Aggregator

EFF submitted comments to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its subcomponent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), urging them to abandon a proposal to collect social media identifiers on forms for immigration benefits. This collection would mark yet a further expansion of the government’s efforts to subject immigrants to social media surveillance, invading their privacy and chilling their free speech and associational rights for fear of being denied key immigration benefits.

Specifically, the proposed rule would require applicants to disclose their social media identifiers on nine immigration forms, including applications for permanent residency and naturalization, impacting more than 3.5 million people annually. USCIS’s purported reason for this collection is to assist with identity verification, as well as vetting and national security screening, to comply with Executive Order 14161. USCIS separately announced that it would look for “antisemitic activity” on social media as grounds for denying immigration benefits, which appears to be related to the proposed rule, although not expressly included it.

Additionally, a day after the proposed rule was published, Axios reported that the State Department, the Department of Justice, and DHS confirmed a joint collaboration called “Catch and Revoke,” using AI tools to review student visa holders’ social media accounts for speech related to “pro-Hamas” sentiment or “antisemitic activity.”

If the proposed rule sounds familiar, it’s because this is not the first time the government has proposed the collection of social media identifiers to monitor noncitizens. In 2019, for example, the State Department implemented a policy requiring visa and visa waiver applicants to the United States to disclose the identifiers they used on some 20 social media platforms over the last five years—affecting over 14.7 million people annually. EFF joined a large contingent of civil and human rights organizations in objecting to that collection. That policy is now the subject of ongoing litigation in Doc Society v. Blinken, a case brought by two documentary film organizations, who argue that the rule affects the expressive and associational rights of their members by impeding their ability to collaborate and engage with filmmakers around the world. EFF filed two amicus briefs in that case.

What distinguishes this proposed rule from the State Department’s existing program is that most, if not all, of the noncitizens who would be affected currently legally reside in the United States, allowing them to benefit from constitutional protections.

In our comments, we explained that surveillance of even public-facing social media can implicate privacy interests by aggregating a wealth of information about both an applicant for immigration benefits, and also people in their networks, including U.S. citizens. This is because of the quantity and quality of information available on social media, and because of its inherent interconnected nature.

We also argued that the proposed rule appears to allow for the collection and consideration of First Amendment-protected speech, including core political speech, and anonymous and pseudonymous speech. This inevitably leads to a chilling effect because immigration benefits applicants will have to choose between potentially forgoing key benefits or self-censoring to avoid government scrutiny. That is, to help ensure that a naturalized citizenship application is not rejected, for example, an applicant may avoid speaking out on social media about American foreign policy or expressing views about other political topics that may be considered controversial by the federal government—even when other Americans are free to do so.

We urge DHS and USCIS to abandon this dangerous proposal.

マスクの右目横の痛々しい傷を見ました？　トランプ政権を離脱した直後のインタヴューで、トランプとの＜金けえせ！けえさない！＞大喧嘩よりも、気になったのは傷です。　トランプ一・ファミリーは、マスクも敵に回しました。

Utah cannot stifle young people’s First Amendment rights to use social media to speak about politics, create art, discuss religion, or to hear from other users discussing those topics, EFF argued in a brief filed this week.

EFF filed the brief in NetChoice v. Brown, a constitutional challenge to the Utah Minor Protection in Social Media Act. The law prohibits young people from speaking to anyone on social media outside of the users with whom they are connected or those users’ connections. It also requires social media services to make young people’s accounts invisible to anyone outside of that same subgroup of users. The law requires parents to consent before minors can change those default restrictions.

To implement these restrictions, the law requires a social media service to verify every user’s age so that it knows whether to apply those speech-restricting settings.

The law therefore burdens the First Amendment rights of both young people and adults, the friend-of-the-court brief argued. The ACLU, Freedom to Read Foundation, LGBT Technology Institute, TechFreedom, and Woodhull Freedom Foundation joined EFF on the brief.

Utah, like many states across the country, has sought to significantly restrict young people’s ability to use social media. But “Minors enjoy the same First Amendment right as adults to access and engage in protected speech on social media,” the brief argues. As the brief details, minors use social media for to express political opinions, create art, practice religion, and find community.

Utah cannot impose such a severe restriction on minors’ ability to speak and to hear from others on social media without violating the First Amendment. “Utah has effectively blocked minors from being able to speak to their communities and the larger world, frustrating the full exercise of their First Amendment rights,” the brief argues.

Moreover, the law “also violates the First Amendment rights of all social media users—minors and adults alike—because it requires every user to prove their age, and compromise their anonymity and privacy, before using social media.”

Requiring internet users to provide their ID or other proof of their age could block people from accessing lawful speech if they don’t have the right form of ID, the brief argues. And requiring users to identify themselves infringes on people’s right to be anonymous online. That may deter people from joining certain social media services or speaking on certain topics, as people often rely on anonymity to avoid retaliation for their speech.

Finally, requiring users to provide sensitive personal information increases their risk of future privacy and security invasions, the brief argues.

　　憲法記念日、東京は前日の雨が上がって五月晴れになった。憲法を守る市民団体が今年も有明防災公園を会場に憲法大集会を開いた。旗やプラカードを掲げた市民が緑の芝生を埋めた。　集会では、ノーベル平和賞を去年受賞した日本原水爆被害者団体協議会代表の田中煕巳さん＝写真＝が壇上に上がり「被団協が受賞したのは、この数年世界で核戦争の危機が高まり、もう一度その役割を果たしてほしいという願いの表れではないか」と述べた。そして「皆さん方が私たちのこれまでの努力を引き継いで核兵器も戦争もない世界..

"A coalition of seven leading civil society organisations has called on the European Commission to revoke the United Kingdom's data adequacy status, citing what they describe as a sustained and systemic erosion of privacy and data protection standards in the UK."

Full article (paywall); read the original statement.

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

Hitachi Energy社が提供するRelion 670, 650およびSAM600-IO Seriesには、データの信頼性確認が不十分な脆弱性が存在します。

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

Hitachi Energy社が提供するIEC 61850 MMS-Serverには、リソースの不適切なシャットダウンまたはリリースの脆弱性が存在します。

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

ISC（Internet Systems Consortium）が提供するKea DHCPには、複数の脆弱性が存在します。