Aggregator

昨年、インセスト（近親相姦）がフランスで大きな問題となっていることを知りましたが、それに火をつけたのが今月話題になっている政治学者の家庭内でのインセストでした。この場合、血のつながりだけでなく、義理の親が義理の子供と性的行為を行うケースも含まれています。30年後に義理の親たちの行状をつづった暴露本とされる「La familia grande」（大きな家族）は、単に暴露だけでなく、インセスト（近親相姦）がどのような構造になっているかを家庭内で見つめたとされますが、雑誌では人類学者がインセストについて研究した本も紹介されています。

As part of their jobs, journalists routinely dig through government websites to find newsworthy documents and share them with the broader public. Journalists and Internet users understand that publicly available information on government websites is not secret and that, if government officials want to protect information from being disclosed online, they shouldn’t publicly post it on the Internet.

But  a California city is ignoring these norms and trying to punish several journalists for doing their jobs. The city of Fullerton claims that the journalists, who write for a digital publication called Friends for Fullerton’s Future, violated federal and state computer crime laws by accessing documents publicly available to any Internet user. Not only is the civil suit by the city a transparent attempt to cover up its own poor Internet security practices, it also threatens to chill valuable and important journalism. That’s why EFF, along with the ACLU and ACLU of Southern California, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a California appellate court this week in support of the journalists.

The city sued two journalists and Friends for Fullerton’s Future based on several claims, including an allegation that they violated California’s Comprehensive Computer Data and Fraud Act when they obtained and published documents officials posted to a city file-sharing website that was available to anyone with an Internet connection. For months, the city made the file-sharing site available to the public without a password or any other access restrictions and used it to conduct city business, including providing records to members of the public who requested them under the California Public Records Act.

Even though they took no steps to limit public access to the city’s file sharing site, officials nonetheless objected when the journalists published publicly available documents that officials believed should not have been public or the subject of news stories. And instead of taking steps to ensure the public did not have access to sensitive government documents, the city is trying to stretch the California computer crime law, known as Section 502, to punish the journalists. 

EFF’s amicus brief argues that the city’s interpretation of California’s Section 502, which was intended to criminalize malicious computer intrusions and is similar to the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, is wrong as a legal matter and that it threatens to chill the public’s constitutionally protected right to publish information about government affairs.

The City contends that journalists act “without permission,” and thus commit a crime under Section 502, by accessing a particular City controlled URL and downloading documents stored there—notwithstanding the fact that the URL is in regular use in City business and has been disseminated to the general public. The City claims that an individual may access a publicly available URL, and download documents stored in a publicly accessible account, only if the City specifically provides that URL in an email addressed to that particular person. But that interpretation of “permission” produces absurd—and dangerous—results: the City could choose arbitrarily to make a criminal of many visitors to its website, simply by claiming that it had not provided the requisite permission-email to the Visitor.

The city’s interpretation of Section 502 also directly conflicts with “the longstanding open-access norms of the Internet,” the brief argues. Because Internet users understand that they have permission to access information posted publicly on the Internet, the city must take affirmative steps to restrict access via technical barriers before it can claim a Section 502 violation.

The city’s broad interpretation of Section 502 is also dangerous because, if accepted, it would threaten a great deal of valuable journalism protected by the First Amendment.

The City’s interpretation would permit public officials to decide—after making records publicly available online (through their own fault or otherwise)—that accessing those records was illegal. Under the City’s theory, it can retroactively revoke generalized permission to access publicly available documents as to a single individual or group of users once it changes its mind or is simply embarrassed by the documents’ publication. The City could then leverage that revocation of permission into a violation of Section 502 and pursue both civil and criminal liability against the parties who accessed the materials.

Moreover, the “City’s broad reading of Section 502 would chill socially valuable research, journalism, and online security and anti-discrimination testing—activity squarely protected by the First Amendment,” the brief argues. The city’s interpretation of Section 502 would jeopardize important investigative reporting techniques that in the past have uncovered illegal employment and housing discrimination.

Finally, EFF’s brief argues that the city’s interpretation of Section 502 violates the U.S. Constitution’s due process protections because it would fail to give Internet users adequate notice that they were committing a crime while simultaneously giving government officials vast discretion to decide when to enforce the law against Internet users. 

The City proposes that journalists perusing a website used to disclose public records must guess whether particular documents are intended for them or not, intuit the City’s intentions in posting those documents, and then politely look the other way—or be criminally liable. This scheme results in unclear, subjective, and after-the-fact determinations based on the whims of public officials. Effectively, the public would have to engage in mind reading to know whether officials approve of their access or subsequent use of the documents from the City’s website.

The court should reject the city’s arguments and ensure that Section 502 is not abused to retaliate against journalists, particularly because the city is seeking to punish these reporters for its own computer security shortcomings. Publishing government records available to every Internet user is good journalism, not a crime, and using computer crime laws to punish journalists for obtaining documents available to every Internet user is dangerous—and unconstitutional.

AKIBA PC Hotline!によると、ゲームボーイで動作する独自OS「AMADO」が店頭販売されているという。このAMADOは同人サークル「へにゃぺんて」の大神祐真氏が開発したもので、シングルタスクで動作し、読み書き可能なファイルシステムを備える。バイナリエディタが搭載され、マシン語によるプログラミングができるそうだ。販売されているOSのバージョンは0.03となっている。 店頭で販売されているのは、カートリッジタイプでゲームボーイ本体に挿して起動するだけで動作するという。カートリッジ内には簡単なゲームや、RAMを初期化するツールなども入っているそうだ。使い方を解説したPDFファイルに関しても公開されている。カートリッジ版はBEEP秋葉原店で販売されており、販売価格は記事の時点では税込4812円だそう。なおPC上で動作可能なROMファイル版に関しては無料でダウンロードできる（ゲームボーイOS「AMADO」で8ビットマシン語入門、BOOTH）。

すべて読む | ITセクション | ハードウェア | OS | ソフトウェア | プログラミング | ゲーム |

関連ストーリー：
太陽電池とボタン押下発電のみで動作するゲームボーイ誕生 2020年09月10日
「超魔界村」や「ギャラクシアン」と言ったゲームの海賊版を販売していた男性が逮捕される、「数万タイトルがプレイ可能」などとうたう 2019年12月17日
ゲームボーイやゲームギア、ネオジオポケットなどとの互換性がある携帯ハード「Analogue Pocket」 2019年10月19日
ゲームボーイ発売30周年 2019年04月24日
任天堂、スマートフォンをゲームボーイ化するケースの特許を出願 2018年10月08日
任天堂、GitHubに対しJavaScriptベースのGBAエミュレータの削除を要求 2015年07月14日

統計局総務課 非常勤職員採用情報

Does the Fifth Amendment Protect You from Revealing Your Passwords to Police?

Washington, D.C. - The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), along with New Jersey-based Tarver Law Offices, are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination extends to the digital age by prohibiting law enforcement from forcing individuals to disclose their phone and computer passcodes.

“The Fifth Amendment protects us from being forced to give police a combination to a wall safe. That same protection should extend to our phone and computer passwords, which can give access to far more sensitive information than any wall safe could,” said Jennifer Granick, ACLU surveillance and cybersecurity counsel. “The Supreme Court should take this case to ensure our constitutional rights survive in the digital age.”

In a petition filed Thursday and first reported by The Wall Street Journal, the ACLU and EFF are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Andrews v. New Jersey. In this case, a prosecutor obtained a court order requiring Mr. Robert Andrews to disclose passwords to two cell phones. Mr. Andrews fought the order, citing his Fifth Amendment privilege. Ultimately, the New Jersey State Supreme Court held that the privilege did not apply to the disclosure or use of the passwords.

“There are few things in constitutional law more sacred than the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination,” said Mr. Andrews’ attorney, Robert L. Tarver, Jr. “Up to now, our thoughts and the content of our minds have been protected from government intrusion. The recent decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court highlights the need for the Supreme Court to solidify those protections.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held, consistent with the Fifth Amendment, that the government cannot compel a person to respond to a question when the answer could be incriminating. Lower courts, however, have disagreed on the scope of the right to remain silent when the government demands that a person disclose or enter phone and computer passwords. This confusing patchwork of rulings has resulted in Fifth Amendment rights depending on where one lives, and in some cases, whether state or federal authorities are the ones demanding the password.

“The Constitution is clear: no one ‘shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,’” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Andrew Crocker. “When law enforcement requires you to reveal your passcodes, they force you to be a witness in your own criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court should take this case to settle this critical question about digital privacy and self-incrimination.”

For the full petition:
https://www.eff.org/document/petition-writ-certiorari-andrews-v-new-jersey

Contact:  AndrewCrockerSenior Staff Attorneyandrew@eff.org MarkRumoldSenior Staff Attorneymark@eff.org

　昨年末に違法集会を扇動した罪に問われ禁錮１０カ月の実刑判決を受け香港の刑務所に収監中の民主活動家の周庭さん（アグネス・チョウ＝２４）が、重犯罪者が入る女性刑務所に移送された。この刑務所は殺人や薬物の密売などを犯した受刑者が多く、監視が特に厳しい。移送された理由は、周さんは収監後もツイッターやフェースブックで近況を発信していたため外部への影響力を保持していると当局が判断したからだといわれている。　一時は香港の〝民主の女神〟などと日本のメディアが持ち上げた周さんは、改め..