Aggregator

国連人道支援関係者からの情報として９月１７日、イスラエルの地上攻撃に追われて過去２日間で４万８０００人のパレスチナ人が南方に避難したとNNNニュースが伝えた。国連人道問題調整事務所（OCHA）によると、8月中旬から９月１５日までに、避難移動は19万人以上に上り、交通費の高騰により多くの人が徒歩で移動している。（大野和興）

オムロンソーシアルソリューションズ製無停電電源装置（UPS）管理アプリケーションには、Windowsサービスの実行ファイルパスが引用符で囲まれていない脆弱性が存在します。

三菱太陽光発電システム用モニターのエコガイドTABには、複数の脆弱性が存在します。

三菱電機製FAエンジニアリングソフトウェア製品には、複数の脆弱性が存在します。

日本電気株式会社が提供するUNIVERGE IX/IX-R/IX-Vシリーズルータには、クロスサイトスクリプティングの脆弱性が存在します。

複数のマイクロソフト製品には、脆弱性があります。この問題は、Microsoft Updateなどを用いて、更新プログラムを適用することで解決します。詳細は、開発者が提供する情報を参照してください。

ブラザー工業株式会社が提供する複数の製品には、複数の脆弱性が存在します。

東日本大震災による被災地方公共団体への派遣職員の採用情報

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　22GHz帯FWA高度化作業班（第2回）

「火災予防分野における技術カタログ」に掲載する 新たな点検技術の公募

電波監理審議会　有効利用評価部会(第49回)会議資料

AIセキュリティ分科会（第1回）

「統計データ・グラフフェア」の開催

第746回　入札監理小委員会（開催案内）

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　重点技術作業班（第1回）

第42回国民経済計算体系的整備部会会議

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5回）配布資料

電気通信紛争処理委員会（第254回）

This posted was drafted by EFF legal intern Alexandra Halbeck

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers California and most of the Western U.S., just delivered good news for digital privacy: abandoning a phone doesn’t abandon your Fourth Amendment rights in the phone’s contents. In United States v. Hunt, the court made clear that no longer having control of a device is not the same thing as surrendering the privacy of the information it contains. As a result, courts must separately analyze whether someone intended to abandon a physical phone and whether they intended to abandon the data stored within it. Given how much personal information our phones contain, it will be unlikely for courts to find that someone truly intended to give up their privacy rights in that data.

This approach mirrors what EFF urged in the amicus brief we filed in Hunt, joined by the ACLU, ACLU of Oregon, EPIC, and NACDL. We argued that a person may be separated from—or even discard—a device, yet still retain a robust privacy interest in the information it holds. Treating phones like wallets or backpacks ignores the reality of technology. Smartphones are comprehensive archives of our lives, containing years of messages, photos, location history, health data, browsing habits, and countless other intimate details. As the Supreme Court recognized in Riley v. California, our phones hold “the privacies of life,” and accessing those digital contents generally requires a warrant. This is an issue EFF has worked on across the country, and it is gratifying to see such an unambiguous ruling from an influential appellate court.

The facts of Hunt underscore why the court’s distinction between a device and its contents matters. In 2017, Dontae Hunt was shot multiple times and dropped an iPhone while fleeing for medical help. Police collected the phone from the crime scene and kept it as evidence. Nearly three years later—during an unrelated drug investigation—federal agents obtained a warrant and searched the phone’s contents. Hunt challenged both the warrantless seizure and the later search, arguing he never intended to abandon either the device or its data.

The court rejected the government’s sweeping abandonment theory and drew a crucial line for the digital age: even if police have legal possession of hardware, they do not have green light to rummage through its contents. The panel emphasized that courts must treat the device and the data as separate questions under a Fourth Amendment analysis.

In this specific case, because the government ultimately obtained a warrant before searching the device, that aspect of the case survived constitutional scrutiny—but crucially, only on that basis. The court also found that police acted reasonably in initially seizing the phone during the shooting investigation and keeping it as unclaimed property until a warrant could be obtained to search it.

Under Hunt, if officers find a phone that’s been misplaced, dropped during an emergency, or otherwise separated from its owner, they cannot leap from custody of the glass-and-metal shell to unfettered access to the comprehensive digital record inside. This decision ensures that constitutional protections don’t evaporate just because someone abandons their device, and that warrants still matter in the digital age. Our constitutional rights should follow our digital lives—no matter where our devices may end up.