Aggregator

経済産業省は、工場を建設する目的で平成27年（1月～12月期）に1,000平方メートル以上の用地を取得した製造業、ガス業、熱供給業、電気業の事業者を対象に「工場立地動向調査」を実施し、結果を取りまとめました。

4月5日から9日まで、韓国のソウルにおいて、日中韓自由貿易協定(FTA)交渉の第10回交渉会合(局長/局次長会合)が開催されます。

経済産業省は、昨年10月に「活力あふれる『ビンテージ・ソサエティ』の実現に向けた取組に係る研究会」を立ち上げ、検討を重ね、今般報告書をとりまとめました。

交通事故の削減や渋滞緩和、環境負荷低減等の課題解決が期待される協調ITS（※）の実現普及に必要とされる地図データベースの整備や維持・更新のコスト削減に役立つ日本発の国際規格が制定されました。

平成28年3月4日に、東京電力からありました改正電気事業法に基づく会社分割に係る申請について、このたび申請のとおり認可しました。

Approaching San Diego’s first annual review of the city's controversial Flock Safety contract, a local coalition is calling on the city council to roll back this dangerous and costly automated license plate reader (ALPR) program.

The TRUST Coalition—a grassroots alliance including Electronic Frontier Alliance members Tech Workers Coalition San Diego and techLEAD—has rallied to stop the unchecked spread of ALPRs in San Diego. We’ve previously covered the coalition’s fight for surveillance oversight, a local effort kicked off by a “smart streetlight” surveillance program five years ago. 

In 2024, San Diego installed hundreds of AI-assisted ALPR cameras throughout the city to document what cars are driving where and when, then making that data accessible for 30 days.

ALPRs like Flock’s don’t prevent crime—they just vacuum up data on everyone who drives past. The resulting error-prone dragnet can then chill speech and be weaponized against marginalized groups, like immigrants and those seeking trans or reproductive healthcare. 

Despite local and state restrictions barring the sharing of ALPR with federal and out of state agencies, San Diego Police have reportedly disclosed license plate data to federal agencies—including Homeland Security Investigations and Customs and Border Patrol.

Also, despite a local ordinance requiring city council approval before deployment of surveillance technology, San Diego police have reportedly deployed ALPRs and smart streetlights at Comic-Con and Pride without the required approval.

The local coalition is not alone in these concerns. The San Diego Privacy Board recently recommended the city reject the Surveillance Use Policy for this technology. All of this costs the community over $3.5 million last year alone. That is why the TRUST coalition is calling on the city to reject this oppressive surveillance system, and, instead, invest in other essential services which improve day-to-day life for residents.

San Diegans who want to push back can get involved by signing the TRUST Coalition’s  petition, follow the campaign online, and contact their council members to demand the city end its contract with Flock and start respecting the privacy rights of everyone who lives, works, or visits through their community.

　病院などでの窓口負担の軽減や保険適用範囲の拡大などを求め医療関係者らが４月２３日、北九州市小倉北区のJR小倉駅前で署名活動を行った＝写真＝。福岡県歯科保険医協会と健和会附属大手町歯科診療所が実施し、30分ほどで50筆超の署名が集まった。北九州支部の会員も参加し行きかう市民らと対話した。　中には、「街頭活動に賛同する」と活動に飛び入りで加わる市民も。「高額療養費は重病に陥った人を支援する最後のセーフティネット。一旦、負担増は凍結となったが参院選後に強行されるかも」と医療関係者..

The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is back—and it still threatens free expression online. It would let government officials pressure or sue platforms to block or remove lawful content—especially on topics like mental health, sexuality, and drug use.

To avoid liability, platforms will over-censor. When forums or support groups get deleted, it’s not just teens who lose access—we all do. KOSA will also push services to adopt invasive age verification, handing private data to companies like Clear or ID.me.

Lawmakers should reject KOSA. Tell your Senators to vote NO.

Thanks in part to your support, the right to repair is now law in Washington.

Gov. Bob Ferguson signed two bills guaranteeing Washingtonians' right to access tools, parts, and information so they can fix personal electronics, appliances, and wheelchairs. This is the epitome of common-sense legislation. When you own something, you should have the final say about who fixes, adapts, or modifies it—and how.

When you own something, you should have the final say about who fixes, adapts, or modifies it—and how.

Advocates in Washington have worked for years to pass a strong right-to-repair law in the state. In addition to Washington’s Public Interest Research Group, the consumer electronics bill moved forward with a growing group of supporting organizations, including environmental advocates, consumer advocates, and manufacturers such as Google and Microsoft. Meanwhile, advocacy from groups including  Disability Rights Washington and the Here and Now Project made the case for the wheelchair's inclusion in the right-to-repair bill, bringing their personal stories to Olympia to show why this bill was so important.

And it’s not just states that recognize the need for people to be able to fix their own stuff.  Earlier this month, U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll issued a memo stating that the Army should “[identify] and propose contract modifications for right to repair provisions where intellectual property constraints limit the Army's ability to conduct maintenance and access the appropriate maintenance tools, software, and technical data – while preserving the intellectual capital of American industry.” The memo said that the Army should seek this in future procurement contracts and also to amend existing contracts to include the right to repair.

This is a bedrock of sound procurement with a long history in America. President Lincoln only bought rifles with standardized tooling to outfit the Union Army, for the obvious reason that it would be a little embarrassing for the Commander in Chief to have to pull his troops off the field because the Army’s sole supplier had decided not to ship this week’s delivery of ammo and parts. Somehow, the Department of Defense forgot this lesson over the ensuing centuries, so that today, billions of dollars in public money are spent on material and systems that the US military can only maintain by buying service from a “beltway bandit.”

This recognizes what millions of people have said repeatedly: limiting people’s ability to fix their own stuff stands in the way of needed repairs and maintenance. That’s true whether you’re a farmer with a broken tractor during harvest, a homeowner with a misbehaving washing machine or a cracked smartphone screen, a hospital med-tech trying to fix a ventilator, or a soldier struggling with a broken generator.

The right to repair is gaining serious momentum. All 50 states have now considered some form of right-to-repair legislation. Washington is the eighth state to pass one of these bills into law—let’s keep it up.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued a troubling order to all state agency directors of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP): hand over your data.

This is part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to gain “unfettered access to comprehensive data from all state programs that receive federal funding,” through Executive Order 14243. While the order says this data sharing is intended to cut down on fraud, it is written so broadly that it could authorize almost any data sharing. Such an effort flies in the face of well-established data privacy practices and places people at considerable risk. 

A group SNAP recipients and organizations have thankfully sued to try and block the data sharing granted through the Executive Order.  And the state of New Mexico has even refused to comply with the order, “due to questions and concerns regarding the legality of USDA’s demand for the information,” according to Source NM.

The federal government has said very little about how they will use this information. Several populations targeted by the Trump Administration are eligible to be on the SNAP program, including asylum seekers, refugees, and victims of trafficking. Additionally, although undocumented immigrants are not eligible for SNAP benefits, their household members who are U.S. citizens or have other eligible immigration statuses may be—raising the distinct concern that SNAP information could be shared with immigration or other enforcement authorities.

We all deserve privacy rights. Accessing public benefits to feed yourself shouldn't require you to give those up.

EFF has long advocated for privacy policies that ensure that information provided in one context is not used for other reasons. People who hand over their personal information should do so freely and with full information about how their information will be used. Whether you're seeking services from the government or a company, we all deserve privacy rights. Accessing public benefits to feed yourself shouldn't require you to give those up.

It's particularly important to respect privacy for government programs that provide essential support services to vulnerable populations such as SNAP.  SNAP supports people who need assistance buying food—arguably the most basic need. Often, fear of reprisal and inappropriate government data sharing, such as immigration status of household members not receiving benefits, prevents eligible people from enrolling in food assistance despite need.  Discouraging eligible people from enrolling in SNAP benefits runs counterproductive to the goals of the program, which aim to reduce food insecurity, improve health outcomes, and benefit local economies.

This is just the latest government data-sharing effort that raises alarm bells for digital rights. No one should worry that asking their government for help with hunger will get them in trouble. The USDA must promise it will not weaponize programs that put food on the table during times of need. 

Two dangerous bills have been reintroduced in Congress that would reverse over a decade of progress in fighting patent trolls and making the patent system more balanced. The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the PREVAIL Act would each cause significant harm on their own. Together, they form a one-two punch—making it easier to obtain vague and overly broad patents, while making it harder for the public to challenge them.

These bills don’t just share bad ideas—they share sponsors, a coordinated rollout, and backing from many of the same lobbying groups. Congress should reject both.

TAKE ACTION

Tell Congress: Don't Bring Back The Worst Patents

PERA Would Legalize Patents on Basic Software—and Human Genes

PERA would overturn long-standing court decisions that have helped keep some of the worst patents out of the system. This includes the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision, which bars patents on abstract ideas, and Myriad v. AMP, which correctly ruled that naturally occurring human genes cannot be patented.

Thanks to the Alice decision, courts have invalidated a rogue’s gallery of terrible software patents—such as patents on online photo contests, online bingo, upselling, matchmaking, and scavenger hunts. These patents didn’t describe real inventions—they merely applied old ideas to general-purpose computers.

PERA would wipe out the Alice framework and replace it with vague, hollow exceptions. For example: it would ban patents on “dance moves” and “marriage proposals,” but would allow nearly anything involving a computer or machine—even if it only mentions the use of a computer. This is the same language used in many bad software patents that patent trolls have wielded for years. If PERA passes, patent claims  that are currently seen as weak will become much harder to challenge. 

Adding to that, PERA would bring back patents on human genes—exactly what was at stake in the Myriad case. EFF joined that fight, alongside scientists and patients, to prevent patents that interfered with essential diagnostic testing. Congress should not undo that victory. Some things just shouldn’t be patented. 

PERA’s requirement that living genes can constitute an invention if they are “isolated” is meaningless; every gene used in science is “isolated” from the human body. This legal wordplay was used to justify human gene patents for decades, and it’s deeply troubling that some U.S. Senators are on board with bringing them back. 

PREVAIL Weakens the Public’s Best Defense Against Patent Abuse

While PERA makes it easier to obtain a bad patent, the PREVAIL Act makes it harder to get rid of one.

PREVAIL would severely limit inter partes review (IPR), the most effective process for challenging wrongly granted patents. This faster, more affordable process—administered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—has knocked out thousands of invalid patents that should never have been issued.

EFF has used IPR to protect the public. In 2013, we challenged and invalidated a patent on podcasting, which was being used to threaten creators across the internet. Thousands of our supporters chipped in to help us bring that case. Under PREVAIL, that challenge wouldn’t have been allowed. The bill would significantly limit IPR petitions unless you’ve been directly sued or threatened—a major blow to nonprofits, open source advocates, and membership-based defense groups that act in the public interest. 

PREVAIL doesn’t stop at limiting who can file an IPR. It also undermines the fairness of the IPR process itself. It raises the burden of proof, requiring challengers to overcome a presumption that the patent is valid—even when the Patent Office is the one reviewing it. The bill forces an unfair choice: anyone who challenges a patent at the Patent Office would have to give up the right to fight the same patent in court, even though key legal arguments (such as those involving abstract subject matter) can only be made in court.

It gets worse. PREVAIL makes it easier for patent owners to rewrite their claims during review, taking advantage of hindsight about what’s likely to hold up. And if multiple parties want to challenge the same patent, only the first to file may get heard. This means that patents used to threaten dozens or even hundreds of targets could get extra protection, just because one early challenger didn’t bring the best arguments.

These changes aren’t about improving the system. They’re about making it easier for a small number of patent owners to extract settlements, and harder for the public to push back.

A Step Backward, Not Forward

Supporters of these bills claim they’re trying to restore balance to the patent system. But that’s not what PERA and PREVAIL do. They don’t fix what’s broken—they break what’s working.

Patent trolling is still a severe problem. In 2024, patent trolls filed a stunning 88% of all patent lawsuits in the tech sector. 

At the same time, patent law has come a long way over the past decade. Courts can now reject abstract software patents earlier and more easily. The IPR process has become a vital tool for holding the Patent Office accountable and protecting real innovators. And the Myriad decision has helped keep essential parts of human biology in the public domain.

PERA and PREVAIL would undo all of that.

These bills have support from a variety of industry groups, including those representing biotech firms, university tech transfer offices, and some tech companies that rely on aggressive patent licensing. While those voices deserve to be heard, the public deserves better than legislation that makes it easier to secure a 20-year monopoly on an idea, and harder for anyone else to challenge it.

Instead of PERA and PREVAIL, Congress should focus on helping developers, creators, and small businesses that rely on technology—not those who exploit it through bad patents.

Some of that legislation is already written. Congress should consider making end-users immune from patent threats, closing loopholes that allow certain patent-holders to avoid having their patents reviewed, and adding transparency requirements so that people accused of patent infringement can at least figure out who’s making the allegations. 

But right now, EFF is fighting back, and we need your help. These bills may be dressed up as reform, but we’ve seen them before—and we know the damage they’d do.

TAKE ACTION

Tell Congress: Reject PERA and PREVAIL

Two dangerous patent bills—PERA and PREVAIL—are back in Congress. These bills would revive harmful patents and make it harder for the public to fight back.

The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) would overturn key Supreme Court decisions that currently protect us from patents on the most basic internet software, and even human genes. This would open the floodgates to vague, overbroad claims on simple, widely used web features—exactly the kind of patents that patent trolls exploit.

The PREVAIL Act would gut the inter partes review (IPR) process, one of the most effective tools for challenging bad patents. It would ban many public interest groups, including EFF, from filing challenges.

韓国の大統領選挙今夜にも大勢が決する。韓国の選挙らしく、波乱万丈の選挙戦だったけど、今回の波乱万丈はあまり面白くなかった。（安田幸弘）

京葉システム株式会社が提供するタイム・ワークスには、パストラバーサルの脆弱性が存在します。

京葉システム株式会社が提供するPC Time Tracerには、不適切なファイルアクセス権設定の脆弱性が存在します。

今年は戦後80年であるとともに、日本と韓国で国交が樹立されて60年を迎えた節目の年である。日韓基本条約が結ばれたことで両国の国交は回復され、現在では、音楽、映画、食、美容などを通じて日本でも韓国を日常に感じる機会が増えた。（小栗俊也）

In criminal prosecutions, electronic monitoring (EM) is pitched as a “humane alternative" to incarceration – but it is not. The latest generation of “e-carceration” tools are burdensome, harsh, and often just as punitive as imprisonment. Fortunately, criminal defense attorneys have options when shielding their clients from this over-used and harmful tech.

Framed as a tool that enhances public safety while reducing jail populations, EM is increasingly used as a condition of pretrial release, probation, parole, or even civil detention. However, this technology imposes serious infringements on liberty, privacy, and due process for not only those placed on it but also for people they come into contact with. It can transform homes into digital jails, inadvertently surveil others, impose financial burdens, and punish every misstep—no matter how minor or understandable.

Even though EM may appear less severe than incarceration, research and litigation reveal that these devices often function as a form of detention in all but name. Monitored individuals must often remain at home for long periods, request permission to leave for basic needs, and comply with curfews or “exclusion zones.” Violations, even technical ones—such as a battery running low or a dropped GPS signal—can result in arrest and incarceration. Being able to take care of oneself and reintegrate into the world becomes a minefield of compliance and red tape. The psychological burden, social stigma, and physical discomfort associated with EM are significant, particularly for vulnerable populations.   

For many, EM still evokes bulky wrist or ankle “shackles” that can monitor a subject’s location, and sometimes even their blood alcohol levels. These devices have matured with digital technology however,  increasingly imposed through more sophisticated devices like smartwatches or mobile phones applications. Newer iterations of EM have also followed a trajectory of collecting much more data, including biometrics and more precise location information.

This issue is more pressing than ever, as the 2020 COVID pandemic led to an explosion in EM adoption. As incarceration and detention facilities became superspreader zones, judges kept some offenders out of these facilities by expanding the use of EM; so much so that some jurisdictions ran out of classic EM devices like ankle bracelets.

Today the number of people placed on EM in the criminal system continues to skyrocket. Fighting the spread of EM requires many tactics, but on the front lines are the criminal defense attorneys challenging EM impositions. This post will focus on the main issues for defense attorneys to consider while arguing against the imposition of this technology.

PRETRIAL ELECTRONIC MONITORING

We’ve seen challenges to EM programs in a variety of ways, including attacking the constitutionality of the program as a whole and arguing against pretrial and/or post-conviction imposition. However, it is likely that the most successful challenges will come from individualized challenges to pretrial EM.

First, courts have not been receptive to arguments that entire EM programs are unconstitutional. For example, in Simon v. San Francisco et.al, 135 F.4th 784 (9 Cir. 2025), the Ninth Circuit held that although San Francisco’s EM program constituted a Fourth Amendment search, a warrant was not required. The court explained their decision by stating that the program was a condition of pretrial release, included the sharing of location data, and was consented to by the individual (with counsel present) by signing a form that essentially operated as a contract. This decision exemplifies the court’s failure to grasp the coercive nature of this type of “consent” that is pervasive in the criminal legal system.

Second, pretrial defendants have more robust rights than they do after conviction. While a person’s expectation of privacy may be slightly diminished following arrest but before trial, the Fourth Amendment is not entirely out of the picture. Their “privacy and liberty interests” are, for instance, “far greater” than a person who has been convicted and is on probation or parole. United States v. Scott, 450 F.3d 863, 873 (9th Cir. 2006). Although individuals continue to retain Fourth Amendment rights after conviction, the reasonableness analysis will be heavily weighted towards the state as the defendant is no longer presumed innocent. However, even people on probation have a “substantial” privacy interest. United States v. Lara, 815 F.3d 605, 610 (9th Cir. 2016). 

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

The first foundational constitutional rights threatened by the sheer invasiveness of EM are those protected by the Fourth Amendment. This concern is only heightened as the technology improves and collects increasingly detailed information. Unlike traditional probation or parole supervision, EM often tracks individuals with no geographic limitations or oversight, and can automatically record more than just approximate location information.

Courts have increasingly recognized that this new technology poses greater and more novel threats to our privacy than earlier generations. In Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. 306 (2015), the Supreme Court, relying on United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) held that attaching a GPS tracking device to a person—even a convicted sex offender—constitutes a Fourth Amendment search and is thus subject to the inquiry of reasonableness. A few years later, the monumental decision in Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018), firmly established that Fourth Amendment analysis is affected by the advancement of technology, holding that that long-term cell-site location tracking by law enforcement constituted a search requiring a warrant.

As criminal defense attorneys are well aware, the Fourth Amendment’s ostensibly powerful protections are often less effective in practice. Nevertheless, this line of cases still forms a strong foundation for arguing that EM should be subjected to exacting Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

DUE PROCESS

Three key procedural due process challenges that defense attorneys can raise under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are: inadequate hearing, lack of individualized assessment, and failure to consider ability to pay.

Many courts impose EM without adequate consideration of individual circumstances or less restrictive alternatives. Defense attorneys should demand evidentiary hearings where the government must prove that monitoring is necessary and narrowly tailored. If the defendant is not given notice, hearing, or the opportunity to object, that could arguably constitute a violation of due process. For example, in the previously mentioned case, Simon v. San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit found that individuals who were not informed of the details regarding the city’s pretrial EM program in the presence of counsel had their rights violated.

Second, imposition of EM should be based on an individualized assessment rather than a blanket rule. For pretrial defendants, EM is frequently used as a condition of bail. Although under both federal and state bail frameworks, courts are generally required to impose the least restrictive conditions necessary to ensure the defendant’s court appearance and protect the community, many jurisdictions have included EM as a default condition rather than individually assessing whether EM is appropriate. The Bail Reform Act of 1984, for instance, mandates that release conditions be tailored to the individual’s circumstances. Yet in practice, many jurisdictions impose EM categorically, without specific findings or consideration of alternatives. Defense counsel should challenge this practice by insisting that judges articulate on the record why EM is necessary, supported by evidence related to flight risk or danger. Where clients have stable housing, employment, and no history of noncompliance, EM may be more restrictive than justified.

Lastly, financial burdens associated with EM may also implicate due process where a failure to pay can result in violations and incarceration. In Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), the Supreme Court held that courts cannot revoke probation for failure to pay fines or restitution without first determining whether the failure was willful. Relying on Bearden, defense attorneys can argue that EM fees imposed on indigent clients amount to unconstitutional punishment for poverty. Similarly, a growing number of lower courts have agreed, particularly where clients were not given the opportunity to contest their ability to pay. Defense attorneys should request fee waivers, present evidence of indigence, and challenge any EM orders that functionally condition liberty on wealth.

STATE LAW PROTECTIONS

State constitutions and statutes often provide stronger protections than federal constitutional minimums. In addition to state corollaries to the Fourth and Fifth Amendment, some states have also enacted statutes to govern pretrial release and conditions. A number of states have established a presumption in favor of release on recognizance or personal recognizance bonds. In those jurisdictions, the state has to overcome this presumption before the court can impose restrictive conditions like EM. Some states require courts to impose the least restrictive conditions necessary to achieve legitimate purposes, making EM appropriate only when less restrictive alternatives are inadequate.

Most pretrial statutes list specific factors courts must consider, such as community ties, employment history, family responsibilities, nature of the offense, criminal history, and risk of flight or danger to community. Courts that fail to adequately consider these factors or impose generic monitoring conditions may violate statutory requirements.

For example, Illinois's SAFE-T Act includes specific protections against overly restrictive EM conditions, but implementation has been inconsistent. Defense attorneys in Illinois and states with similar laws should challenge monitoring conditions that violate specific statutory requirements.

TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES

Attorneys should also consider the reliability of EM technology. Devices frequently produce false violations and alerts, particularly in urban areas or buildings where GPS signals are weak. Misleading data can lead to violation hearings and even incarceration. Attorneys should demand access to raw location data, vendor records, and maintenance logs. Expert testimony can help demonstrate technological flaws, human error, or system limitations that cast doubt on the validity of alleged violations.

In some jurisdictions, EM programs are operated by private companies under contracts with probation departments, courts, or sheriffs. These companies profit from fees paid by clients and have minimal oversight. Attorneys should request copies of contracts, training manuals, and policies governing EM use. Discovery may reveal financial incentives, lack of accountability, or systemic issues such as racial or geographic disparities in monitoring. These findings can support broader litigation or class actions, particularly where indigent individuals are jailed for failing to pay private vendors.

Recent research provides compelling evidence that EM fails to achieve its stated purposes while creating significant harms. Studies have not found significant relationships between EM of individuals on pretrial release and their court appearance rates or likelihood of arrest. Nor do they show that law enforcement is employing EM on individuals they would otherwise put in jail.

To the contrary, studies indicate that law enforcement is using EM to surveil and constrain the liberty of those who wouldn't otherwise be detained, as the rise in the number of people placed on EM has not coincided with a decrease in detention. This research demonstrates that EM represents an expansion of government control rather than a true alternative to detention.

Additionally, EM devices may be rife with technical issues as described above. Communication system failures that prevent proper monitoring, and device malfunctions that cause electronic shocks. Cutting of ankle bracelets is a common occurrence among users, especially when the technology is malfunctioning or hurting them. Defense attorneys should document all technical issues and argue that unreliable technology cannot form the basis for liberty restrictions or additional criminal charges.

CREATING A RECORD FOR APPEAL

Attorneys should always make sure they are creating a record on which the EM imposition can be appealed, should the initial hearing be unsuccessful. This will require lawyers to include the factual basis for challenge and preserve the appropriate legal arguments. The modern generation of EM has yet to undergo the extensive judicial review that ankle shackles have been subjected to, making it integral to make an extensive record of the ways in which it is more invasive and harmful, so that it can be properly argued to an appellate court that the nature of the newest EM requires more than perfunctory application of decades-old precedence. As we saw with Carpenter, the rapid advancement of technology may push the courts to reconsider older paradigms for constitutional analysis and find them wanting. Thus, a comprehensive record would be critical to show EM as it is—an extension of incarceration—rather than a benevolent alternative to detention. 

Defeating electronic monitoring will require a multidimensional approach that includes litigating constitutional claims, contesting factual assumptions, exposing technological failures, and advocating for systemic reforms. As the carceral state evolves, attorneys must remain vigilant and proactive in defending the rights of their clients.

EFF has joined more than 80 civil society organizations, companies, and cybersecurity experts in signing a letter urging the European Commission to change course on its recently announced “Technology Roadmap on Encryption.” The roadmap, part of the EU’s ProtectEU strategy, discusses new ways for law enforcement to access encrypted data. That framing is dangerously flawed. 

Let’s be clear: there is no technical “lawful access” to end-to-end encrypted messages that preserves security and privacy. Any attempt to circumvent encryption—like client-side scanning—creates new vulnerabilities, threatening the very people governments claim to protect.

This letter is significant in not just its content, but in who signed it. The breadth of the coalition makes one thing clear: civil society and the global technical community overwhelmingly reject the idea that weakening encryption can coexist with respect for fundamental rights.

Strong encryption is a pillar of cybersecurity, protecting everyone: activists, journalists, everyday web users, and critical infrastructure. Undermining it doesn’t just hurt privacy. It makes everyone’s data more vulnerable and weakens the EU’s ability to defend against cybersecurity threats.

EU officials should scrap any roadmap focused on circumvention and instead invest in stronger, more widespread use of end-to-end encryption. Security and human rights aren’t in conflict. They depend on each other.

You can read the full letter here.