Patent Abuse

While PERA makes it easier to obtain a bad patent, the PREVAIL Act makes it harder to get rid of one.

PREVAIL would severely limit inter partes review (IPR), the most effective process for challenging wrongly granted patents. This faster, more affordable process—administered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—has knocked out thousands of invalid patents that should never have been issued.

EFF has used IPR to protect the public. In 2013, we challenged and invalidated a patent on podcasting, which was being used to threaten creators across the internet. Thousands of our supporters chipped in to help us bring that case. Under PREVAIL, that challenge wouldn’t have been allowed. The bill would significantly limit IPR petitions unless you’ve been directly sued or threatened—a major blow to nonprofits, open source advocates, and membership-based defense groups that act in the public interest. 

PREVAIL doesn’t stop at limiting who can file an IPR. It also undermines the fairness of the IPR process itself. It raises the burden of proof, requiring challengers to overcome a presumption that the patent is valid—even when the Patent Office is the one reviewing it. The bill forces an unfair choice: anyone who challenges a patent at the Patent Office would have to give up the right to fight the same patent in court, even though key legal arguments (such as those involving abstract subject matter) can only be made in court.

It gets worse. PREVAIL makes it easier for patent owners to rewrite their claims during review, taking advantage of hindsight about what’s likely to hold up. And if multiple parties want to challenge the same patent, only the first to file may get heard. This means that patents used to threaten dozens or even hundreds of targets could get extra protection, just because one early challenger didn’t bring the best arguments.

These changes aren’t about improving the system. They’re about making it easier for a small number of patent owners to extract settlements, and harder for the public to push back.

A Step Backward, Not Forward

Supporters of these bills claim they’re trying to restore balance to the patent system. But that’s not what PERA and PREVAIL do. They don’t fix what’s broken—they break what’s working.

Patent trolling is still a severe problem. In 2024, patent trolls filed a stunning 88% of all patent lawsuits in the tech sector. 

At the same time, patent law has come a long way over the past decade. Courts can now reject abstract software patents earlier and more easily. The IPR process has become a vital tool for holding the Patent Office accountable and protecting real innovators. And the Myriad decision has helped keep essential parts of human biology in the public domain.

PERA and PREVAIL would undo all of that.

These bills have support from a variety of industry groups, including those representing biotech firms, university tech transfer offices, and some tech companies that rely on aggressive patent licensing. While those voices deserve to be heard, the public deserves better than legislation that makes it easier to secure a 20-year monopoly on an idea, and harder for anyone else to challenge it.

Instead of PERA and PREVAIL, Congress should focus on helping developers, creators, and small businesses that rely on technology—not those who exploit it through bad patents.

Some of that legislation is already written. Congress should consider making end-users immune from patent threats, closing loopholes that allow certain patent-holders to avoid having their patents reviewed, and adding transparency requirements so that people accused of patent infringement can at least figure out who’s making the allegations. 

But right now, EFF is fighting back, and we need your help. These bills may be dressed up as reform, but we’ve seen them before—and we know the damage they’d do.

TAKE ACTION

Tell Congress: Reject PERA and PREVAIL

Two dangerous patent bills—PERA and PREVAIL—are back in Congress. These bills would revive harmful patents and make it harder for the public to fight back.

The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) would overturn key Supreme Court decisions that currently protect us from patents on the most basic internet software, and even human genes. This would open the floodgates to vague, overbroad claims on simple, widely used web features—exactly the kind of patents that patent trolls exploit.

The PREVAIL Act would gut the inter partes review (IPR) process, one of the most effective tools for challenging bad patents. It would ban many public interest groups, including EFF, from filing challenges.

韓国の大統領選挙今夜にも大勢が決する。韓国の選挙らしく、波乱万丈の選挙戦だったけど、今回の波乱万丈はあまり面白くなかった。（安田幸弘）

京葉システム株式会社が提供するタイム・ワークスには、パストラバーサルの脆弱性が存在します。