Aggregator

森を伐り裂いてくねくねでこぼこ走る砂利道を６時間かかって島を横断し、南岸に出る。一旦海に出て、タボロ川の河口に入ると、樹間にタボロ村が現れる。動画で見てください。

　私たち基地反対住民訴訟原告団は、工事着工満２年前日の１月１１日、昨年11月に続き馬毛島に再上陸。前回、防衛省の妨害で果たせなかった工事の進捗状況確認ため沖縄ドローンプロジェクトの協力を得て空撮を行った。防衛省職員は今回も上陸した私たちの前に立ちふさがって妨害。「工事中で危険（ドローンを）飛ばさないで」との文を読み上げた。だが私たちは「禁止する法的な根拠はない」伝え、ドローン空撮を開始。最新の現場映像を撮影した。昼夜を問わずの突貫工事で緑がはぎとられた島で自衛隊施設整備工事は..

In a moment of clarity after initially moving forward a deeply flawed piece of legislation, the French National Assembly has done the right thing: it rejected a dangerous proposal that would have gutted end-to-end encryption in the name of fighting drug trafficking. Despite heavy pressure from the Interior Ministry, lawmakers voted Thursday night (article in French) to strike down a provision that would have forced messaging platforms like Signal and WhatsApp to allow hidden access to private conversations.

The vote is a victory for digital rights, for privacy and security, and for common sense.

The proposed law was a surveillance wishlist disguised as anti-drug legislation. Tucked into its text was a resurrection of the widely discredited "ghost” participant model—a backdoor that pretends not to be one. Under this scheme, law enforcement could silently join encrypted chats, undermining the very idea of private communication. Security experts have condemned the approach, warning it would introduce systemic vulnerabilities, damage trust in secure communication platforms, and create tools ripe for abuse.

The French lawmakers who voted this provision down deserve credit. They listened—not only to French digital rights organizations and technologists, but also to basic principles of cybersecurity and civil liberties. They understood that encryption protects everyone, not just activists and dissidents, but also journalists, medical professionals, abuse survivors, and ordinary citizens trying to live private lives in an increasingly surveilled world.

A Global Signal

France’s rejection of the backdoor provision should send a message to legislatures around the world: you don’t have to sacrifice fundamental rights in the name of public safety. Encryption is not the enemy of justice; it’s a tool that supports our fundamental human rights, including the right to have a private conversation. It is a pillar of modern democracy and cybersecurity.

As governments in the U.S., U.K., Australia, and elsewhere continue to flirt with anti-encryption laws, this decision should serve as a model—and a warning. Undermining encryption doesn’t make society safer. It makes everyone more vulnerable.

This victory was not inevitable. It came after sustained public pressure, expert input, and tireless advocacy from civil society. It shows that pushing back works. But for the foreseeable future, misguided lobbyists for police national security agencies will continue to push similar proposals—perhaps repackaged, or rushed through quieter legislative moments.

Supporters of privacy should celebrate this win today. Tomorrow, we will continue to keep watch.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) just made a move that will protect bad patents at the expense of everyone else. In a memo released February 28, the USPTO further restricted access to inter partes review, or IPR—the process Congress created to let the public challenge invalid patents without having to wage million-dollar court battles.

If left unchecked, this decision will shield bad patents from scrutiny, embolden patent trolls, and make it even easier for hedge funds and large corporations to weaponize weak patents against small businesses and developers.

IPR Exists Because the Patent Office Makes Mistakes

The USPTO grants over 300,000 patents a year, but many of them should not have been issued in the first place. Patent examiners spend, on average, around 20 hours per patent, often missing key prior art or granting patents that are overly broad or vague. That’s how bogus patents on basic ideas—like podcasting, online shopping carts, or watching ads online—have ended up in court.

Congress created IPR in 2012 to fix this problem. IPR allows anyone to challenge a patent’s validity based on prior art, and it’s done before specialized judges at the USPTO, where experts can re-evaluate whether a patent was properly granted. It’s faster, cheaper, and often fairer than fighting it out in federal court.

The USPTO is Blocking Patent Challenges—Again

Instead of defending IPR, the USPTO is working to sabotage it. The February 28 memo reinstates a rule that allows for widespread use of “discretionary denials.” That’s when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) refuses to hear an IPR case for procedural reasons—even if the patent is likely invalid. 

The February 28 memo reinstates widespread use of the Apple v. Fintiv rule, under which the USPTO often rejected IPR petitions whenever there’s an ongoing district court case about the same patent. This is backwards. If anything, an active lawsuit is proof that a patent’s validity needs to be reviewed—not an excuse to dodge the issue.

In 2022, former USPTO Director Kathi Vidal issued a memo making clear that the PTAB should hear patent challenges when “a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability,” even if there is parallel court litigation. 

That 2022 guidance essentially saved the IPR system. Once PTAB judges were told to consider all petitions that showed “compelling evidence,” the procedural denials dropped to almost nothing. This February 28 memo signals that the USPTO will once again use discretionary denials to sharply limit access to IPR—effectively making patent challenges harder across the board.  

Discretionary Denials Let Patent Trolls Rig the System

The top beneficiary of this decision will be patent trolls, shell companies formed expressly for the purpose of filing patent lawsuits. Often patent trolls seek to extract a quick settlement before a patent can be challenged. With IPR becoming increasingly unavailable, that will be easier than ever. 

Patent owners know that discretionary denials will block IPRs if they file a lawsuit first. That’s why trolls flock to specific courts, like the Western District of Texas, where judges move cases quickly and rarely rule against patent owners.

By filing lawsuits in these troll-friendly courts, patent owners can game the system—forcing companies to pay up rather than risk millions in litigation costs.

The recent USPTO memo makes this problem even worse. Instead of stopping the abuse of discretionary denials, the USPTO is doubling down—undermining one of the most effective ways businesses, developers, and consumers can fight back against bad patents.

Congress Created IPR to Protect the Public—Not Just Patent Owners

The USPTO doesn’t get to rewrite the law. Congress passed IPR to ensure that weak patents don’t become weapons for extortionary lawsuits. By reinforcing discretionary denials with minimal restrictions, and, as a result, blocking access to IPRs, the USPTO is directly undermining what Congress intended.

Leaders at the USPTO should immediately revoke the February 28 memo. If they refuse, as we pointed out the last time IPR denials spiraled out of control, it’s time for Congress to step in and fix this. They must ensure that IPR remains a fast, affordable way to challenge bad patents—not just a tool for the largest corporations. Patent quality matters—because when bad patents stand, we all pay the price.

このひと月余日本のマスコミ、特にテレビはミャンマー東部カレン州の特殊詐欺拠点の報道合戦を繰り広げた。とりわけそこから「救出」されて出てきた、あるいは脱出してきた日本人数名の存在が判明してから報道は過熱化した。だが、巨大な犯罪組織の急成長の背景にある、軍事クーデター後の社会破綻や国民生活の困窮、国際社会の無関心は見過ごされたままである。

「ガザ戦争もウクライナ戦争もすぐに止めさせて見せる」と、トランプ氏は豪語して、第47代アメリカ大統領になりました。　イスラエルの残酷なジェノサイド(大虐殺)に打ちのめされたガザの人々は、藁をもすがる思いでトランプ氏の停戦を待ったのです。　が、ガザ停戦もウクライナ停戦も、トランプ米大統領の無理が通らなかったようです。　その一方、ベネズエラ人の追放を画策していたトランプは、戦時法を無理に発令し、数百人のベネズエラ人を国外強制追放しました。

　この３月、日本の放送は開始１００年を迎える。この間を20年ごと、５つの区分で考えてみた。第１期（１９２５年〜４５年）・社団法人 日本放送協会のラジオのみ。国家が「無線電信及無線電話ハ政府之ヲ管掌ス」（旧無線電信法）と放送内容まで合法的に関与できた時代。それが大本営発表につながる。放送が国民を戦争に駆り立てた時代。第２期（１９４６年〜６５年）・電波３法の施行（１９５０年）、電波監理委員会の廃止（１９５２年）・民放の誕生　ＮＨＫ・民放併存体制の誕生・テレビの誕生（１９５３年）・..

In this piece, 7amleh-The Arab Center for Social Media Advancement share an overview of important discussions, connections and insights resulting from this year's RightsCon. The event was an…

Schneider Electricが提供する複数の製品には、複数の脆弱性が存在します。

SMAが提供するSunny Portalには、アップロードするファイルの検証が不十分な脆弱性が存在します。

Santesoftが提供するSante DICOM Viewer Proには、境界外書き込みの脆弱性が存在します。

Siemensから各製品向けのアップデートが公開されました。