経済産業省は、工場を建設する目的で平成27年（1月～12月期）に1,000平方メートル以上の用地を取得した製造業、ガス業、熱供給業、電気業の事業者を対象に「工場立地動向調査」を実施し、結果を取りまとめました。

4月5日から9日まで、韓国のソウルにおいて、日中韓自由貿易協定(FTA)交渉の第10回交渉会合(局長/局次長会合)が開催されます。

経済産業省は、昨年10月に「活力あふれる『ビンテージ・ソサエティ』の実現に向けた取組に係る研究会」を立ち上げ、検討を重ね、今般報告書をとりまとめました。

交通事故の削減や渋滞緩和、環境負荷低減等の課題解決が期待される協調ITS（※）の実現普及に必要とされる地図データベースの整備や維持・更新のコスト削減に役立つ日本発の国際規格が制定されました。

平成28年3月4日に、東京電力からありました改正電気事業法に基づく会社分割に係る申請について、このたび申請のとおり認可しました。

　　　　　　　　　　　NY取材報告会で話すPOSSE代表理事の岩本菜々氏　 今年１月に就任の米ニューヨークのゾーラン・マムダニ市長（３５）は、両親がインドからの移民で、イスラム教徒、野党民主党左派の米国民主的社会主義者（DSA）のメンバーだ。元ラッパーの若い政治家を首長に押し上げた原動力は、労組や反戦など社会運動（草の根運動）に取り組む２０から３０代の若者たちだ。そこで日本で貧困など若者の様々な問題の解決をめざすNPO法人「POSSE（ポッセ、英語で「友達グループ」の意味）..

California lawmakers are advancing A.B. 2047 toward a floor vote in the State Senate. The bill would require 3D printers sold in California to run government-approved software that scans every print and leaves it up to unproven algorithms to identify blueprints which could be firearm components. The real impact however is surveillance, manufacturer lock-in, and censorship without recourse — while the scheme is easily bypassed by people already willing to break existing law by producing firearm parts.

Demand your state Senator votes NO on A.B. 2047

　著者は在米ユダヤ人社会運動家であり、イスラエルの民主主義達成のための活動をしている。　著者曰く、「10月7日とその後のいわゆるガザ戦争は、『約束の地』におけるアラブ人とユダヤ人のほぼ150年にわた戦争の最新にしておそらく最も恐ろしい一章だった。この争いの物語こそ、本書の物語なのである」。　ずっしりと分厚い本書は3部仕立てで、イスラエル建国前から現在までのイスラエル・パレスチナ確執の歴史を、かなり客観的にフォローしているだけでなく、在米ユダヤ人という著者ならではの立場から、在..

In my first weeks as Executive Director of EFF, I’ve been reminded every day how consequential this moment is in determining what kind of future we will have.

We are on the edge. What each one of us steps up to do – with our expertise, energy, and resources – will determine whether our future is one of openness, security, and fundamental rights, or one controlled through fear, surveillance, and centralized power.

I am proud to take the torch and help lead our EFF community forward at this pivotal time in history. And we need you in the fight.

We can and must reject a false choice between innovation and civil liberties.

Right now, we are celebrating an important U.S. Supreme Court win in Chatrie v. United States that reaffirmed our right to privacy in our location data and will help curb one flank of supercharged government surveillance. But in another case, the Court overturned 90 years of precedent limiting executive power and rubber-stamped the President’s firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. The U.S. government also issued a chilling directive to Anthropic to prohibit the company from allowing foreign nationals to access its newest technology – then rescinded it two weeks later. And legislation limiting access to social media is advancing in many places around the world.

Each headline is different, but they tell one story: Many of the threats that once seemed hypothetical are now reality, and EFF’s work to ensure technology supports rights, justice, freedom, and innovation for all people has never been more critical. Governments and large corporations possess surveillance capabilities that were unimaginable just a few years ago. Ever greater concentrations of power are shaping speech, creativity, markets, and democratic institutions. Governments are increasingly seeking to control the internet and people’s ability to access information and communicate freely. Our community’s work is fundamental to the future of our countries, our livelihoods, and literally our lives.

I am also mindful that the United States marked its 250th anniversary last week and that this week is EFF’s 36th birthday. Anniversaries, like leadership changes, naturally invite reflection on where we are in history and challenge us to look ahead. What does it mean for a democracy, founded in an analog age, to survive in the digital world?

It is also an opportunity to ask how our EFF community can be even stronger, so we can help bring more people into the work of making sure technology serves everyone.

I began my career in public-interest work in Silicon Valley at the height of the 1990s dotcom boom, working at some of the earliest nonprofit “digital divide” programs that provided community access to computers and the internet, because I have always believed in the power of technology to create greater opportunity for all, not just profit for a few. I have dedicated my career to public interest technology because I am driven to see technology’s promise realized in my lifetime, and there is no other organization in the world that can do more to meet this moment and build a future where technology truly works for people than EFF.

These are perilous times. It is also a moment of extraordinary possibility. The future of AI has not been written and we can work together to get it right. We can make sure our laws reflect the needs of the modern digital age. We can build the technologies that empower rather than marginalize communities.

The future we want and need will be built by people and movements working together to ensure technology empowers rather than oppresses.

For me, the work starts with recognizing that digital rights are not a siloed policy issue. We must fight and win on the digital terrain to organize, speak freely, access healthcare, find work, receive an education, and participate fully in democracy. We can and must reject a false choice between innovation and civil liberties, and build power across movements to make sure technology truly works for people.

This challenge is what EFF was purpose-built to tackle. When EFF was founded in 1990, the World Wide Web did not yet exist, cell phones were the size of bricks, and EFF’s founders understood something remarkably prescient: Technology and civil liberties would become inseparable.

Now we all live digital lives, and the important digital rights issues that EFF has worked on since 1990 have become kitchen-table issues all around the world. EFF’s founders understood that how technology is built, developed, used, and controlled deeply intersects with rights, justice, freedom, and democracy.

EFF’s unique combination of world-class lawyers, activists, and public interest technologists pursue change simultaneously in the courts, legislatures, companies, and our communities, and pierce through false choices. This integrated, intersectional approach, grounded in deep legal, policy, and technical expertise, is a linchpin in fighting and winning against some of the most powerful forces in the world – both governments and trillion-dollar companies.

We defend people against unlawful government data collection and challenge license plate and face surveillance in our communities. We shape AI law and policy to protect civil liberties and support creativity and innovation. We push companies to strengthen encryption, fight to ensure you have the right to own what you buy, and build public interest technologies like Privacy Badger and Certbot that millions of people rely on every day.

This work matters because it all answers the same question: Will technology empower or control us?

As I look ahead, there are major battles on the horizon. We must:

• Challenge increasingly sophisticated government and corporate surveillance systems that endanger our rights, democracy, safety and security
• Preserve strong encryption and online anonymity
• Ensure AI is developed and used in ways that respect fundamental rights and works for those who build it, use it, and are affected by it
• Confront the concentrations of power that limit access to new creativity and defend the rights of developers to build and innovate

To meet these challenges, we must not only utilize the powerful levers of successful litigation, smart policy interventions, and effective public interest technology tools. We must also build a broader movement that recognizes that fights on the digital terrain are integral to all our fights for rights and justice – from civil rights and immigrants’ rights to reproductive rights, disability rights, LGBTQ+ rights, workers' rights, economic justice, and more. Together, our EFF community can help broaden the public conversation about technology's role in society and continue building the collective power necessary to shape the future rather than react to it.

I have hit the ground running, working with EFF’s exceptional staff and Board and starting to meet many of you in the broader EFF community. Every conversation has reinforced my confidence that our community is uniquely prepared for the work ahead. I’m looking forward to meeting more of you at my first EFFecting Change livestream on August 12 with Cory Doctorow, and hope this conversation is just the beginning of finding new ways to work together. Please stay tuned for additional in-person events with me around the country this fall.

As we celebrate EFF's birthday, I am energized by all the opportunities ahead for us to build on EFF’s strong foundation and make it even mightier. And we need you and others in the fight. Please renew your membership, become a recurring monthly supporter, and introduce someone new to EFF by snagging them a gift membership.

Everything we accomplish—every lawsuit, every policy victory, every public interest technology tool, every campaign—is possible because people like you are committed to ensuring technology strengthens freedom, privacy, creativity, and opportunity for everyone.

The future we want and need will be built by people and movements working together to ensure technology empowers rather than oppresses.

Let’s build that future together.

日本でも＜知る人ぞ知る＞のベイサット西サハラ難民政府外務大臣が、南部アフリカ諸国を歴訪中です。　6月末から、アンゴラ、ジンバブエ、モザンビーク、ナミビア、ボツワナ、レソト、と、6か国の大統領や首脳と精力的に会談を重ねました。　しかし、ベイサットさん、、ちょっと太りすぎでは？

This post is part 2 in a series about automated content moderation. Read the first post here.

When whistleblower Frances Haugen leaked a set of documents from Meta in 2020, among the revelations was a jarring statistic: The company’s algorithms designed to detect terrorist content incorrectly deleted nonviolent Arabic-language content 77 percent of the time, while failing to detect hate speech under the company’s own policies in many instances. Meta’s own transparency report released later that year demonstrated similar findings. Five years later, researchers in the region report that overzealous moderation remains a problem, while paths to remedy have all but collapsed.

Where these systems are faltering in Arabic, they’re positively failing in less-resourced languages. As a 2025 report from the Center for Democracy and Technology found, labeled datasets in certain languages and dialects such as Maghrebi Arabic and Kiswahili contain inconsistencies, bias, and inaccuracies due to the limited hiring of annotators who actually speak the languages as well as shifts in the languages themselves. An investigation into ChatGPT’s outputs in several low-resource languages demonstrates the depth of problem.

But language disparities are just one of several concerns as automated moderation becomes more widespread. From the systemic suppression of content from Palestine to the repeated misclassification of LGBTQ+ content as adult or explicit material, these varied examples demonstrate the risks of overreliance on automated moderation—and the need for stronger safeguards.

Transparency, Cultural Competence, Appeals

As we discussed in Part 1 of this series, automated systems can process content at a scale that humans never could, potentially enabling better moderation at scale and alleviating the psychological load on ill-paid moderators whose jobs require them to view incredibly disturbing content. But automated systems also reproduce existing biases, struggle to understand context, and often make mistakes that disproportionately affect journalists, activists, artists, and other vulnerable and marginalized communities.

As Rachel Griffin wrote in 2023, “Perfectly accurate moderation is not only technically out of reach but intrinsically impossible.” Despite those intrinsic flaws, there is a great deal companies, policymakers, and civil society can do to help ensure that highly-automated systems operate in ways that respect human rights, minimize predictable harms, and provide meaningful accountability when they fail. If companies are going to continue relying on automation to moderate users’ speech—and there is little reason to believe they won’t—then accountability must evolve alongside these technologies.

That evolution can start with committing to the Santa Clara Principles 2.0. These principles, first outlined in 2020 and re-launched in 2021 after substantial international input, reflect the needs and expectations of the global community and specifically address automation. The first Foundational Principle states:

Companies should ensure that human rights and due process considerations are integrated at all stages of the content moderation process, and should publish information outlining how this integration is made. Companies should only use automated processes to identify or remove content or suspend accounts, whether supplemented by human review or not, when there is sufficiently high confidence in the quality and accuracy of those processes. Companies should also provide users with clear and accessible methods of obtaining support in the event of content and account action. 

Drawing on the Santa Clara Principles 2.0, international human rights standards, and years of research documenting the shortcomings of automated moderation, we propose eight recommendations for policymakers thinking about regulation and companies deploying AI-assisted content moderation systems.

1. Automated technologies should help, not replace, human moderators. For example, automated systems can help flag and prioritize content for review, while humans can interpret context, handle sensitive cases, and refine system performance.
2. Companies must be transparent about when and how automation is used in content decisions.
3. Companies must regularly audit their automated systems for bias, with particular attention to low-resource languages, vulnerable and marginalized communities, and conflict zones.
4. Users must have the ability to appeal, and to provide context when they believe human or automated moderation decisions have wrongfully removed their content. Appeals should be promptly evaluated and decided by human moderators.
5. Companies should regularly assess the human rights impact of their moderation decisions, and issue public statements of the results
6. If they rely on third-party vendors, companies should carefully (and regularly) audit those vendors for compliance with these same principles
7. Lawmakers should avoid promoting and passing legislation that effectively or explicitly mandates automated moderation systems
8. Policymakers should also refrain from attempting to dictate platforms technical and design choices to favor or disfavor particular expression.

These recommendations understand that automated content moderation isn’t just a technical problem for clever engineers and product teams to solve. Because content moderation shapes public discourse and fundamental rights, its design and oversight must respond to the concerns of policymakers, civil society, independent researchers, and the communities most affected by these systems.

This is the second post in a 2-part series on automated content moderation. Read the first post here.

Siemensから各製品向けのアドバイザリが公表されました。

2026年07月09日（現地時間）、米国CISAがCISA ICS Advisory / ICS Medical Advisoryを公表しました。

Last May, EFF reported that a sheriff’s office in Texas searched data from more than 83,000 automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras to track down a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion. ALPRs are promoted as tools for keeping communities safe by finding missing persons and locating stolen vehicles, but this case showed how ALPRS can be weaponized to investigate people’s private healthcare decisions. And these aren’t the only tools in the surveillance arsenal: others include location tracking tools like Locate X, which can show a person’s visit to an abortion clinic, or search histories which might be used as evidence of a person’s interest in obtaining abortion pills. Taken together, these tools create a dangerous surveillance pipeline that threatens everyone’s health privacy. 

Too often, though, the public is unaware of the threat, and one nonprofit is working to change that. Following EFF and 404 Media’s report on Texas’s use of Flock cameras, eye-catching billboards popped up in Houston, warning drivers that if they’re pregnant, the state of Texas could be tracking them.  

Photo provided by Mayday Health

These billboards came from Mayday Health, a nonprofit dedicated to sharing information about abortion pills, birth control, and gender-affirming care. We spoke with Leo Raisner, Executive Director of Mayday Health, about the billboards to learn more about the campaign and organization and to discuss how surveillance affects reproductive freedom. 

***

THOMAS: Why did Mayday Health start this campaign in Texas?  

RAISNER: Well, we read the incredible reporting coming from EFF about Texas's surveillance. We want Texans to know their rights, to know their options, and to know that there are organizations and people who have their back. So we decided to put up a few billboards around the Houston area to remind people that they still have options.  

Digital advertising in the space, as I know you're well aware of, faces enormous platform restrictions from Meta and Google, whereas billboards reach people in the physical world without algorithmic gatekeeping and without requiring anyone to search for information. So at the very least, if a driver's passing by the billboard, we’re spreading information that they should be careful that they might be surveilled, and also there are different options. There's a website where they can come learn more about those options. 

THOMAS: And how have the billboards been received so far? Have you heard anything from folks in the Houston area yet?    

RAISNER: Yeah, we've heard some messages of support on social media DMs. We're just thrilled about how many drivers these messages are going to reach. They'll be up for 4 weeks, and are expected to hit over 1,000,000 drivers during that 4-week campaign period.    

THOMAS: Are there other ways that Mayday Health has seen surveillance systems impact people seeking healthcare?  

RAISNER: You know, we go all over the country and talk to folks who are seeking reproductive healthcare options in states where clinics are banned, and we direct folks to our website where they can learn more about abortion pills. We make privacy very central to how we operate. Privacy is not just an afterthought for us. When people arrive at our website, we direct them to the Digital Defense Fund, which offers people privacy and security resources as they're navigating reproductive healthcare in states where they might be being surveilled. We don't collect cookies, we don't collect identifying information from visitors to our site. We want people to know their options, and we don't have any interest in knowing who they are.  

THOMAS: Why do you think the work of the digital rights movement is so important to the work of the reproductive health rights and justice movement?  

RAISNER: I mean, those two movements are inextricably linked. The anti-abortion movement is using every tool in their toolbox to prevent people from getting the healthcare access they need, whether that's surveilling people online or closing down brick-and-mortar clinics, but we encourage people to visit Mayday Health and learn that they still have options no matter where they live.  

THOMAS: Is there anything else that you would like the readers of our blog to know about Mayday Health?    

RAISNER: I'd love for people to know that abortion pills are FDA approved. They're safe, they're effective, and they're available through the mail. 

*** 

EFF has said it time and time again – surveillance and reproductive freedom cannot coexist. Whether the tracking occurs over the internet or through license plate reader systems with over 83,000 cameras, it is an invasion of privacy. Protecting our digital privacy is more critical now than ever. Help EFF fight back against this digital dragnet and protect reproductive freedom for all by making a donation. 

Last week, the House voted on the KIDS Act, a disjointed package of legislation that seeks to control Americans’ web browsing and private messaging. The package combines a revised version of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), with several other internet bills, study bills, reporting requirements, and new regulations. Different parts of the bill pressure online services to impose different age-gating schemes, using different standards. EFF opposed this bill, along with many of our members and supporters.

Take action

Tell Congress: no internet age-gates

The bill passed the House, 267-117. It now heads to the Senate, where its fate remains uncertain. But this fight is not over. Even if you took our earlier action to contact the House, we need you to reach out to your Senators today. 

The KIDS Act Will Lead to Mandatory Age Checks 

Many of the bills in the KIDS Act share the same premise: that children and teenagers should have different experiences online than adults. In practice, that requires websites and apps to determine who is under 18—and who isn’t. That’s where the problems with the KIDS Act start. 

EFF certainly supports giving all users better privacy and safety tools online. But those protections should not, and do not need to, come at the expense of privacy or free expression. Unfortunately, that’s exactly the tradeoff the KIDS Act makes.

There is no way to determine a user’s age online that is both privacy protective and accurate. Some age verification processes may rely on collecting government-issued ID, while others may use biometric scans. Others will use algorithms to guess a user’s age based on facial images or online behavior. But no matter the method, every system demands users hand over sensitive personal information that links their offline identity to their online activity. And then, once that valuable data is collected, it can be leaked, hacked, or misused. In fact, we’ve already seen several breaches of age verification providers.

The Bill Still Regulates Online Speech

The revised KOSA language within the KIDS Act still pressures companies to police lawful speech online. Platforms must “establish, implement, maintain, and enforce” policies that address content like gambling or the use of alcohol or cannabis. This encourages platforms to broadly restrict speech on these topics, which could include a teen seeking advice on a parent’s gambling problem or searching for substance abuse recovery resources. When platforms are required to create and enforce content moderation policies that regulators can sue them over, they will often err on the side of deleting speech. 

Protect Privacy For Everyone

There is a better way to protect young people online. Instead of encouraging a complicated system of age checks, more monitoring, and more restrictions on access to information, Congress could finally pass a strong, comprehensive privacy law that benefits all users. A great place to start would be to ban behavioral advertising that tracks us across the web—again, for users of all ages. 

We urge the Senate to oppose the KIDS Act and instead focus on a strong, bipartisan privacy package for all users. 

Take action

Tell the senate to reject the kids act

電気通信サービスの契約数及びシェアに関する四半期データの公表 （令和7年度第4四半期（3月末））

お年玉付郵便葉書等に関する法律施行令の一部を改正する政令案等 に対する意見募集

弾道ミサイルを想定した住民避難訓練の実施