Aggregator

令和6年6月30日付　公害等調整委員会事務局人事

令和6年6月30日付　総務省人事

ミャンマーの最大都市ヤンゴンと姉妹都市関係にある福岡県福岡市が管理する「福岡市動物園」が、ヤンゴン市の動物園からアジアゾウ4頭の受け入れを検討している問題について、本国の民主化を掲げる一部の在日ミャンマー人は「国軍のプロパガンダに利用される恐れがあり、受け入れを中止すべきだ」と反発している。（藤ヶ谷魁）

　　　　　　　　　　　　「原判決を取り消す」。一瞬、何のことだかわからなかった。続いて「本件を那覇地方裁判所に差し戻す」。満員の傍聴席から「おお～～！」という声と拍手が起こった。　5月15日、福岡高裁那覇支部(三浦隆志裁判長)は、辺野古新基地建設工事を巡り、沖縄県による埋立承認撤回を取り消した国土交通大臣の裁決は違法だとして、辺野古周辺住民4人が裁決の取り消しを求めた訴訟の控訴審判決で、原告適格を否定した一審判決を取り消し、原告適格を認める判断を下したのだ。　提訴は2019年..

航空管制官の増員の可能性が出てきた。安全問題研究会がすでに徹底追及してきたとおり、国交省はこれまで航空機の発着回数が増えているにもかかわらず、一貫して航空管制官を減員してきた。それが事故の直接的原因ではないとしても、背景要因の1つであることは明らかだった。レイバーネットが連続掲載したこの間の記事には大きな反響があった。明らかに、レイバーネットの報道が先行して大きな流れとなり、一般メディアが追随せざるを得ない状況を作り出した。今年前半におけるレイバーネットの最も大きな成功例だと思う。

Hacker Summer Camp is almost here... and with it comes the Third Annual EFF Benefit Poker Tournament at DEF CON 32 hosted by security expert Tarah Wheeler.

Please join us at the same place and time as last year: Friday, August 9th, at high noon at the Horseshoe Poker Room. The fees haven’t changed; it’s still $250 to register plus $100 the day of the tournament with unlimited rebuys.

Tarah Wheeler—EFF board member and resident poker expert—has been working hard on the tournament since last year! Not only has she created a custom EFF playing card deck as a gift for each player, but she also recruited Cory Doctorow to emcee this year. Be sure to register today and see Cory in action!

Did we mention there will be Celebrity Bounties? Knock out Jake “MalwareJake” Williams, Deviant Ollam, or Runa Sandvik and get neat EFF swag plus the respect of your peers! As always, knock out Tarah’s dad, Mike, and she will donate $250 to the EFF in your name!

Find Full Event Details and Registration

%3Ciframe%20width%3D%22560%22%20height%3D%22315%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube-nocookie.com%2Fembed%2FiVvTNC4BUqM%3Fsi%3D3i5YJfk6JWHxHICM%26autoplay%3D1%26mute%3D1%22%20title%3D%22YouTube%20video%20player%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20allow%3D%22accelerometer%3B%20autoplay%3B%20clipboard-write%3B%20encrypted-media%3B%20gyroscope%3B%20picture-in-picture%3B%20web-share%22%20referrerpolicy%3D%22strict-origin-when-cross-origin%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E Privacy info. This embed will serve content from youtube-nocookie.com

Anyone who pre-registers and plays will receive a custom EFF playing card deck (if you don’t show up to the tournament by 30 minutes after the start time your deck may be given away).

The winner will receive a treasure chest curated from Tarah’s own collection. The chest is filled with real gems, including emeralds, black pearls, amethysts, diamonds, and more! The winner will also receive our now traditional Jellybean Trophy! 

Have you played some poker before but could use a refresher on rules, strategy, table behavior, and general Vegas slang at the poker table? Tarah will run a poker clinic from 11 am-11:45 am just before the tournament. Even if you know poker pretty well, come a bit early and help out. Just show up and donate anything to EFF. Make it over $50 and Tarah will teach you chip riffling, the three biggest tells, and how to stare blankly and intimidatingly through someone’s soul while they’re trying to decide if you’re bluffing.

Register today and reserve your deck. Be sure to invite your friends to join you!

poker-treasure-chest-2.jpg

 

No points for guessing the subject of the first question the Wall Street Journal asked FTC Chair Lina Khan: of course it was about AI.

Between the hype, the lawmaking, the saber-rattling, the trillion-dollar market caps, and the predictions of impending civilizational collapse, the AI discussion has become as inevitable, as pro forma, and as content-free as asking how someone is or wishing them a nice day.

But Chair Khan didn’t treat the question as an excuse to launch into the policymaker’s verbal equivalent of a compulsory gymnastics exhibition.

Instead, she injected something genuinely new and exciting into the discussion, by proposing that the labor and privacy controversies in AI could be tackled using her existing regulatory authority under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA5).

Section 5 gives the FTC a broad mandate to prevent “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Chair Khan has made extensive use of these powers during her first term as chair, for example, by banning noncompetes and taking action on online privacy.

At EFF, we share many of the widespread concerns over privacy, fairness, and labor rights raised by AI. We think that copyright law is the wrong tool to address those concerns, both because of what copyright law does and doesn’t permit, and because establishing copyright as the framework for AI model-training will not address the real privacy and labor issues posed by generative AI. We think that privacy problems should be addressed with privacy policy and that labor issues should be addressed with labor policy.

That’s what made Chair Khan’s remarks so exciting to us: in proposing that Section 5 could be used to regulate AI training, Chair Khan is opening the door to addressing these issues head on. The FTC Act gives the FTC the power to craft specific, fit-for-purpose rules and guidance that can protect Americans’ consumer, privacy, labor and other rights.

Take the problem of AI “hallucinations,” which is the industry’s term for the seemingly irrepressible propensity of chatbots to answer questions with incorrect answers, delivered with the blithe confidence of a “bullshitter.”

The question of whether chatbots can be taught not to “hallucinate” is far from settled. Some industry leaders think the problem can never be solved, even as startups publish (technically impressive-sounding, but non-peer reviewed) papers claiming to have solved the problem.

Whether the problem can be solved, it’s clear that for the commercial chatbot offerings in the market today, “hallucinations” come with the package. Or, put more simply: today’s chatbots lie, and no one can stop them.

That’s a problem, because companies are already replacing human customer service workers with chatbots that lie to their customers, causing those customers real harm. It’s hard enough to attend your grandmother’s funeral without the added pain of your airline’s chatbot lying to you about the bereavement fare.

Here’s where the FTC’s powers can help the American public:

The FTC should issue guidance declaring that any company that deploys a chatbot that lies to a customer has engaged in an “unfair and deceptive practice” that violates Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, with all the fines and other penalties that entails.

After all, if a company doesn’t get in trouble when its chatbot lies to a customer, why would they pay extra for a chatbot that has been designed not to lie? And if there’s no reason to pay extra for a chatbot that doesn’t lie, why would anyone invest in solving the “hallucination” problem?

Guidance that promises to punish companies that replace their human workers with lying chatbots will give new companies that invent truthful chatbots an advantage in the marketplace. If you can prove that your chatbot won’t lie to your customers’ users, you can also get an insurance company to write you a policy that will allow you to indemnify your customers against claims arising from your chatbot’s output.

But until someone does figure out how to make a “hallucination”-free chatbot, guidance promising serious consequences for chatbots that deceive users with “hallucinated” lies will push companies to limit the use of chatbots to low-stakes environments, leaving human workers to do their jobs.

The FTC has already started down this path. Earlier this month, FTC Senior Staff Attorney Michael Atleson published an excellent backgrounder laying out some of the agency’s thinking on how companies should present their chatbots to users.

We think that more formal guidance about the consequences for companies that save a buck by putting untrustworthy chatbots on the front line will do a lot to protect the public from irresponsible business decisions – especially if that guidance is backed up with muscular enforcement.

「俺たちの選挙を返せ」と大書された国旗を、ウクライナのサッカーファンが、サイドスタンドに掲げました。　EURO2024（サッカー欧州選手権）のグループステージ第2戦中で、ウクライナ代表とスロバキア代表が戦っていました。　日本の東京では、石丸伸二・東京都知事候補のおかげで、楽しい都知事選が展開中です。　が、残念なことに、公開討論会はもうやらないとか？　イギリスでも、市民参加の公開党首討論会がロンドン市民を沸かせました。

In what is becoming a recurring theme, Mississippi became the latest state to pass a law requiring social media services to verify users’ ages and block lawful speech to young people. Once again, EFF explained to the court why the law is unconstitutional.

Mississippi’s law (House Bill 1126) requires social media services to verify the ages of all users, to obtain parental consent for any minor users, and to block minor users from being exposed to “harmful” material. NetChoice, the trade association that represents some of the largest social media services, filed suit and sought to block the law from going into effect in July.

EFF submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of NetChoice’s First Amendment challenge to the statute to explain how invasive and chilling online age verification mandates can be. “Such restrictions frustrate everyone’s ability to use one of the most expressive mediums of our time—the vast democratic forums of the internet that we all use to create art, share photos with loved ones, organize for political change, and speak,” the brief argues.

Online age verification laws are fundamentally different and more burdensome than laws requiring adults to show their identification in physical spaces, EFF’s brief argues:

Unlike in-person age-gates, online age restrictions like Mississippi’s require all users to submit, not just momentarily display, data-rich government-issued identification or other proof-of-age, and in some commercially available methods, a photo.

The differences in online age verification create significant burdens on adults’ ability to access lawful speech online. Most troublingly, age verification requirements can completely block millions of U.S. adults who don’t have government-issued identification or lack IDs that would satisfy Mississippi’s verification requirements, such as by not having an up-to-date address or current legal name.

“Certain demographics are also disproportionately burdened when government-issued ID is used in age verification,” EFF’s brief argues. “Black Americans and Hispanic Americans are disproportionately less likely to have current and up-to-date driver’s licenses. And 30% of Black Americans do not have a driver’s license at all.”

Moreover, relying on financial and credit records to verify adults’ identities can also exclude large numbers of adults. As EFF’s brief recounts, some 20 percent of U.S. households do not have a credit card and 35 percent do not own a home.

The data collection required by age-verification systems can also deter people from using social media entirely, either because they want to remain anonymous online or are concerned about the privacy and security of any data they must turn over. HB 1126 thus burdens people’s First Amendment rights to anonymity and their right to privacy.

Regarding HB 1126’s threat to anonymity, EFF’s brief argued:

The threats to anonymity are real and multilayered. All online data is transmitted through a host of intermediaries. This means that when a website shares identifying information with its third-party age-verification vendor, that data is not only transmitted between the website and the vendor, but also between a series of third parties. Under the plain language of HB 1126, those intermediaries are not required to delete users’ identifying data and, unlike the digital service providers themselves, they are also not restricted from sharing, disclosing, or selling that sensitive data.

Regarding data privacy and security, EFF’s brief argued:

The personal data that HB 1126 requires platforms to collect or purchase is extremely sensitive and often immutable. By exposing this information to a vast web of websites and intermediaries, third-party trackers, and data brokers, HB 1126 poses the same concerns to privacy-concerned internet users as it does to the anonymity-minded users.

Finally, EFF’s brief argues that although HB 1126 contains data privacy protections for children that are laudable, they cannot be implemented without the state first demanding that every user verify their age so that services can apply those privacy protections to children. As a result, the state cannot enforce those provisions.

EFF’s brief notes, however, that should Mississippi pass “comprehensive data privacy protections, not attached to content-based, speech-infringing, or privacy-undermining schemes,” that law would likely be constitutional.

EFF remains ready to support Mississippi’s effort to protect all its residents’ privacy. HB 1126, however, unfortunately seeks to provide only children with privacy protections we all desperately need while at the same time restricting adults and children’s access to lawful speech on social media.

　また在沖米軍兵士による凶悪犯罪が起きた。犯罪自体を許せないことはもとより、続発 する米軍関係者の犯罪を防止できない日米両政府も猛省すべきである。今回の事件が発覚 するまでの半年間の経緯をみれば、日米政府は捜査・司法当局も含めて、県民に対して事 件を隠ぺいしたと言わざるを得ない。沖縄県民の安全や尊厳をないがしろにする姿勢が暴 露されたのである。人々の知る権利を支えるジャーナリズムにとっても、その役割を果た しえなかった痛恨の事態である。当局の隠ぺいに抗議する。 　昨年１２月２..

TELSATが提供する複数のmarKoni FM Transmitters製品には、複数の脆弱性が存在します。

SDG Technologiesが提供するPnPSCADAには、権限チェックの欠如の脆弱性が存在します。