Aggregator

因幡電機産業株式会社が提供するチョコ停ウォッチャーminiには、複数の脆弱性が存在します。

The Apache Software Foundationから、Apache HTTP Server 2.4系における複数の脆弱性に対応したApache HTTP Server 2.4.66が公開されました。

If you’re a Californian, there are a few new state laws that you should know will be going into effect in the new year. EFF has worked hard in Sacramento this session to advance bills that protect privacy, fight surveillance, and promote transparency.

California’s legislature runs in a two-year cycle, meaning that it’s currently halftime for legislators. As we prepare for the next year of the California legislative session in January, it’s a good time to showcase what’s happened so far—and what’s left to do.

Wins Worth Celebrating

In a win for every Californian’s privacy rights, we were happy to support A.B. 566 (Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal). This is a common-sense law that makes California’s main consumer data privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, more user-friendly. It requires that browsers support people’s rights to send opt-out signals, such as the global opt-out in Privacy Badger, to businesses. Managing your privacy as an individual can be a hard job, and EFF wants stronger laws that make it easier for you to do so.

Additionally, we were proud to advance government transparency by supporting A.B. 1524 (Judiciary Committee), which allows members of the public to make copies of public court records using their own devices, such as cell-phone cameras and overhead document scanners, without paying fees.

We also supported two bills that will improve law enforcement accountability at a time when we desperately need it. S.B. 627 (Senator Scott Wiener) prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing masks to avoid accountability (The Trump administration has sued California over this law). We also supported S.B. 524 (Asm. Jesse Arreguín), which requires law enforcement to disclose when a police report was written using artificial intelligence.

On the To-Do List for Next Year

On the flip side, we also stopped some problematic bills from becoming law. This includes S.B. 690 (Sen. Anna Caballero), which we dubbed the Corporate Coverup Act. This bill would have gutted California’s wiretapping statute by allowing businesses to ignore those privacy rights for “any business purpose.” Working with several coalition partners, we were able to keep that bill from moving forward in 2025. We do expect to see it come back in 2026, and are ready to fight back against those corporate business interests.

And, of course, not every fight ended in victory. There are still many areas where we have work left to do. California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill we supported, S.B. 7, which would have given workers in California greater transparency into how their employers use artificial intelligence and was sponsored by the California Federation of Labor Unions. S.B. 7  was vetoed in response to concerns from companies including Uber and Lyft, but we expect to continue working with the labor community on the ways AI affects the workplace in 2026.

Trends of Note

California continued a troubling years-long trend of lawmakers pushing problematic proposals that would require every internet user to verify their age to access information—often by relying on privacy-invasive methods to do so. Earlier this year EFF sent a letter to the California legislature expressing grave concerns with lawmakers’ approach to regulating young people’s ability to speak online. We continue to raise these concerns, and would welcome working with any lawmaker in California on a better solution.

We also continue to keep a close eye on government data sharing. On this front, there is some good news. Several of the bills we supported this year sought to place needed safeguards on the ways various government agencies in California share data. These include: A.B. 82 (Asm. Chris Ward) and S.B. 497 (Wiener), which would add privacy protections to data collected by the state about those who may be receiving gender-affirming or reproductive health care; A.B. 1303 (Asm. Avelino Valencia), which prohibits warrantless data sharing from California’s low-income broadband program to immigration and other government officials; and S.B. 635 (Sen. Maria Elena Durazo), which places similar limits on data collected from sidewalk vendors.

We are also heartened to see California correct course on broad government data sharing. Last session, we opposed A.B. 518 (Asm. Buffy Wicks), which let state agencies ignore existing state privacy law to allow broader information sharing about people eligible for CalFresh—the state’s federally funded food assistance program. As we’ve seen, the federal government has since sought data from food assistance programs to use for other purposes. We were happy to have instead supported A.B. 593 this year, also authored by Asm. Wicks—which reversed course on that data sharing.

We hope to see this attention to the harms of careless government data sharing continue. EFF’s sponsored bill this year, A.B. 1337, would update and extend vital privacy safeguards present at the state agency level to counties and cities. These local entities today collect enormous amounts of data and administer programs that weren’t contemplated when the original law was written in 1977. That information should be held to strong privacy standards.

We’ve been fortunate to work with Asm. Chris Ward, who is also the chair of the LGBTQ Caucus in the legislature, on that bill. The bill stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee during the 2025 legislative session, but we plan to bring it back in the next session with a renewed sense of urgency.

自治大学校庶務課 非常勤職員採用情報

自治大学校庶務課 非常勤職員採用情報

自治大学校庶務課 非常勤職員採用情報

青森県東方沖を震源とする地震に関する被害状況等について（第18報）

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会電波有効利用委員会　電波上空利用作業班（第3回）

林総務大臣閣議後記者会見の概要

「自治体におけるAI活用・導入ガイドブック＜導入手順編＞（第4版）」の公表

公害等調整委員会事務局総務課 非常勤職員採用情報

青森県東方沖を震源とする地震に関する被害状況等について（第19報）

日本放送協会令和6年度業務報告書等の国会への報告等

　１２月５日に防衛省正門前で「防衛省はイスラエルの戦争犯罪企業からドローンを買うな！抗議署名追加提出アクション」行動集会が行われた。　パレスチナのガザ地区ではイスラエル軍の無差別攻撃で子どもを含む多くの民間人が虐殺されている。その主な武器として攻撃型ドローンが使用されている。　日本とイスラエルの軍事協力は強化されていて、イスラエルの大手軍事企業ＩＡＩ（イスラエル・エアロスペース・インダストリーズ）から、このドローンを日本は輸入しようとしている。「攻撃型ドローンの輸入を中止せよ..

In Ecuador, threats to privacy, freedom of expression and digital security intersect with feminist, Indigenous and environmental struggles. In this context, LaLibre.net Tecnologías Comunitarias has…

"Predloge, ki so jih podprli notranji ministri Unije, za začetek predstavi Lindsay Frey, raziskovalni novinar pri nevladni organizaciji Statewatch."

An interview with Statewatch Researcher, Frey Lindsay, on the EU's deportation and border externalisation plans.

Read our monthly bulletin, Outsourcing Borders, to find out more about these topics.

Since the Online Safety Act took effect in late July, UK internet users have made it very clear to their politicians that they do not want anything to do with this censorship regime. Just days after age checks came into effect, VPN apps became the most downloaded on Apple's App Store in the UK, and a petition calling for the repeal of the Online Safety Act (OSA) hit over 400,000 signatures. 

In the months since, more than 550,000 people have petitioned Parliament to repeal or reform the Online Safety Act, making it one of the largest public expressions of concern about a UK digital law in recent history. The OSA has galvanized swathes of the UK population, and it’s high time for politicians to take that seriously. 

Last week, EFF joined Open Rights Group, Big Brother Watch, and Index on Censorship in sending a briefing to UK politicians urging them to listen to their constituents and repeal the Online Safety Act ahead of this week’s Parliamentary petition debate on 15 December.

The legislation is a threat to user privacy, restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposes users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and effectively blocks millions of people without a personal device or form of ID from accessing the internet. The briefing highlights how, in the months since the OSA came into effect, we have seen the legislation:

1. Make it harder for not-for-profits and community groups to run their own websites. 
2. Result in the wrong types of content being taken down.
3. Lead to age-assurance being applied widely to all sorts of content.

Our briefing continues:

“Those raising concerns about the Online Safety Act are not opposing child safety. They are asking for a law that does both: protects children and respects fundamental rights, including children’s own freedom of expression rights.”

The petition shows that hundreds of thousands of people feel the current Act tilts too far, creating unnecessary risks for free expression and ordinary online life. With sensible adjustments, Parliament can restore confidence that online safety and freedom of expression rights can coexist.

If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users—including children—rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect.

Read the briefing in full here.