OpenSSL Projectより、OpenSSL Security Advisory [20th January 2025]（"Timing side-channel in ECDSA signature computation (CVE-2024-13176)"）が公開されました。

States need to have and use data privacy laws to bring privacy violations to light and hold companies accountable for them. So, we were glad to see that the Texas Attorney General’s Office has filed its first lawsuit under Texas Data Privacy and Security Act (TDPSA) to take the Allstate Corporation to task for sharing driver location and other driving data without telling customers.

In its complaint, the attorney general’s office alleges that Allstate and a number of its subsidiaries (some of which go by the name “Arity”) “conspired to secretly collect and sell ‘trillions of miles’ of consumers’ ‘driving behavior’ data from mobile devices, in-car devices, and vehicles.” (The defendant companies are also accused of violating Texas’ data broker law and its insurance law prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices.)

On the privacy front, the complaint says the defendant companies created a software development kit (SDK), which is basically a set of tools that developers can create to integrate functions into an app. In this case, the Texas Attorney General says that Allstate and Arity specifically designed this toolkit to scrape location data. They then allegedly paid third parties, such as the app Life360, to embed it in their apps. The complaint also alleges that Allstate and Arity chose to promote their SDK to third-party apps that already required the use of location date, specifically so that people wouldn’t be alerted to the additional collection.

That’s a dirty trick. Data that you can pull from cars is often highly sensitive, as we have raised repeatedly. Everyone should know when that information's being collected and where it's going.

More state regulators should follow suit and use the privacy laws on their books.

The Texas Attorney General’s office estimates that 45 million Americans, including those in Texas, unwittingly downloaded this software that collected their information, including location information, without notice or consent. This violates Texas’ privacy law, which went into effect in July 2024 and requires companies to provide a reasonably accessible notice to a privacy policy, conspicuous notice that they’re selling or processing sensitive data for targeting advertising, and to obtain consumer consent to process sensitive data.

This is a low bar, and the companies named in this complaint still allegedly failed to clear it. As law firm Husch Blackwell pointed out in its write-up of the case, all Arity had to do, for example, to fulfill one of the notice obligations under the TDPSA was to put up a line on their website saying, “NOTICE: We may sell your sensitive personal data.”

In fact, Texas’s privacy law does not meet the minimum of what we’d consider a strong privacy law. For example, the Texas Attorney General is the only one who can file a lawsuit under its states privacy law. But we advocate for provisions that make sure that everyone, not only state attorneys general, can file suits to make sure that all companies respect our privacy.

Texas’ privacy law also has a “right to cure”—essentially a 30-day period in which a company can “fix” a privacy violation and duck a Texas enforcement action. EFF opposes rights to cure, because they essentially give companies a “get-out-jail-free” card when caught violating privacy law. In this case, Arity was notified and given the chance to show it had cured the violation. It just didn’t.

According the complaint, Arity apparently failed to take even basic steps that would have spared it from this enforcement action. Other companies violating our privacy may be more adept at getting out of trouble, but they should be found and taken to task too. That’s why we advocate for strong privacy laws that do even more to protect consumers.

Nineteen states now have some version of a data privacy law. Enforcement has been a bit slower. California has brought a few enforcement actions since its privacy law went into effect in 2020; Texas and New Hampshire are two states that have created dedicated data privacy units in their Attorney General offices, signaling they’re staffing up to enforce their laws. More state regulators should follow suit and use the privacy laws on their books. And more state legislators should enact and strengthen their laws to make sure companies are truly respecting our privacy.

The Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement agreeing that General Motors and its subsidiary, OnStar, will be banned from selling geolocation and driver behavior data to credit agencies for five years. That’s good news for G.M. owners. Every car owner and driver deserves to be protected.

Last year, a New York Times investigation highlighted how G.M. was sharing information with insurance companies without clear knowledge from the driver. This resulted in people’s insurance premiums increasing, sometimes without them realizing why that was happening. This data sharing problem was common amongst many carmakers, not just G.M., but figuring out what your car was sharing was often a Sisyphean task, somehow managing to be more complicated than trying to learn similar details about apps or websites.

The FTC complaint zeroed in on how G.M. enrolled people in its OnStar connected vehicle service with a misleading process. OnStar was initially designed to help drivers in an emergency, but over time the service collected and shared more data that had nothing to do with emergency services. The result was people signing up for the service without realizing they were agreeing to share their location and driver behavior data with third parties, including insurance companies and consumer reporting agencies. The FTC also alleged that G.M. didn’t disclose who the data was shared with (insurance companies) and for what purposes (to deny or set rates). Asking car owners to choose between safety and privacy is a nasty tactic, and one that deserves to be stopped.

For the next five years, the settlement bans G.M. and OnStar from these sorts of privacy-invasive practices, making it so they cannot share driver data or geolocation to consumer reporting agencies, which gather and sell consumers’ credit and other information. They must also obtain opt-in consent to collect data, allow consumers to obtain and delete their data, and give car owners an option to disable the collection of location data and driving information.

These are all important, solid steps, and these sorts of rules should apply to all carmakers. With privacy-related options buried away in websites, apps, and infotainment systems, it is currently far too difficult to see what sort of data your car collects, and it is not always possible to opt out of data collection or sharing. In reality, no consumer knowingly agrees to let their carmaker sell their driving data to other companies.

All carmakers should be forced to protect their customers’ privacy, and they should have to do so for longer than just five years. The best way to ensure that would be through a comprehensive consumer data privacy legislation with strong data minimization rules and requirements for clear, opt-in consent. With a strong privacy law, all car makers—not just G.M.— would only have authority to collect, maintain, use, and disclose our data to provide a service that we asked for.

政策統括官（統計制度担当）庶務担当（任期付職員募集担当） 任期付職員採用情報

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　電波利用環境委員会　CISPR H作業班（第18回）配付資料

固定電話番号の双方向ポータビリティの実現に向けた検討会（第4回） 開催案内

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　放送システム委員会　STL/TTL/TSL高度化作業班（第1回）の開催について

革新的情報通信技術（Beyond 5G（6G））基金事業 「社会実装・海外展開志向型戦略的プログラム【事業戦略支援型】」 に係る予備調査（第3回）

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　技術戦略委員会（第53回）開催案内

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　電波利用環境委員会　CISPR F作業班（第27回）配付資料

情報通信行政・郵政行政審議会 電気通信事業部会　ユニバーサルサービス委員会（第11回）

Better late than never: last night a federal district court held that backdoor searches of databases full of Americans’ private communications collected under Section 702 ordinarily require a warrant. The landmark ruling comes in a criminal case, United States v. Hasbajrami, after more than a decade of litigation, and over four years since the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that backdoor searches constitute “separate Fourth Amendment events” and directed the district court to determine a warrant was required. Now, that has been officially decreed.

In the intervening years, Congress has reauthorized Section 702 multiple times, each time ignoring overwhelming evidence that the FBI and the intelligence community abuse their access to databases of warrantlessly collected messages and other data. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which Congress assigned with the primary role of judicial oversight of Section 702, has also repeatedly dismissed arguments that the backdoor searches violate the Fourth Amendment, giving the intelligence community endless do-overs despite its repeated transgressions of even lax safeguards on these searches.

This decision sheds light on the government’s liberal use of what is essential a “finders keepers” rule regarding your communication data. As a legal authority, FISA Section 702 allows the intelligence community to collect a massive amount of communications data from overseas in the name of “national security.” But, in cases where one side of that conversation is a person on US soil, that data is still collected and retained in large databases searchable by federal law enforcement. Because the US-side of these communications is already collected and just sitting there, the government has claimed that law enforcement agencies do not need a warrant to sift through them. EFF argued for over a decade that this is unconstitutional, and now a federal court agrees with us.

EFF argued for over a decade that this is unconstitutional, and now a federal court agrees with us.

Hasbajrami involves a U.S. resident who was arrested at New York JFK airport in 2011 on his way to Pakistan and charged with providing material support to terrorists. Only after his original conviction did the government explain that its case was premised in part on emails between Mr. Hasbajrami and an unnamed foreigner associated with terrorist groups, emails collected warrantless using Section 702 programs, placed in a database, then searched, again without a warrant, using terms related to Mr. Hasbajrami himself.

The district court found that regardless of whether the government can lawfully warrantlessly collect communications between foreigners and Americans using Section 702, it cannot ordinarily rely on a “foreign intelligence exception” to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant clause when searching these communications, as is the FBI’s routine practice. And, even if such an exception did apply, the court found that the intrusion on privacy caused by reading our most sensitive communications rendered these searches “unreasonable” under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In 2021 alone, the FBI conducted 3.4 million warrantless searches of US person’s 702 data.

In light of this ruling, we ask Congress to uphold its responsibility to protect civil rights and civil liberties by refusing to renew Section 702 absent a number of necessary reforms, including an official warrant requirement for querying US persons data and increased transparency. On April 15, 2026, Section 702 is set to expire. We expect any lawmaker worthy of that title to listen to what this federal court is saying and create a legislative warrant requirement so that the intelligence community does not continue to trample on the constitutionally protected rights to private communications. More immediately, the FISC should amend its rules for backdoor searches and require the FBI to seek a warrant before conducting them.

Related Cases: United States v. Hasbajrami

This paper explores how understanding community needs can inform the implementation of local services and technologies, and also reflects on what considerations should be taken when internet…

The White House executive order “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship,” published Monday, misses the mark on truly protecting Americans’ First Amendment rights. 

The order calls for an investigation of efforts under the Biden administration to “moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech,” especially on social media companies. It goes on to order an Attorney General investigation of any government activities “over the last 4 years” that are inconsistent with the First Amendment. The order states in part: 

Under the guise of combatting “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation,” the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.

But noticeably absent from the Executive Order is any commitment to government transparency. In the Santa Clara Principles, a guideline for online content moderation authored by EFF and other civil society groups, we state that “governments and other state actors should themselves report their involvement in content moderation decisions, including data on demands or requests for content to be actioned or an account suspended, broken down by the legal basis for the request." This Executive Order doesn’t come close to embracing such a principle. 

The order is also misguided in its time-limited targeting. Informal government efforts to persuade, cajole, or strong-arm private media platforms, also called “jawboning,” have been an aspect of every U.S. government since at least 2011. Any good-faith inquiry into such pressures would not be limited to a single administration. It’s misleading to suggest the previous administration was the only, or even the primary, source of such pressures. This time limit reeks of political vindictiveness, not a true effort to limit improper government actions. 

To be clear, a look back at past government involvement in online content moderation is a good thing. But an honest inquiry would not be time-limited to the actions of a political opponent, nor limited to only past actions. The public would also be better served by a report that had a clear deadline, and a requirement that the results be made public, rather than sent only to the President’s office. Finally, the investigation would be better placed with an inspector general, not the U.S. Attorney General, which implies possible prosecutions. 

As we have written before, the First Amendment forbids the government from coercing private entities to censor speech. This principle has countered efforts to pressure intermediaries like bookstores and credit card processors to limit others’ speech. But not every communication about user speech is unconstitutional; some are beneficial, like when platforms reach out to government agencies as authoritative sources of information. 

For anyone who may have been excited to see a first-day executive order truly focused on free expression, President Trump’s Jan. 20 order is a disappointment, at best. 

明日1月23日(木)の座り込みは、当番の都合によりお休みさせてもらいます。 「ヘリパッドいらない」住民の会