Aggregator

衛星通信システム委員会報告（案）に対する意見募集

第137回 産業統計部会

林総務大臣閣議後記者会見の概要

As long as people have had more than one purchasing option, they’ve been comparing those options and looking for bargains. Online shoppers are no exception; in fact, one of the potential benefits of the internet is that it expands our options for everything from car rentals to airline tickets to dish soap. New AI tools can make the process even easier. These tools could provide some welcome relief for consumers facing sky-high prices that many cannot afford.

Unfortunately, Amazon is trying to block these helpful new tools, which can steer shoppers towards competitors. Taking a page from Facebook and RyanAir, they are trying to use computer crime laws to do it. 

Amazon’s target is Perplexity, which makes an AI-enabled web browser, called Comet, that allows users to browse the web as they normally would, but can also perform certain actions on the user’s behalf. For example, a user could ask Comet to find the best price on a 24-pack of toilet paper, and if satisfied with the results, have the browser order it. Amazon claims that Perplexity violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) by building a tool that helps users access information on Amazon and engage with the site.

Unfortunately, a federal district court agreed. The court’s fundamental mistake: relying on the Ninth Circuit’s misguided decision in Facebook v Power Ventures, rather than the court’s much better and more applicable reasoning in hiQ Labs.

Perplexity has appealed to the Ninth Circuit. As we explain in an amicus brief filed in support, the district court’s mistake, if affirmed, could lead to myriad unintended consequences. Overbroad readings of the CFAA have undermined research, security, competition, and innovation. For years, we’ve worked to limit its scope to Congress’s original intention: actual hacking that bypasses computer security. It should have nothing to do with Amazon’s claims here, not least because most of Amazon’s website is publicly available.

The court’s approach would be especially dangerous for journalists and academic researchers. Researchers often create a variety of testing accounts. For example, if they’re researching how a service displays housing offers, they may create separate accounts associated with different race, gender, or language settings. These sorts of techniques may be adversarial to the company, but they shouldn’t be illegal. But according to the court’s opinion, if a company disagrees with this sort of research, it can’t just ban the researchers from using the site; it can render that research criminal by just sending a letter notifying the researcher that they’re not authorized to use the service in this way.

A broad reading of CFAA in this case would also undermine competition by enabling companies to limit data scraping, effectively cutting off one of the ways websites offer tools to compare prices and features.

The Ninth Circuit should follow Van Buren’s lead and interpret the CFAA narrowly, as Congress intended. Website owners do not need new shields against independent accountability.

Related Cases: Facebook v. Power Ventures

　福岡市の西日本新聞社の社前で今年１月、市民たちの一団がメッセージボードを掲げて声をあげた＝写真=。ボードには「ＤＶ被害者をなぜ傷つけるのか？」「被害者が訴える２次加害」「西日本新聞記者が書いた本」などの文字…。市民たちの行動は、過去のＤＶ・ストーカー被害を連載記事やその後刊行された「評伝」に書かれた女性を支援するものだった。女性は取材のあり方を問いかけた民事訴訟を起こし、一審敗訴後、控訴審で争っている。編集部はこの問題には訴訟の行方とは別に、メディアの取材のあり方、報道する..

After almost twenty years on the platform, EFF is logging off of X. This isn’t a decision we made lightly, but it might be overdue. The math hasn’t worked out for a while now.

The Numbers Aren’t Working Out

We posted to Twitter (now known as X) five to ten times a day in 2018. Those tweets garnered somewhere between 50 and 100 million impressions per month. By 2024, our 2,500 X posts generated around 2 million impressions each month. Last year, our 1,500 posts earned roughly 13 million impressions for the entire year. To put it bluntly, an X post today receives less than 3% of the views a single tweet delivered seven years ago. 

We Expected More

When Elon Musk acquired Twitter in October 2022, EFF was clear about what needed fixing. 

We called for: 

• Transparent content moderation: Publicly shared policies, clear appeals processes, and renewed commitment to the Santa Clara Principles
• Real security improvements: Including genuine end-to-end encryption for direct messages
• Greater user control: Giving users and third-party developers the means to control the user experience through filters and interoperability.

Twitter was never a utopia. We've criticized the platform for about as long as it’s been around. Still, Twitter did deserve recognition from time to time for vociferously fighting for its users’ rights. That changed. Musk fired the entire human rights team and laid off staffers in countries where the company previously fought off censorship demands from repressive regimes. Many users left. Today we're joining them. 

"But You're Still on Facebook and TikTok?" 

Yes. And we understand why that looks contradictory. Let us explain. 

EFF exists to protect people’s digital rights. Not just the people who already value our work, have opted out of surveillance, or have already migrated to the fediverse. The people who need us most are often the ones most embedded in the walled gardens of the mainstream platforms and subjected to their corporate surveillance. 

Young people, people of color, queer folks, activists, and organizers use Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook every day. These platforms host mutual aid networks and serve as hubs for political organizing, cultural expression, and community care. Just deleting the apps isn't always a realistic or accessible option, and neither is pushing every user to the fediverse when there are circumstances like:

• You own a small business that depends on Instagram for customers.
• Your abortion fund uses TikTok to spread crucial information.
• You're isolated and rely on online spaces to connect with your community.

Our presence on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok is not an endorsement. We've spent years exposing how these platforms suppress marginalized voices, enable invasive behavioral advertising, and flag posts about abortion as dangerous. We’ve also taken action in court, in legislatures, and through direct engagement with their staff to push them to change poor policies and practices.

We stay because the people on those platforms deserve access to information, too. We stay because some of our most-read posts are the ones criticizing the very platform we're posting on. We stay because the fewer steps between you and the resources you need to protect yourself, the better. 

We'll Keep Fighting. Just Not on X

When you go online, your rights should go with you. X is no longer where the fight is happening. The platform Musk took over was imperfect but impactful. What exists today is something else: diminished, and increasingly de minimis. 

EFF takes on big fights, and we win. We do that by putting our time, skills, and our members’ support where they will effect the most change. Right now, that means Bluesky, Mastodon, LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, YouTube, and eff.org. We hope you follow us there and keep supporting the work we do. Our work protecting digital rights is needed more than ever before, and we’re here to help you take back control.

CrewAIには複数の脆弱性が存在します。

政治資金適正化委員会委員の任命

第55回独立行政法人評価制度委員会　議事録

第74回独立行政法人評価制度委員会評価部会　議事録

電気通信事業法施行規則及び第二号基礎的電気通信役務の提供に係る第二種交付金及び第二種負担金算定等規則の一部を改正する省令案に関する意見募集

電気通信事業法施行規則等の一部を改正する省令案 （基礎的電気通信役務台帳の導入等に伴う規定の整備）等に対する意見募集の結果及び情報通信行政・郵政行政審議会からの答申

電気通信事業法施行規則等の一部を改正する省令案（鉄塔等提供事業に対する認定制度の創設に伴う規定の整備）に対する意見募集の結果及び情報通信行政・郵政行政審議会からの答申

電気通信事業法施行規則等の一部を改正する省令案 （公正競争の確保等に関する規定の整備）等に対する意見募集の結果及び情報通信行政・郵政行政審議会からの答申

デジタル混信対策事業を実施する団体の公募の結果及び補助金の交付決定

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（第99回）

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）

政治資金適正化委員会委員の指名

On March 23, the FCC issued an update to their Covered List, a list of equipment banned from obtaining regulatory approval necessary for U.S. sale (and thus effectively a ban on sale of new devices), to include all new routers produced in foreign countries unless they are specifically given an exception by the Department of Defense (DoD) or DHS. The Commission cited “security gaps in foreign-made routers” leading to widespread cyberattacks as justification for the ban, mentioning the high-profile attacks by Chinese advanced persistent threat actors Volt, Flax, and Salt Typhoon. Although the stated intention is to stem the very real threat of domestic residential routers being commandeered to initiate attacks and act as residential proxies, this sweeping move serves as a blunt instrument that will impact many harmless products. In addition to being far too broad, it won’t even affect many vulnerable devices that are most active in these types of attacks: IoT and connected smart home devices.

Previously, the FCC had changed the Covered List to ban hardware by specific vendors, such as telecom equipment produced by companies Huawei and Hytera in 2021. This new blanket ban, in contrast, affects the importation and sale of almost all new consumer routers. It does not affect consumer routers produced in the United States, like Starlink in Texas. While some of the affected routers will be vulnerable to compromises that hijack the devices and use them for cybercrime and attacks, this ban does not distinguish between companies with a track-record of producing vulnerable products and those without. As a result, instead of incentivizing security-minded production, this will only limit the options consumers have to US-based manufacturers not affected by the ban—even those that lack stellar security reputations themselves.

While the sale of vulnerable routers in the U.S. will not stop, the announcement quoted an Executive Branch determination that foreign produced routers introduce “a supply chain vulnerability that could disrupt the U.S. economy, critical infrastructure, and national defense.” Yet this move does nothing to address the growing number of connected devices involved in the attacks this ban aims to address. As we have previously pointed out, supply chain attacks have resulted in no-name Android TV boxes preloaded with malware, sold by retail giants like Amazon, fuelling the massive Kimwolf and BADBOX 2 fraud and residential proxy botnets. Banning the specific models and manufacturers we know produce dangerous devices putting its purchasers at risk, rather than issuing blanket bans punishing reputable brands that do better, should be the priority.

With the FCCs top commissioner appointed by the President, this ban comes as other parts of the administration impose tariffs and issue dozens of trade-related executive orders aimed at foreign goods. A few larger companies with pockets deep enough to invest in manufacturing plants within the U.S. may see this as an opportune moment, while others not as well poised to begin U.S. operations may attempt to curry enough favor to be added to the DoD or DHS exception lists. At best, this will result in the immediate effect of an ill-targeted policy that does little to improve domestic cybersecurity posture. At worst, it entrenches existing players and deepens problematic quid-pro-quo arrangements.

American consumers deserve better. They deserve the assurance that the devices they use, whether routers or other connected smart home devices, are built to withstand attacks that put themselves and others at risk, no matter where they are manufactured. For this, a nuanced, careful consideration of products (such as was part of the FCC’s 2023-proposed U.S. Cyber Trust Mark) is necessary, rather than blanket bans.