Aggregator

令和6年度電波の有効利用状況調査(各種無線システム・714MHz以下の周波数帯)に係る電波の有効利用の程度の評価結果及び意見募集の結果の公表

令和6年度電波の有効利用状況調査(公共業務用無線局)に係る電波の有効利用の程度の評価結果及び意見募集の結果の公表

放送法施行規則及び一般放送の設備及び業務に関する届出の特例を定める省令の一部を改正する省令等に関する意見募集の結果及び電波監理審議会からの答申

電波法施行規則等の一部を改正する省令案に対する　意見募集の結果及び電波監理審議会からの答申

行政手続法第十五条第四項等に規定する総務省令で定める方法を定める省令案及び行政不服審査法施行規則の一部を改正する省令案についての意見募集

令和7年8月6日からの低気圧と前線による大雨に伴う災害に係る普通交付税（9月定例交付分）の繰上げ交付

弾道ミサイルを想定した住民避難訓練の実施

情報通信審議会 情報通信技術分科会 衛星通信システム委員会作業班（第34回）

令和6年10月27日執行の衆議院比例代表選出議員選挙九州選挙区 における欠員による繰上補充の選挙会において決定された事項

自治体におけるAIの利用に関するワーキンググループ（第6回）

The 2025 edition of DRAPAC takes place 26 and 27 August in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. APC is once again supporting the initiative, reinforcing the network’s dedication to strengthening digital rights…

　東京・上野の東京都美術館で「核兵器も戦争もない世界を！」をテーマにした「第７３回平和美術展」が８月６日から１２日まで開催された。油彩・水彩・日本画・版画・立体造形などが展示された。美術家平和会議の主催で、１９５２年アメリカの第1回水爆実験の年から始まり今年で73回を数える。「すべてのいのちを大切に」「平和の壁に花一輪を」「日本を戦争する国にさせない」の３つを合言葉に、各自の平和への思いを油彩・水彩・日本画・版画・立体造形などの作品に込めて表現。またドイツに避難しているウクラ..

In a victory for transparency, the government contractor Pen-Link agreed to disclose the prices and descriptions of surveillance products that it sold to a local California Sheriff's office.

The settlement ends a months-long California public records lawsuit with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office. The settlement provides further proof that the surveillance tools used by governments are not secret and shouldn’t be treated that way under the law.

Last year, EFF submitted a California public records request to the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office for information about its work with Pen-Link and its subsidy Cobwebs Technology. Pen-Link went to court to try to block the disclosure, claiming the names of its products and prices were trade secrets. EFF later entered the case to obtain the records it requested.  

The Records Show the Sheriff Bought Online Monitoring Tools

The records disclosed in the settlement show that in late 2023, the Sheriff’s Office paid $180,000 for a two-year subscription to the Tangles “Web Intelligence Platform,” which is a Cobwebs Technologies product that allows the Sheriff to monitor online activity. The subscription allows the Sheriff to perform hundreds of searches and requests per month. The source of information includes the “Dark Web” and “Webloc,” according to the price quotation. According to the settlement, the Sheriff’s Office was offered but did not purchase a series of other add-ons including “AI Image processing” and “Webloc Geo source data per user/Seat.”

Have you been blocked from receiving similar information? We’d like to hear from you.

The intelligence platform overall has been described in other documents as analyzing data from the “open, deep, and dark web, to mobile and social.” And Webloc has been described as a platform that “provides access to vast amounts of location-based data in any specified geographic location.” Journalists at multiple news outlets have chronicled Pen-Link's technology and have published Cobwebs training manuals that demonstrate that its product can be used to target activists and independent journalists. Major local, state, and federal agencies use Pen-Link's technology.

The records also show that in late 2022 the Sheriff’s Office purchased some of Pen-Link’s more traditional products that help law enforcement execute and analyze data from wiretaps and pen-registers after a court grants approval. 

Government Surveillance Tools Are Not Trade Secrets

The public has a right to know what surveillance tools the government is using, no matter whether the government develops its own products or purchases them from private contractors. There are a host of policy, legal, and factual reasons that the surveillance tools sold by contractors like Pen-Link are not trade secrets.

Public information about these products and prices helps communities have informed conversations and make decisions about how their government should operate. In this case, Pen-Link argued that its products and prices are trade secrets partially because governments rely on the company to “keep their data analysis capabilities private.” The company argued that clients would “lose trust” and governments may avoid “purchasing certain services” if the purchases were made public. This troubling claim highlights the importance of transparency. The public should be skeptical of any government tool that relies on secrecy to operate.

Information about these tools is also essential for defendants and criminal defense attorneys, who have the right to discover when these tools are used during an investigation. In support of its trade secret claim, Pen-Link cited terms of service that purported to restrict the government from disclosing its use of this technology without the company’s consent. Terms like this cannot be used to circumvent the public’s right to know, and governments should not agree to them.

Finally, in order for surveillance tools and their prices to be protected as a trade secret under the law, they have to actually be secret. However, Pen-Link’s tools and their prices are already public across the internet—in previous public records disclosures, product descriptions, trademark applications, and government websites.

 Lessons Learned

Government surveillance contractors should consider the policy implications, reputational risks, and waste of time and resources when attempting to hide from the public the full terms of their sales to law enforcement.

Cases like these, known as reverse-public records act lawsuits, are troubling because a well-resourced company can frustrate public access by merely filing the case. Not every member of the public, researcher, or journalist can afford to litigate their public records request. Without a team of internal staff attorneys, it would have cost EFF tens of thousands of dollars to fight this lawsuit.

 Luckily in this case, EFF had the ability to fight back. And we will continue our surveillance transparency work. That is why EFF required some attorneys’ fees to be part of the final settlement.

Related Cases: Pen-Link v. County of San Joaquin Sheriff’s Office

Seagate Technologyが提供するToolkitはWindowsサービスを登録しますが、登録されるプログラムのファイルパスは引用符で囲まれていません。

The Apache Software Foundationから、Apache Tomcatの脆弱性（CVE-2025-55668）に対するアップデートが公開されました。

The Ninth Circuit upheld an important limitation on Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) subpoenas that other federal courts have recognized for more than two decades. The DMCA, a misguided anti-piracy law passed in the late nineties, created a bevy of powerful tools, ostensibly to help copyright holders fight online infringement. Unfortunately, the DMCA’s powerful protections are ripe for abuse by “copyright trolls,” unscrupulous litigants who abuse the system at everyone else’s expense.

The DMCA’s “notice and takedown” regime is one of these tools. Section 512 of the DMCA creates “safe harbors” that protect service providers from liability, so long as they disable access to content when a copyright holder notifies them that the content is infringing, and fulfill some other requirements. This gives copyright holders a quick and easy way to censor allegedly infringing content without going to court. 

Unfortunately, the DMCA’s powerful protections are ripe for abuse by “copyright trolls”

Section 512(h) is ostensibly designed to facilitate this system, by giving rightsholders a fast and easy way of identifying anonymous infringers. Section 512(h) allows copyright holders to obtain a judicial subpoena to unmask the identities of allegedly infringing anonymous internet users, just by asking a court clerk to issue one, and attaching a copy of the infringement notice. In other words, they can wield the court’s power to override an internet user’s right to anonymous speech, without permission from a judge.  It’s easy to see why these subpoenas are prone to misuse.

Internet service providers (ISPs)—the companies that provide an internet connection (e.g. broadband or fiber) to customers—are obvious targets for these subpoenas. Often, copyright holders know the Internet Protocol (IP) address of an alleged infringer, but not their name or contact information. Since ISPs assign IP addresses to customers, they can often identify the customer associated with one.

Fortunately, Section 512(h) has an important limitation that protects users.  Over two decades ago, several federal appeals courts ruled that Section 512(h) subpoenas cannot be issued to ISPs. Now, in In re Internet Subscribers of Cox Communications, LLC, the Ninth Circuit agreed, as EFF urged it to in our amicus brief.

As the Ninth Circuit held:

Because a § 512(a) service provider cannot remove or disable access to infringing content, it cannot receive a valid (c)(3)(A) notification, which is a prerequisite for a § 512(h) subpoena. We therefore conclude from the text of the DMCA that a § 512(h) subpoena cannot issue to a § 512(a) service provider as a matter of law.

This decision preserves the understanding of Section 512(h) that internet users, websites, and copyright holders have shared for decades. As EFF explained to the court in its amicus brief:

[This] ensures important procedural safeguards for internet users against a group of copyright holders who seek to monetize frequent litigation (or threats of litigation) by coercing settlements—copyright trolls. Affirming the district court and upholding the interpretation of the D.C. and Eighth Circuits will preserve this protection, while still allowing rightsholders the ability to find and sue infringers.

EFF applauds this decision. And because three federal appeals courts have all ruled the same way on this question—and none have disagreed—ISPs all over the country can feel confident about protecting their customers’ privacy by simply throwing improper DMCA 512(h) subpoenas in the trash.