Aggregator

情報通信審議会 電気通信事業政策部会 接続政策委員会(第82回)配布資料

On a warm June evening in San Francisco, attorneys and other legally-minded friends of EFF gathered for our 18th Annual Cyberlaw Trivia Night, an annual test of tech-related legal knowledge, and the ability to remember some deeply obscure facts under pressure. 

Returning Quizmaster Kurt Opsahl once again guided competitors through six rounds of trivia covering everything from intellectual property and free speech to privacy, security, and artificial intelligence. Teams wrestled with questions about geofence warrants, AI copyright disputes, the SOPA/PIPA internet blackout, Section 230, and even a Senate hearing featuring a contestant who was herself present at cyberlaw trivia. 

The judges’ table made it obvious that 2026 was a notable year. Weighing in on the toughest close calls were three folks with a deep history at our org: outgoing EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn and new Executive Director Nicole Ozer both sat at as judges, joined by new cyberlaw judge Mike Masnick, founder of Techdirt and a recipient of an EFF Award in 2020. 

The food was hot, the drinks were cold, and the competition was fierce. Teams including Shady Docket, Byte Club, Flock U, This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Precedent, Nicky's Angels, and Betamaxxers battled through six rounds of challenging questions. 

When a question about Afroman's successful legal battle against Ohio sheriff's deputies came up, members of Byte Club offered to do more than name his most popular album: they offered to perform a rendition of “Lemon Pound Cake” (also the album name—tricky!) for the judges. This won no sway with the 3-judge Cyberlaw Judiciary, and the offer was politely declined. 

The teams racked their collective law-noggins about some of the details of recent legal battles over digital rights, and a round entitled “You Can Call Me AI.” After the IP round, which rewarded folks in the audience who could answer details about the server test, the trivia moved onto newsier questions, with questions about ICE apps, anti-ICE apps, recent defamation cases involving our sitting president, and the slogan of a mineral company that you might've heard on terrestrial radio anytime between the early aughts and this week. 

You don't have to wear a morning coat to win Supreme Court arguments, but knowing who did for 4 years might have helped you win the IP round. 

By the end of regulation play, the cyberlaw trivia competition was closer than we could have imagined. For the first time in Cyberlaw Trivia history, three teams finished tied for first place, sending the contest to two tiebreaker questions. 

The final question noted that Google had received more than 287,000 government information requests in the first half of 2025, and asked teams to estimate how many were received by OpenAI during the same period. Every team guessed over, but it was the victors, Shady Docket, who guessed the lowest: 260. (The real answer is 146.)

As Shady Docket team member Erin Simon explained after the win: "As much as we love EFF, what we love even more is crushing other trivia teams."

In second place were Nicky’s Angels. Rounding out the virtual podium in 3rd were the Betamaxxers, who jumped ahead early with a home-run run in the Free Speech round, getting every question correct. 

Each summer, EFF's Cyberlaw Trivia Night brings together the legal community that helps defend privacy, free expression, innovation, and digital rights. We want to especially thank this year Morrison Foerster, Fenwick, Wilson Sonsini, and Public Resource for supporting EFF's legal intern program.

Are you an attorney interested in defending civil liberties in the digital world? Consider joining EFF's Cooperating Attorneys list. This network helps EFF connect people to legal assistance when EFF is unable to provide direct assistance. 

Fighting for first place at EFF’s Cyberlaw Trivia Night helps us fight for your rights online! Sponsor one of our annual events and join the movement for digital privacy, free speech, and innovation. Please visit eff.org/thanks or contact tierney@eff.org for more information.

　　憲法記念日の５月３日に東京・有明防災公園で、９条を守る市民団体などが企画した毎年恒例の憲法大集会が開かれた。青空のもと、のぼりや手作りのプラカードを持った市民が集まり、高市政権のもとで加速する改憲の動きに反対し、平和憲法を守ることをアピールした。　参加者は主催者の発表で約５万人と去年の３万５千人を上回り、いまの状況に危機感を持つ人が多くなっていることをうかがわせた。トークイベントでは　会場の一角では、今の政治の現状をテーマに、作家や弁護士など４人が発言するトークイベントも..

第335回官民競争入札等監理委員会（会議資料）

放送コンテンツの製作取引及び製作環境の適正化に関する検証・検討会議(第32回)・放送コンテンツ適正製作取引推進ワーキンググループ（第29回）

情報通信行政・郵政行政審議会　電気通信事業部会（第170回）

「公共分野における信頼できるAIを用いた開発実証事業」に係る実証事業者の公募結果

国際海底ケーブルの防護等に関する検討会（第6回）の開催について

「消防学校の教育訓練に関する検討会」の開催

総合通信基盤局消費者契約適正化推進室 非常勤職員採用情報

令和8年度地方財政審議会（5月29日）議事要旨

令和8年度地方財政審議会（6月2日）議事要旨

令和8年度地方財政審議会（6月3日）議事要旨

一般職技術系（情報通信行政）の情報を更新しました

法務省は5月22日の法務大臣会見で、「不法滞在者ゼロプラン」をさらに強化する「強力推進パッケージ」を発表した。同パッケージでは、難民認定申請の審査迅速化や、AIを含むデジタル技術の活用、護送官付き国費送還の促進、摘発体制の強化などが盛り込まれた。中でも支援団体関係者らが警戒しているのが、仮放免者や被監理者について、「要件を満たさなくなった者は収容した上で帰国説得を行う」とした部分だ。仮放免は、健康上の理由や家族事情など、人道的配慮が必要な人を収容施設の外に出す制度だ。しかし、今回の方針は、そうした人たちを再び収容し、帰国を迫る運用につながりかねないとして、支援現場から強い懸念が出ている。(岩中健介)

先にAIの問題点のいくつかを紹介しました[1]。その後も、毎日のごとく、あらゆる報道機関で、さまざまなAIに関連する問題点が議論されています。確かに、このAIは人類にとって最大の問題ですね。何しろ、我々の生き方、毎日の生活、活動などあらゆる場面で、今までは、人間は自分の頭脳を使って行っていたのだが、そうした人間の動きを、個人の頭脳ではなく、AIなる機械がやってくれることになりつつある。いや、なんとか、自分の頭脳で考えてやっていきたいと思っている人もまだいるであろうが、多くの人は、AIに依存しつつあるようである。（落合栄一郎）

東大大学院教授の本田由紀さんが、5月29日、国会正門前で開催された「戦争させない緊急アクション」で行った気迫を込めた訴えが注目されています。全文を紹介します。（福島清）

　　　 　　　　　　　　　　　　　2023 Nausheen Khan　映像を見ているだけで、インド事情に疎い私のような者にも、ムスリム（イスラム教徒）の女性たちが立ち上がる姿から歴史的なムーブメントを感じさせてくれる。そして勇気と希望をもらえるドキュメンタリーだ。　ヒンドゥー教徒が約8割とされるインドで、マイノリティのイスラム教徒（約14％）の女性たちを中心に抵抗運動が巻き起こる。モディ政権が2019年12月、イスラム教徒を意図的に排除した市民権改正法を制定。市民権をはく奪..

The internet is an essential resource for young people and adults to access information, explore community, and find themselves—both inside countries and across continents. Yet governments around the world continue to introduce and implement legislation requiring all online users to verify their ages before accessing the digital space. In some cases, politicians are going further, putting forth proposals to ban social media for younger users.  

In late 2025, Australia’s government rolled out the first complete ban on users under 16 from having social media accounts. In this sweeping regime, platforms are required to introduce age assurance tools to block under-16s, demonstrate that they have taken “reasonable steps” to deactivate accounts used by under-16s, and prevent any new accounts being created, or face fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($32 million USD). The 10 banned platforms—Instagram, Facebook, Threads, Snapchat, YouTube, TikTok, Kick, Reddit, Twitch, and X—have each said they’ll comply with the legislation, which led to young people losing access to their accounts overnight. Reddit is currently challenging the law in Australian courts on constitutional grounds. Recent research notes how the ban is preventing teenagers from accessing news in the country. 

In the United Kingdom, rules took effect in mid-2025 under the Online Safety Act that require all online services available in the country to assess whether they host content considered harmful to children; if so, these services must introduce age checks to prevent children from accessing such content. Online services are also required to change their algorithms and moderation systems to ensure that content defined as harmful, like violent imagery, is not shown to young people. 

This approach is reckless, short-sighted, and we’ve already seen it introduce more harm to the young people that it is trying to protect. The UK’s scramble to find an effective age verification method shows us that there isn't one, and we’ve spent years urging UK politicians to abandon any measures that require platforms to collect data or remove privacy protections around users’ identities. 

Earlier this year, Indonesia’s Communications and Digital Affairs Minister, Meutya Hafid, announced that users under 16 would have their accounts on “high risk” platforms deactivated from 28 March. The platforms subject to this ban are YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, Bigo Live, and Roblox; with Hafid noting how this policy would make Indonesia “the first non-Western country to delay children's access to digital spaces according to age.”

Similarly, the Malaysian government has recently pushed forward with plans to ban users under 16 from having accounts on social media platforms with at least 8 million users in Malaysia, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. Users under the age of 16 are being told to download or transfer their data from these platforms in one month before the restrictions are applied. Platforms failing to comply with the ban may face penalties of up to $2.5 million USD.

In Latin America, Brazil approved a new law in 2025 establishing that providers of information technology products and services directed to children and teenagers, or likely to be accessed by them, must conduct age checks when their products and services offer risks to underage users. Regulation requires age assurance for products and services that are not allowed for children and adolescents in accordance with Brazilian legislation. App stores and operating systems are required to provide age signals for other providers. 

While the law is already in force, full compliance with its obligations is expected for early 2027, after the approval of further regulations and a transition period, and the authority responsible for enforcing the law is the Brazilian National Data Protection Agency. The list of concerns regarding the implementation of the law include: the wide scope of products and services that may fall within age-check obligations, how these obligations can affect non-proprietary operating systems and free software projects, and how effective the law's crucial data protection safeguards will be in a context of likely widespread age checks for accessing content online.

Similarly, the European Union has taken large steps towards mandatory age verification that could undermine privacy, expression, and participation rights for everyone. Politicians are promoting an EU-wide approach to age verification through its age verification “app,” which will be fully interoperable with the Digital Identity Wallet. While this mini-app has been announced as technically ready to be rolled out “for citizens to use,” it comes with its own realm of potential privacy and security concerns, such as long-term identifiers (which could result in tracking) and over-exposure of personal information. 

The European Commission also supports age verification in various legislative initiatives, from proposals that would allow or mandate companies to scan our communication (“Chat Control”) to non-binding guidelines of existing laws, such as the Digital Services Act. The EU Parliament, too, has proposed an EU digital minimum age of 16 for access to social media, a move that aligns with EU Commission’s president Ursula von der Leyen’s recent public support for measures inspired by Australia’s model. To all these initiatives EFF has provided one consistent response: mandatory age verification measures are not the right way to protect young people. 

These proposals restrict the fundamental rights of young people to speak to each other and to access information. They also force all internet users, not just those under a certain age, to upload private data—like a face scan or passport—in order to access a website or service. In considering the vast scope of privacy issues pertaining to the collection, storage, and sharing of this personal information, the problems of age verification in restricting free speech are compounded by these reckless and harmful approaches to verification. 

The problem of censorship and surveillance goes far beyond the borders of the internet. EFF continues to explore support for legislative and litigation challenges that recognize how these laws harm everyone’s rights to privacy, free expression and due process.