児玉 繁信 : もう、たくさんだ!パレスチナ人の大量虐殺をやめろ!
Windows 11のペイント、AI画像生成機能を非Insiderにもロールアウト
すべて読む | ITセクション | テクノロジー | ソフトウェア | グラフィック | 人工知能 |
関連ストーリー:
英国で環境保護団体が鉄拳7トーナメント中に乱入、決勝試合を妨害 2023年10月20日
ペイントのAI画像生成機能プレビュー、日本語でも生成内容を指定できるが結果は微妙 2023年10月05日
ペイントのAI画像生成機能がCanary/Devチャネルでロールアウト、日本で利用するには? 2023年09月30日
Windows 11、Canary/Devチャネルの「ペイント」にレイヤーと透明色のサポートが追加 2023年09月21日
Victory! Montana’s Unprecedented TikTok Ban is Unconstitutional
A federal court on Thursday blocked Montana’s effort to ban TikTok from the state, ruling that the law violated users’ First Amendment rights to speak and to access information online, and the company’s First Amendment rights to select and curate users’ content.
Montana passed a law in May that prohibited TikTok from operating anywhere within the state and imposed $10,000 penalties on TikTok or any mobile application store that allowed users to access TikTok. The law was scheduled to take effect in January. EFF opposed enactment of this law, along with ACLU, CDT, and others.
In issuing a preliminary injunction, the district court rejected the state’s claim that it had a legitimate interest in banning the popular video sharing application because TikTok is owned by a Chinese company. And although Montana has an interest in protecting minors from harmful content and protecting consumers’ privacy, the law’s total ban was not narrowly tailored to address the state’s concerns.
“SB 419 bans TikTok outright and, in doing so, it limits constitutionally protected First Amendment speech,” the court wrote.
EFF and the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the challenge, brought by TikTok and a group of the app’s users who live in Montana. The brief argued that Montana’s ban was as unprecedented as it was unconstitutional, and we are pleased that the district court blocked the law from going into effect.
The district court agreed that Montana’s statute violated the First Amendment. Although the court declined to decide whether the law was subject to heightened review under the Constitution (known as strict scrutiny), it ruled that Montana’s banning of TikTok failed to satisfy even less-searching review known as intermediate scrutiny.
“Ultimately, if Montana’s interest in consumer protection and protecting minors is to be carried out through legislation, the method sought to achieve those ends here was not narrowly tailored,” the court wrote.
The court’s decision this week joins a growing list of cases in which judges have halted state laws that unconstitutionally burden internet users’ First Amendment rights in the name of consumer privacy or child protection.
As EFF has said repeatedly, state lawmakers are right to be concerned about online services collecting massive volumes of their residents’ private data. But lawmakers should address those concerns directly by enacting comprehensive consumer data privacy laws, rather than seeking to ban those services entirely or prevent children from accessing them. Consumer data privacy laws both directly address lawmakers’ concerns and do not raise the First Amendment issues that lead to courts invalidating laws like Montana’s.
Latest Draft of UN Cybercrime Treaty Is A Big Step Backward
A new draft of the controversial United Nations Cybercrime Treaty has only heightened concerns that the treaty will criminalize expression and dissent, create extensive surveillance powers, and facilitate cross-border repression.
The proposed treaty, originally aimed at combating cybercrime, has morphed into an expansive surveillance treaty, raising the risk of overreach in both national and international investigations. The new draft retains a controversial provision allowing states to compel engineers or employees to undermine security measures, posing a threat to encryption.
This new draft not only disregards but also deepens our concerns, empowering nations to cast a wider net by accessing data stored by companies abroad, potentially in violation of other nations’ privacy laws. It perilously broadens its scope beyond the cybercrimes specifically defined in the Convention, encompassing a long list of non-cybercrimes. This draft retains the concerning issue of expanding the scope of evidence collection and sharing across borders for any serious crime, including those crimes that blatantly violate human rights law. Furthermore, this new version overreaches in investigating and prosecuting crimes beyond those detailed in the treaty; until now such power was limited to only the crimes defined in article 6-16 of the convention.
We are deeply troubled by the blatant disregard of our input, which moves the text further away from consensus. This isn't just an oversight; it's a significant step in the wrong direction.
Initiated in 2022, treaty negotiations have been marked by ongoing disagreements between governments on the treaty’s scope and on what role, if any, human rights should play in its design and implementation. The new draft was released Tuesday, Nov. 28; governments will hold closed-door talks December 19-20 in Vienna, in an attempt to reach consensus on what crimes to include in the treaty, and the draft will be considered at the final negotiating session in New York at the end of January 2024, when it’s supposed to be finalized and adopted.
Deborah Brown, Human Rights Watch’s acting associate director for technology and human rights, said this latest draft
“is primed to facilitate abuses on a global scale, through extensive cross border powers to investigate virtually any imaginable ‘crime’ – like peaceful dissent or expression of sexual orientation – while undermining the treaty’s purpose of addressing genuine cybercrime. Governments should not rush to conclude this treaty without ensuring that it elevates, rather than sacrifices, our fundamental rights.”
U.S. Senator: What Do Our Cars Know? And Who Do They Share that Information With?
U.S. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts has sent a much-needed letter to car manufacturers asking them to clarify a surprisingly hard question to answer: what data cars collect? Who has the ability to access that data? Private companies can often be a black box of secrecy that obscure basic facts of the consumer electronics we use. This becomes a massive problem when the devices become more technologically sophisticated and capable of collecting audio, video, geolocation data, as well as biometric information. As the letter says,
“As cars increasingly become high-tech computers on wheels, they produce vast amounts of data on drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and other motorists, creating the potential for severe privacy violations. This data could reveal sensitive personal information, including location history and driving behavior, and can help data brokers develop detailed data profiles on users.”
Not only does the letter articulate the privacy harms imposed by vehicles (and trust us, cars are some of the least privacy-oriented devices on the market), it also asks probing questions of companies regarding what data is collected, who has access, particulars about how and for how long data is stored, whether data is sold, and how consumers and the public can go about requesting the deletion of that data.
Also essential are the questions concerning the relationship between car companies and law enforcement. We know, for instance, that self-driving car companies have also built relationships with police and have given footage, on a number of occasions, to law enforcement to aid in investigations. Likewise both Tesla employees and law enforcement had been given or gained access to footage from the electric vehicles.
A push for public transparency by members of Congress is essential and a necessary first step toward some much needed regulation. Self-driving cars, cars with autonomous modes, or even just cars connected to the internet and equipped with cameras pose a vital threat to privacy, not just to drivers and passengers, but also to other motorists on the road and pedestrians who are forced to walk past these cars every day. We commend Senator Markey for this letter and hope that the companies respond quickly and honestly so we can have a better sense of what needs to change.
You can read the letter here.
[B] 「二か国共存はパレスチナと西サハラに」【西サハラ最新情報」 平田伊都子
【おすすめ本】茶本繁正『原理運動の研究』─統一教会の闇を暴く先駆的名著が復刊!=梅田正己(書籍編集者)
Comments on the “Study on the Impact of Climate Change on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Africa”
In its comments on this study commissioned by the African Union, APC notes that the study could be strengthened by contemplating the impact of the rapid digitalisation of many countries in Africa in the context of environmental sustainability, climate change and human rights
海自護衛艦、イエメン沖で弾道ミサイル発射され現場を離脱
すべて読む | セキュリティセクション | 軍事 | セキュリティ | 海賊行為 | ニュース |
関連ストーリー:
イエメンのフーシ派が紅海で日本郵船運航の貨物船を拿捕。イスラエルの船舶を拿捕と主張 2023年11月21日
イエメン、海底ケーブルの切断事故によってインターネット接続が大幅に制限される 2020年01月21日
【大緊急拡散お願い】 再びのジェノサイドをやめろ 1201イスラエル大使館前抗議
12月1日は「学徒出陣」の学生たちが「陸軍」へ入営した日から80年目です
Google、カナダのニュースメディア支援に年1億カナダドル拠出へ
すべて読む | ITセクション | ビジネス | カナダ | Google | ニュース | Facebook | インターネット |
関連ストーリー:
Meta、カナダで検討中の法案が成立したらニュースコンテンツをブロックするしかない 2023年03月15日
Google、カナダで一部のユーザーを対象にニュースコンテンツをブロックする実験 2023年02月26日
『田舎のヤンキー音漏れMix』というプレイリスト
すべて読む | ITセクション | 変なモノ | インターネット | 交通 | 音楽 |
関連ストーリー:
暴走族をセグウェイで先導したとして逮捕 2022年06月23日
中国でおそろいの服を着て大音量を鳴らしながら練り歩く「暴走団」 2021年12月28日
ドイツで金色のBMWが「まぶしすぎる」として路上から撤去される 2019年10月17日
千葉県がネット上の暴走族情報を規制 2001年12月05日
お知らせ:CyberNewsFlash「Apple製品のアップデートについて(2023年12月)」
総務省の有識者会議、SNS上の中傷投稿への対策に関する報告書
すべて読む | ITセクション | ニュース | インターネット | SNS | 政府 |
関連ストーリー:
女子プロレスラー中傷訴訟で証拠とされたスクリーンショット、第三者による捏造とみられる 2023年06月23日
総務省、SNS上の誹謗中傷投稿者の情報開示を簡略化する案。来年の国会で改正案を提出へ 2020年11月18日
GMOタウンWiFiがTwitterの誹謗中傷投稿を非表示にするサービスを開始 2020年06月24日
誹謗中傷者に対し訴訟を起こし勝訴した旨をTwitterに固定表示すると劇的にネット中傷が減る 2020年01月08日