情報通信行政・郵政行政審議会　電気通信事業部会（第143回）配布資料・議事概要・議事録

接続料の算定等に関する研究会（第85回）

消費者保護ルールの在り方に関する検討会（第57回）

デジタル空間における情報流通の健全性確保の在り方に関する検討会 ワーキンググループ（第23回）開催案内

情報通信審議会 情報通信技術分科会 電波利用環境委員会（第59回） 開催案内

非常時における事業者間ローミング等に関する検討会　 拡大分科会（第3回）開催案内

情報通信審議会 情報通信技術分科会 技術戦略委員会オール光ネットワーク共通基盤技術WG（第6回）開催案内

競争ルールの検証に関するWG（第56回）

　今年に入って2件目の日本人女性を海外で売春させる犯罪グループが警視庁保安部に摘発された。売春あっせん容疑で５月９日に逮捕された３人は、約３年間で２００人～３００人の女性を米国、オーストラリア、カナダなどの売春組織にあっせんし紹介料などとして総額２億円を得ていた。４月に逮捕された４人は２０２１年６月から３年間で同じく２００人から３００人の女性を米国、オーストラリア、カナダにあっせんし２億円売り上げていた。どちらも立ち上げた求人サイトを通じて女性を募っていた。　警視庁が摘発に動..

■開催趣旨　ここまで来たのか、戦争準備は！ 海上自衛隊呉基地に近接する広大な日鉄跡地を防衛省が丸ごと買い上げ、多機能な複合防衛拠点として整備する計画が持ち上がりました。呉基地には来年３月、自衛隊の基地・装備の増強が急ピッチで進む沖縄・南西諸島へ要員や武器、弾薬などを運ぶために創設する「海上輸送群」の司令部が設置されます。基地機能を格段に強靭化し、それをバックアップする「兵站」も備えた一大軍事拠点が呉に築かれようとしているのです。　一方、海路で繋がる米軍岩国基地も先行して拡張・..

レイバーネット第200回特集「日本の空は大丈夫か？−羽田衝突事故とJAL解雇争議」の放送を無事終えホッとしています。私にとっては第187回「どうする？どうなる？今世紀最悪の国策事業「リニア」を斬る」（2023.6.28放送）以来、約11か月ぶりの出演でした。司会もそのとき以来ですが、1度や2度の経験で慣れるほど司会業は簡単ではありません。放送後のスタジオは熱気に包まれ、全身に汗をかいていたのも前回と同じでした。 司会に当たって心がけたのは主に以下の3点でした。

For World Press Freedom Day, APC and its member Pollicy jointly organised a webinar, Gendered Disinformation during Elections in Africa. With over 19 African countries preparing for electoral…

The government violates the privacy rights of individuals on pretrial release when it continuously tracks, retains, and shares their location, EFF explained in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the case, Simon v. San Francisco, individuals on pretrial release are challenging the City and County of San Francisco’s electronic ankle monitoring program. The lower court ruled the program likely violates the California and federal constitutions. We—along with Professor Kate Weisburd and the Cato Institute—urge the Ninth Circuit to do the same.

Under the program, the San Francisco County Sheriff collects and indefinitely retains geolocation data from people on pretrial release and turns it over to other law enforcement entities without suspicion or a warrant. The Sheriff shares both comprehensive geolocation data collected from individuals and the results of invasive reverse location searches of all program participants’ location data to determine whether an individual on pretrial release was near a specified location at a specified time.

Electronic monitoring transforms individuals’ homes, workplaces, and neighborhoods into digital prisons, in which devices physically attached to people follow their every movement. All location data can reveal sensitive, private information about individuals, such as whether they were at an office, union hall, or house of worship. This is especially true for the GPS data at issue in Simon, given its high degree of accuracy and precision. Both federal and state courts recognize that location data is sensitive, revealing information in which one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. And, as EFF’s brief explains, the Simon plaintiffs do not relinquish this reasonable expectation of privacy in their location information merely because they are on pretrial release—to the contrary, their privacy interests remain substantial.

Moreover, as EFF explains in its brief, this electronic monitoring is not only invasive, but ineffective and (contrary to its portrayal as a detention alternative) an expansion of government surveillance. Studies have not found significant relationships between electronic monitoring of individuals on pretrial release and their court appearance rates or  likelihood of arrest. Nor do studies show that law enforcement is employing electronic monitoring with individuals they would otherwise put in jail. To the contrary, studies indicate that law enforcement is using electronic monitoring to surveil and constrain the liberty of those who wouldn’t otherwise be detained.

We hope the Ninth Circuit affirms the trial court and recognizes the rights of individuals on pretrial release against invasive electronic monitoring.

国連所属の一つの機構とされているWHOは実は、1948年にデービット・ロックフェラーの主張によって造られたのである。現在は、194カ国が参加している。その活動費は参加国からが大部分ではあるが、実はかなりの部分が民間人、民間企業などである。2018―2019年の例では、最高の寄与は、米国で、全予算の15.9％、次いで２番目が、ビル／メリンダ・ゲーツ財団で9.4 %、３番目が英国で7.7%、 GAVI Allianceなる民間団体（ゲーツ財団などが寄与）が6.6%、ドイツが5.2%、日本は3.2%、中国1.5%などなど。

Montana’s TikTok ban violates the First Amendment, EFF and others told the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a friend-of-the-court brief and urged the court to affirm a trial court’s holding from December 2023 to that effect.

Montana’s ban (which EFF and others opposed) prohibits TikTok from operating anywhere within the state and imposes financial penalties on TikTok or any mobile application store that allows users to access TikTok. The district court recognized that Montana’s law “bans TikTok outright and, in doing so, it limits constitutionally protected First Amendment speech,” and blocked Montana’s ban from going into effect. Last year, EFF—along with the ACLU, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Reason Foundation, and the Center for Democracy and Technology—filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of TikTok and Montana TikTok users’ challenge to this law at the trial court level.

As the brief explains, Montana’s TikTok ban is a prior restraint on speech that prohibits Montana TikTok users—and TikTok itself—from posting on the platform. The law also prohibits TikTok’s ability to make decisions about curating its platform.

Prior restraints such as Montana’s ban are presumptively unconstitutional. For a court to uphold a prior restraint, the First Amendment requires it to satisfy the most exacting scrutiny. The prior restraint must be necessary to further an urgent interest of the highest magnitude, and the narrowest possible way for the government to accomplish its precise interest. Montana’s TikTok ban fails to meet this demanding standard.

Even if the ban is not a prior restraint, the brief illustrates that it would still violate the First Amendment. Montana’s law is a “total ban” on speech: it completely forecloses TikTok users’ speech with respect to the entire medium of expression that is TikTok. As a result, Montana’s ban is subject to an exacting tailoring requirement: it must target and eliminate “no more than the exact source of the ‘evil’ it seeks to remedy.” Montana’s law is undeniably overbroad and fails to satisfy this scrutiny.

This appeal is happening in the immediate aftermath of President Biden signing into law federal legislation that effectively bans TikTok in its current form, by requiring TikTok to divest of any Chinese ownership within 270 days. This federal law raises many of the same First Amendment concerns as Montana’s.

It’s important that the Ninth Circuit take this opportunity to make clear that the First Amendment requires the government to satisfy a very demanding standard before it can impose these types of extreme restrictions on Americans’ speech.

　何か感じてはいるのだが、その正体がよく分からずモヤモヤすることがある。だがそれに名前が与えられて、ああ、そういうことだったのかと理解できた経験が、誰にでもあるだろう。まさに本書がそれである。　本書のサブタイトルには「なぜ＜勇気と感動＞は利用されるのか」とある。権力や経済の黒い部分をスポーツの美や感動によって、うまく洗い落す。つまりウォッシング（洗濯）することで本質を覆い隠す。もっと端的に言えば、政治とスポーツの歪な関係を、著者はスポーツ・イベントの歴史を紐解きながら見直して..