Aggregator

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。

Can we get from a world where Google is synonymous with search to a world  where other search engines have a real chance to compete? The U.S. and state governments’ bipartisan antitrust suit, challenging the many ways that Google has maintained its search monopoly, offers an opportunity.

Antitrust enforcers have proposed a set of complementary remedies, from giving users a choice of search engine, to forcing Google to spin off Chrome and possibly Android into separate companies. Overall, this is the right approach. Google’s dominance in search is too entrenched to yield to a single fix. But there are real risks to users in the mix as well: Forced sharing of people’s sensitive search queries with competitors could seriously undermine user privacy, as could a breakup without adequate safeguards.

Let’s break it down.

The Antitrust Challenge to Google Search

The Google Search antitrust suit began in 2020 under the first Trump administration, brought by the Department of Justice and 11 states. (Another 38 states filed a companion suit.) The heart of the suit was Google’s agreements with mobile phone makers, browser makers, and wireless carriers, requiring that Google Search be the default search engine, in return for revenue share payments including up to $20 billion per year that Google paid to Apple. A separate case, filed in 2023, challenged Google’s dominance in online advertising. Following a bench trial in summer 2023, Judge Amit Mehta of the D.C. federal court found Google’s search placement agreements to be illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act, because they foreclosed competition in the markets for “general search” and “general search text advertising.”

The antitrust enforcers proposed a set of remedies in fall 2024, and filed a revised version this month, signalling that the new administration remains committed to the case. A hearing on remedies is scheduled for April.

The Obvious Fix: Ban Search Engine Exclusivity and Other Anticompetitive Agreements

The first part of the government’s remedy proposal bans Google from making the kinds of agreements that led to this lawsuit: agreements to make Google the default search engine on a variety of platforms, agreements to pre-install Google Search products on a platform, and other agreements that would give platforms an incentive not to develop a general search engine of their own. This would mean the end of Google’s pay-for-placement agreements with Apple, Samsung, other hardware makers, and browser vendors like Mozilla.

In practice, a ban on search engine default agreements means presenting users with a screen that prompts them to choose a default search engine from among various competitors. Choice screens aren’t a perfect solution, because people tend to stick with what they know. Still, research shows that choice screens can have a positive impact on competition if they are implemented thoughtfully. The court, and the technical committee appointed to oversee Google’s compliance, should apply the lessons of this research.

It makes sense that the first step of a remedy for illegal conduct should be stopping that illegal conduct. But that’s not enough on its own. Many users choose Google Search, and will continue to choose it, because it works well enough and is familiar. Also, as the evidence in this case demonstrated, the walls that Google has built around its search monopoly have kept potential rivals from gaining enough scale to deliver the best results for uncommon search queries. So we’ll need more tools to fix the competition problem.

Safe Sharing: Syndication and Search Index

The enforcers’ proposal also includes some measures that are meant to enable competitors to overcome the scale advantages that Google illegally obtained. One is requiring Google to let competitors use “syndicated” Google search results for 10 years, with no conditions or use restrictions other than “that Google may take reasonable steps to protect its brand, its reputation, and security.” Google would also have to share the results of “synthetic queries”—search terms generated by competitors to test Google’s results—and the “ranking signals” that underlie those queries. Many search engines, including DuckDuckGo, use syndicated search results from Microsoft’s Bing, and a few, like Startpage, receive syndicated results from Google. But Google currently limits re-ranking and mixing of those results—techniques that could allow competitors to offer real alternatives. Syndication is a powerful mechanism for allowing rivals the benefits of scale and size, giving them a chance to achieve a similar scale.

Importantly, syndication doesn’t reveal Google users’ queries or other personal information, so it is a privacy-conscious tool.

Similarly, the proposal orders Google to make its index – the snapshot of the web that forms the basis for its search results - available to competitors. This too is reasonably privacy-conscious, because it presumably includes only data from web pages that were already visible to the public.

Scary Sharing: Users’ “Click and Query” Data

Another data-sharing proposal is more complicated from a privacy perspective: requiring Google to provide qualified competitors with “user-side data,” including users’ search queries and data sets used to train Google's ranking algorithms. Those queries and data sets can include intensely personal details, including medical issues, political opinions and activities, and personal conflicts. Google is supposed to apply “security and privacy safeguards,” but it's not clear how this will be accomplished. An order that requires Google to share even part of this data with competitors raises the risk of data breaches, improper law enforcement access, commercial data mining and aggregation, and other serious privacy harms.

Some in the search industry, including privacy-conscious companies like DuckDuckGo, argue that filtering this “click and query” data to remove personally identifying information can adequately protect users’ privacy while still helping Google’s competitors generate more useful search results. For example, Google could share only queries that were used by some number of unique users. This is the approach Google already takes to sharing user data under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act, though Google sets a high threshold that eliminates about 97% of the data. Other rules that could apply are excluding strings of numbers that could be Social Security or other identification numbers, and other patterns of data that may be sensitive information.

But click and query data sharing still sets up a direct conflict between competition and privacy. Google, naturally, wants to share as little data as possible, while competitors will want more. It’s not clear to us that there’s an optimal point that both protects users’ privacy well and also meaningfully promotes competition. More research might reveal a better answer, but until then, this is a dangerous path, where pursuing the benefits of competition for users might become a race to the bottom for users’ privacy.

The Sledgehammer: Splitting off Chrome and Maybe Android

The most dramatic part of the enforcers’ proposal calls for an order to split off the Chrome browser as a separate company, and potentially also the Android operating system. This could be a powerful way to open up search competition. An independent Chrome and Android could provide many opportunities for users to choose alternative search engines, and potentially to integrate with AI-based information location tools and other new search competitors. A breakup would complement the ban on agreements for search engine exclusivity by applying the same ban to Chrome and Android as to iOS and other platforms.

The complication here is that a newly independent Chrome or Android might have an incentive to exploit users’ privacy in other ways. Given a period of exclusivity in which Google could not offer a competing browser or mobile operating system, Chrome and Android could adopt a business model of monetizing users’ personal data to an even greater extent than Google. To prevent this, a divestiture (breakup) order would also have to include privacy safeguards, to keep the millions of Chrome and Android users from facing an even worse privacy landscape than they do now.

The DOJ and states are pursuing a strong, comprehensive remedy for Google’s monopoly abuses in search, and we hope they will see that effort through to a remedies hearing and the inevitable appeals. We’re also happy to see that the antitrust enforcers are seeking to preserve users’ privacy. To achieve that goal, and keep internet users’ consumer welfare squarely in sight, they should proceed with caution on any user data sharing, and on breakups.