Aggregator

「デジタル広告の適正かつ効果的な配信に向けた広告主等向けガイダンス（案）」に関する意見募集の結果及びガイダンスの公表

川崎総務大臣政務官のフランス共和国への出張の結果

令和7年度地方財政審議会（5月27日）議事要旨

デジタル時代における放送制度の在り方に関する検討会（第33回）配付資料

第52回独立行政法人評価制度委員会・第70回評価部会・第21回会計基準等部会（合同会議）　議事録

第132回サービス統計・企業統計部会

　５月15日、沖縄は「返還」から数えて53年目の「本土復帰」記念日を迎えた。1972年入学の私にとって、復帰の自覚は琉球大学がその年から国立になったことくらいだったかもしれない。　だが、その日の土砂降りの雨は「沖縄の人々が流した涙だった」との表現は忘れられない。それは嬉し涙ではなく、怒りと悲しみの涙だった。　人権無き米軍占領下の苦難に、救いを祖国と呼ぶ日本への復帰に求め、「基地なき平和な島」を夢見た人々は、米軍基地維持に自衛隊配備という日米政府の思惑による沖縄返還に裏切られた..

Austin organizers turned out to rebuke the city’s misguided contract with Flock Safety— and won. This successful pushback from the community means at the end of the month Austin police will no longer be able to use the surveillance network of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) across the city.

Two years ago Austin City Council approved this controversial contract, despite strong local opposition. We knew then that these AI-driven surveillance systems weren’t just creepy, they are prone to misuse and mistakes which have a real human toll.

In the years since, this concern has materialized time and time again, and now the risks have heightened with the potential of using the data against immigrants and people seeking trans or reproductive healthcare. Most recently Texas authorities were implicated in a 404 media report on the use of these cameras to target abortion seekers. 

Today's victory in Austin is a tribute to what happens when a coalition of activist groups come together in common cause

Just a few days before the scheduled vote, an audit of the Austin Police Department program also revealed that over 20% of ALPR database searches lacked proper documentation or justification, in violation of department policy. The audit also revealed contract language allowed for data retention beyond council-mandated limits on retention and potential sharing with outside agencies. 

Fortunately, more than 30 community groups, including Electronic Frontier Alliance member EFF-Austin,  joined forces to successfully prevent contract renewal.

EFF-Austin Executive Director Kevin Welch told us that, "Today's victory in Austin is a tribute to what happens when a coalition of activist groups come together in common cause and stand in solidarity against the expansion of the surveillance state.” He went on to say, “But the fight is not over. While the Flock contract has been discontinued, Austin still makes use of ALPRs via its contract with Axon, and [the] council may attempt to bring this technology back [...] That being said, real progress in educating elected officials on the dangers of these technologies has been made.” 

This win in a city as large as Austin lends momentum to the larger trend across the country where local communities are pushing back against ALPR surveillance. EFF continues to stand with these local efforts, and encourages other organizers to reach out at organizing [at] eff.org in the fight against local surveillance.

Speaking to this trend, Kevin added, “As late as Monday, it didn't look like we had the votes to make this victory happen. While these are dark times, there are still lights burning in the dark, and through collective action, we can burn bright."

EFF submitted comments to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its subcomponent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), urging them to abandon a proposal to collect social media identifiers on forms for immigration benefits. This collection would mark yet a further expansion of the government’s efforts to subject immigrants to social media surveillance, invading their privacy and chilling their free speech and associational rights for fear of being denied key immigration benefits.

Specifically, the proposed rule would require applicants to disclose their social media identifiers on nine immigration forms, including applications for permanent residency and naturalization, impacting more than 3.5 million people annually. USCIS’s purported reason for this collection is to assist with identity verification, as well as vetting and national security screening, to comply with Executive Order 14161. USCIS separately announced that it would look for “antisemitic activity” on social media as grounds for denying immigration benefits, which appears to be related to the proposed rule, although not expressly included it.

Additionally, a day after the proposed rule was published, Axios reported that the State Department, the Department of Justice, and DHS confirmed a joint collaboration called “Catch and Revoke,” using AI tools to review student visa holders’ social media accounts for speech related to “pro-Hamas” sentiment or “antisemitic activity.”

If the proposed rule sounds familiar, it’s because this is not the first time the government has proposed the collection of social media identifiers to monitor noncitizens. In 2019, for example, the State Department implemented a policy requiring visa and visa waiver applicants to the United States to disclose the identifiers they used on some 20 social media platforms over the last five years—affecting over 14.7 million people annually. EFF joined a large contingent of civil and human rights organizations in objecting to that collection. That policy is now the subject of ongoing litigation in Doc Society v. Blinken, a case brought by two documentary film organizations, who argue that the rule affects the expressive and associational rights of their members by impeding their ability to collaborate and engage with filmmakers around the world. EFF filed two amicus briefs in that case.

What distinguishes this proposed rule from the State Department’s existing program is that most, if not all, of the noncitizens who would be affected currently legally reside in the United States, allowing them to benefit from constitutional protections.

In our comments, we explained that surveillance of even public-facing social media can implicate privacy interests by aggregating a wealth of information about both an applicant for immigration benefits, and also people in their networks, including U.S. citizens. This is because of the quantity and quality of information available on social media, and because of its inherent interconnected nature.

We also argued that the proposed rule appears to allow for the collection and consideration of First Amendment-protected speech, including core political speech, and anonymous and pseudonymous speech. This inevitably leads to a chilling effect because immigration benefits applicants will have to choose between potentially forgoing key benefits or self-censoring to avoid government scrutiny. That is, to help ensure that a naturalized citizenship application is not rejected, for example, an applicant may avoid speaking out on social media about American foreign policy or expressing views about other political topics that may be considered controversial by the federal government—even when other Americans are free to do so.

We urge DHS and USCIS to abandon this dangerous proposal.