2024年元日、能登半島を激震が襲った。傷跡は2年後の現在も消えていない。日本政府の災害対応は酷いものだが、その陰で珠洲市の人々の闘いに、感謝しなければならない事実がある。　この地の「原発計画」を撤回させた住民運動がなければ、今回の地震で、あの福島原発と同等の、いや、もしかしたらそれ以上の災禍が日本を覆っていたに違いない。　かつて著者は、NHKディレクターとして住民運動に密着した作品〈ドキュメンタリー’90 原発立地はこうして進む―奥能登土地攻防戦〉で、過疎地の原発計画が、..

　2019年９月に発覚した、関西電力の役員等20人余が、福井県高浜町の元助役森山栄治氏やその関連会社から計約３億6000万円の金品を受領していた関電原発マネー不正還流事件、役員らが責任を取り報酬減額をするとの公表の裏で報 […]

　３月４日、富山地裁（矢口俊哉裁判長、古庄順裁判官、相島圭介裁判官）は、株主による取締役の違法行為としての志賀原発差止請求訴訟において、原告株主の請求を退ける判決を下した。期日後の記者会見で、唯一評価できるところは、３・ […]

　米軍の新基地建設が進む沖縄県名護市辺野古の海で痛ましい事故が起きた。３月16日午前10時過ぎ、ヘリ基地反対協議会の抗議船「平和丸」と「不屈」が辺野古崎の沖で転覆し、研修旅行中だった同志社国際高校（京都府京田辺市）の２年 […]

　自衛隊の訓練を「監視」したところ駐屯地司令に恫喝されたとして、沖縄県宮古島市の清水早子さん（77歳）と上里清美さん（70歳）が３月13日、国と当時陸上自衛隊宮古島駐屯地司令だった比嘉隼人・宮古警備隊長（１等陸佐）に２２ […]

「家賃高すぎ。何とかしろ！デモ」が３月14日、東京・新宿であり、家賃高騰に苦しむ市民約１３０人が「住まいは人権」などのコールを上げながら、街を練り歩いた。 　賃貸住宅の借家人の権利向上をめざして２００９年に結成された「住 […]

　今年もなんとか確定申告を終えた。 　４年以上にわたる物価高騰の上、ホルムズ海峡封鎖によるさらなる物価高が懸念される中、前年度と比較して私の収入は大幅ダウン。去年、かなり働いたはずなんだけどな……とじっと手を見つめる日々 […]

　中高生を対象にしたオンライン授業をしている。毎回課題を出す。今回の課題は「トランプ政権のインサイダーになったつもりで、米国がこれから何をするつもりか想像力を発揮して書いてください」というものだった。 　Ｊ・Ｄ・ヴァンス […]

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76GHz帯小電力ミリ波レーダー高度化作業班（第7回）

情報通信行政・郵政行政審議会 電気通信事業部会　ユニバーサルサービス委員会（第13回）

情報通信審議会 電気通信事業政策部会 消費者保護政策委員会（第6回）

社会生活基本調査規則の一部を改正する省令案に関する意見募集の結果

地域DXに向けた計画策定等の伴走支援を受ける地方公共団体等の　一次公募の選定結果

第758回　入札監理小委員会（会議資料）

【開催案内】第57回独立行政法人評価制度委員会・第75回評価部会合同会議

　自民党が総選挙で大勝し自信をつけた高市早苗首相は、持論の防衛力強化の目玉として原子力潜水艦導入に乗り出そうとしている。　引き金になったのは防衛省の有識者会議が作成した昨年9月の報告書だ。この中で長射程ミサイルを搭載した長距離・長時間の移動や潜航が可能な「次世代の動力」の潜水艦を保有することが望ましいと提言。報告書作成段階で原子力潜水艦の明記が検討されたが、「次世代の動力」に。９月１９日付朝日新聞によると「世論のハレーションが大きいので、原潜への直接の言及は避けた」（防衛省幹..

　 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　〓アグリシネマ　私たちは人里の熊にどう対応すればよいのか、ここ数年問われている問題を掘り下げて考えるためにも、山の自然を壊すことなく、山の恵みに生かされて暮らしている本作の主人公の生き方から学ぶべきことが沢山ある。　福島県奥会津地方の山奥、三島町の菅家藤一（かんけ・とういち）さん（72）は若い頃から奥山に分け入り、今も山の恵みに包まれて生きている。原村政樹監督は8年前に出会い「菅家さんの山での営みを映像記録すれば、私たち現代人が見失いが..

You’re invited on a journey inside the privacy battles that shaped the internet. EFF’s Executive Director Cindy Cohn has tangled with the feds, fought for your data security, and argued before judges to protect our access to science and knowledge on the internet.

Join Cindy at three events in New York discussing her bestselling new book: Privacy's Defender: My Thirty-Year Fight Against Digital Surveillance, on sale now. All proceeds from the book benefit EFF. Find the full event details below, and RSVP to let us know if you can make it.

April 20 - With Women in Security and Privacy (WISP)

Join Women in Security and Privacy (WISP) and EFF for a conversation featuring American University Senior Professorial Lecturer Chelsea Horne and EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn as they dive into data security, Federal access to data, and your digital rights.

Privacy's Defender with WISP
Kennedys
22 Vanderbilt Avenue, Suite 2400, New York, NY 10017
Monday, April 20, 2026
6:00 pm to 8:00 pm
REGISTER NOW

April 21 - With Julie Samuels at Civic Hall

Join Tech:NYC President and CEO Julie Samuels, in conversation with EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn for a discussion about Cindy's work, her new book, and what we're all wondering: Can have private conversations if we live our lives online?

Privacy's Defender at Civic Hall
Civic Hall
124 E 14th St, New York, NY 10003
Tuesday, April 21, 2026
6:00 pm to 9:00 pm
REGISTER NOW

April 23 - With Anil Dash at Brooklyn Public Library

Join antitech Principal & Cofounder Anil Dash, in conversation with EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn to discuss Cindy's new book: Privacy's Defender: My Thirty-Year Fight Against Digital Surveillance.

Privacy's Defender at Brooklyn Public Library
Brooklyn Public Library - Central Library, Info Commons Lab
10 Grand Army Plz 1st floor, Brooklyn, NY 11238
Thursday, April 23, 2026
6:00 pm to 7:30 pm
REGISTER NOW

"Privacy’s Defender is a compelling account of a life well lived and an inspiring call to action for the next generation of civil liberties champions."
~Edward Snowden, whistleblower; author of Permanent Record

Can't make it? Look for Cindy at a city (or web connection) near you! Find the latest tour dates on the Privacy’s Defender hub or follow EFF for more.

Part memoir and part legal history for the general reader, Privacy’s Defender is a compelling testament to just how much privacy and free expression matter in our efforts to combat authoritarianism, grow democracy, and strengthen human rights. Thank you for being a part of that fight.

Want to support the cause and get a copy of the new book? New or renewing EFF members can preorder one as their annual gift!

Legal intern Raj Gambhir was the principal author of this post.

The Trump administration has restricted the First Amendment right to record law enforcement by issuing an unprecedented nationwide flight restriction preventing private drone operators, including professional and citizen journalists, from flying drones within half a mile of any ICE or CBP vehicle.

In January, EFF and media organizations including The New York Times and The Washington Post responded to this blatant infringement of the First Amendment by demanding that the FAA lift this flight restriction. Over two months later, we’re still waiting for the FAA to respond to our letter.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to record law enforcement. As we have seen with the extrajudicial killings of George Floyd, Renée Good, and Alex Pretti, capturing law enforcement on camera can drive accountability and raise awareness of police misconduct.

A 21-Month Long “Temporary” Flight Restriction?

The FAA regularly issues temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) to prevent people from flying into designated airspace. TFRs are usually issued during natural disasters, or to protect major sporting events and government officials like the president, and in most cases last mere hours.

Not so with the restriction numbered FDC 6/4375, which started on January 16, 2026. This TFR lasts for 21 months—until October 29, 2027—and covers the entire nation. It prevents any person from flying any unmanned aircraft (i.e., a drone) within 3000 feet, measured horizontally, of any of the “facilities and mobile assets,” including “ground vehicle convoys and their associated escorts,” of the Departments of Defense, Energy, Justice, and Homeland Security. Violators can be subject to criminal and civil penalties, and risk having their drones seized or destroyed.

In practical terms, this TFR means that anyone flying their drone within a half mile of an ICE or CBP agent’s car (a DHS “mobile asset”) is liable to face criminal charges and have their drone shot down. The practical unfairness of this TFR is underscored by the fact that immigration agents often use unmarked rental cars, use cars without license plates, or switch the license plates of their cars to carry out their operations. Nor do they provide prior warning of those operations.

The TFR is an Unconstitutional Infringement of Free Speech

While the FAA asserts that the TFR is grounded in its lawful authority, the flight restriction not only violates multiple constitutional rights, but also the agency’s own regulations.

First Amendment violation. As we highlighted in the letter, nearly every federal appeals court has recognized the First Amendment right of Americans to record law enforcement officers performing their official duties. By subjecting drone operators to criminal and civil penalties, along with the potential destruction or seizure of their drone, the TFR punishes—without the required justifications—lawful recording of law enforcement officers, including immigration agents.  

Fifth Amendment violation. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to due process, which includes being given fair notice before being deprived of liberty or property by the government. Under the flight restriction, advanced notice isn’t even possible. As discussed above, drone operators can’t know whether they are within 3000 horizontal feet of unmarked DHS vehicles. Yet the TFR allows the government to capture or even shoot down a drone if it flies within the TFR radius, and to impose criminal and civil penalties on the operator.

Violations of FAA regulations. In issuing a TFR, the FAA’s own regulations require the agency to “specify[] the hazard or condition requiring” the restriction. Furthermore, the FAA must provide accredited news representatives with a point of contact to obtain permission to fly drones within the restricted area. The FAA has satisfied neither of these requirements in issuing its nationwide ban on drones getting near government vehicles.

EFF Demands Rescission of the TFR

We don’t believe it’s a coincidence that the TFR was put in place in January 2026, at the height of the Minneapolis anti-ICE protests, shortly after the killing of Renée Good and shortly before the shooting of Alex Pretti. After both of those tragedies, civilian recordings played a vital role in contradicting the government’s false account of the events.

By punishing civilians for recording federal law enforcement officers, the TFR helps to shield ICE and other immigration agents from scrutiny and accountability. It also discourages the exercise of a key First Amendment right. EFF has long advocated for the right to record the police, and exercising that right today is more important than ever.

Finally, while recording law enforcement is protected by the First Amendment, be aware that officers may retaliate against you for exercising this right. Please refer to our guidance on safely recording law enforcement activities.

Update: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) has filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit (Levine v. FAA).