Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (10 September)

Coming Events

  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a forum on 5G Open Radio Access Networks on 14 September. The FCC asserted
    • Chairman [Ajit] Pai will host experts at the forefront of the development and deployment of open, interoperable, standards-based, virtualized radio access networks to discuss this innovative new approach to 5G network architecture. Open Radio Access Networks offer an alternative to traditional cellular network architecture and could enable a diversity in suppliers, better network security, and lower costs.
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Competition Policy & Consumer Rights Subcommittee will hold a hearing on 15 September titled “Stacking the Tech: Has Google Harmed Competition in Online Advertising?.” In their press release, Chair Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asserted:
    • Google is the dominant player in online advertising, a business that accounts for around 85% of its revenues and which allows it to monetize the data it collects through the products it offers for free. Recent consumer complaints and investigations by law enforcement have raised questions about whether Google has acquired or maintained its market power in online advertising in violation of the antitrust laws. News reports indicate this may also be the centerpiece of a forthcoming antitrust lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice. This hearing will examine these allegations and provide a forum to assess the most important antitrust investigation of the 21st century.
  • The United States’ Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) announced that its third annual National Cybersecurity Summit “will be held virtually as a series of webinars every Wednesday for four weeks beginning September 16 and ending October 7:”
    • September 16: Key Cyber Insights
    • September 23: Leading the Digital Transformation
    • September 30: Diversity in Cybersecurity
    • October 7: Defending our Democracy
    • One can register for the event here.
  • On 22 September, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold a public workshop “to examine the potential benefits and challenges to consumers and competition raised by data portability.”
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Competition Policy & Consumer Rights Subcommittee will hold a hearing on 30 September titled ““Oversight of the Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws” with Federal Trade Commission Chair Joseph Simons and United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division Assistant Attorney General Makan Delhrahim.
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an open meeting on 30 September, but an agenda is not available at this time.

Other Developments

  • Top Senate Democrats asked the Secretary of the Treasury to impose sanctions on officials and others in the Russian Federation for interfering in the 2020 United States election. In their letter, they urged Secretary Steven Mnuchin “to draw upon the conclusions of the Intelligence Community to identify and target for sanctions all those determined to be responsible for ongoing election interference, including any actors within the government of the Russian Federation, any Russian actors determined to be directly responsible, and those acting on their behalf or providing material or financial support for their efforts.” Given that Mnuchin is unlikely to displease President Donald Trump through agreeing that Russians are again interfering in a presidential election, it is probable that Senate Democrats are seeking to further their line of attack on Republicans that they are unwilling to defend the U.S. and its elections from Russia. They called on Mnuchin to use the authorities granted by Congress in the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” (P.L. 115-44) and Executive Order 13848 “Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election.”
  • Epic Games has returned to court in an attempt to force Apple to put its popular multiplayer game, Fortnite back into the App Store. At present, those on iOS devices cannot download and play the newest version of the game released a few weeks ago. Even though Epic Games lost its request for a temporary restraining order that would order Apple to put the game back, it has filed for a preliminary injunction:
    • (1) restraining Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) from removing, de-listing, refusing to list or otherwise making unavailable the app Fortnite or any other app on Epic’s Team ID ’84 account in Apple’s Developer Program, including any update of such an app, from the App Store on the basis that Fortnite offers in-app payment processing through means other than Apple’s In-App Purchase (“IAP”) or on any pretextual basis;
    • (2) restraining Apple from taking any adverse action against Epic, including but not limited to restricting, suspending, or terminating any other Apple Developer Program account of Epic or its affiliates, on the basis that Epic enabled in-app payment processing in Fortnite through means other than IAP or on the basis of the steps Epic took to do so;
    • (3) restraining Apple from removing, disabling, or modifying Fortnite or any code, script, feature, setting, certification, version or update thereof on any iOS user’s device; and
    • (4) requiring Apple to restore Epic’s Team ID ’84 account in Apple’s Developer Program.
    •  Epic Games asserts:
      • This motion is made on the grounds that: (1) Epic is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims that Apple’s conduct violates the Sherman Act; (2) absent a preliminary injunction, Epic is likely to suffer irreparable harm; (3) the balance of harms tips sharply in Epic’s favor; and (4) the public interest supports an injunction.
    • Considering that the judge ruled against Epic Games’ claim of irreparable harm in the motion for a temporary restraining order on the grounds that self-inflicted harm (i.e. Epic Game escalated by putting its own pay option on Fortnite to foil Apple’s 30% take on in-game sales and no public interest being present, one wonders if the company will prevail on this motion.
  • Apple filed a countersuit against Epic Games, arguing the latter breached its contract with the former and now must pay damages. In contrast, Epic Games is not suing for any monetary damages, surely a tactical decision to help its case in court and among interested observers.
    • Apple sought to portray Epic Games’ lawsuit this way:
      • Epic’s lawsuit is nothing more than a basic disagreement over money. Although Epic portrays itself as a modern corporate Robin Hood, in reality it is a multi-billion dollar enterprise that simply wants to pay nothing for the tremendous value it derives from the App Store. Epic’s demands for special treatment and cries of “retaliation” cannot be reconciled with its flagrant breach of contract and its own business practices, as it rakes in billions by taking commissions on game developers’ sales and charging consumers up to $99.99 for bundles of “V-Bucks.”
      • Epic decided that it would like to reap the benefits of the App Store without paying anything for them. Armed with the apparent view that Epic is too successful to play by the same rules as everyone else—and notwithstanding a public proclamation that Epic “w[ould] not accept special revenue sharing or payment terms just for ourselves”1—Epic CEO Tim Sweeney emailed Apple executives on June 30, 2020, requesting a “side letter” that would exempt Epic from its existing contractual obligations, including the App Store Review Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) that apply equally to all Apple developers. Among other things, Mr. Sweeney demanded a complete end-run around “Apple’s fees”—specifically, Epic wished to continue taking full advantage of the App Store while allowing consumers to pay Epic instead, leaving Apple to receive no payment whatsoever for the many services it provides developers and consumers.
    • Apple contended “[t]his Court should hold Epic to its contractual promises, award Apple compensatory and punitive damages, and enjoin Epic from engaging in further unfair business practices.”
  • The General Services Administration (GSA) released a draft Data Ethics Framework as part of implementing the Trump Administration’s Federal Data Strategy.
    • GSA noted
      • The Federal Data Strategy, delivered in December 2019, recognized the importance of ethics in its founding Principles. When the Federal Data Strategy team created the 2020 Action Plan, they specifically tasked the General Services Administration (GSA) with developing a Data Ethics Framework (Framework)in Action 14to help agency employees, managers, and leaders make ethical decisions as they acquire, manage, and use data.
      • The resulting Framework is intended to be a “living” resource and to be regularly updated by the CDO Council and ICSP. The Framework incorporates the input and terminology from stakeholders representing many domains, and who use different types of data in different ways. The developers of the Framework recognize that some terms may be used differently, depending on the context, type of data being used, and stage in the data lifecycle.
      • The Framework applies to all data types and data uses. The Framework consists of four parts:
        • About the Data Ethics Framework outlines the intended purpose and audience of this document
        • Data Ethics Defined explores the meaning of the term “data ethics,” as background to the Tenets provided in the following section
        • Data Ethics Tenets provides seven Tenets, or high-level principles, for using data ethically within the Federal Government
        • Data Ethics Tenets in Action describes the benefits of data ethics and contains use cases demonstrating how the Tenets can guide data activities within federal agencies and federally sponsored programs
      • The Administration claimed the 2020 Action Plan “establishes a solid foundation that will support implementation of the strategy over the next decade…[and] identifies initial actions for agencies that are essential for establishing processes, building capacity, and aligning existing efforts to better leverage data as a strategic asset.” The use of federal data holds a key place in the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) and, according to the Administration, will be a key driver in transforming how the federal government operates, particularly in relation to technology. The 2020 Action Plan lays out the steps agencies will be expected to take to realize the Administration’s 10-year Federal Data Strategy. As always, results will be informed by follow through and prioritization by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and buy-in from agency leadership.
      • Notably, the Administration tied the 2020 Action Plan to a number of other ongoing initiatives that rely heavily on data. The Administration said the plan “incorporates requirements of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, the Geospatial Data Act of 2018, and Executive Order 13859 on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence.”
  • The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) published “its Corporate Plan for 2020-21, which sets out its strategic priorities and key activities for the next four years” according to its press release. The OAIC stated “[t]he plan identifies four strategic priorities that will help the OAIC achieve its vision to increase public trust and confidence in the protection of personal information and access to government-held information:
    • Advance online privacy protections for Australians
    • Influence and uphold privacy and information access rights frameworks
    • Encourage and support proactive release of government-held information, and
    • Contemporary approach to regulation.
    • The agency stated:
      • Over the coming year, the OAIC will continue to promote strong privacy protections for the use of personal information to prevent and manage the spread of COVID-19, including oversight of data handling within the COVIDSafe app system. 
      • Strengthening privacy protections in the online environment remains a key focus for the organisation, while privacy law reform will be a priority in 2020-21, with the Australian Government’s review of the Privacy Act an opportunity to ensure the regulatory framework can respond to new challenges in the digital environment.
      • Commissioner [Angelene] Falk said the OAIC will also enforce privacy safeguards under the Consumer Data Right and will continue its work to improve transparency and prevent harm to consumers through its oversight of the Notifiable Data Breaches scheme.
  • Ontario’s Ministry of Government and Consumer Services “launched consultations to improve the province’s privacy protection laws” and stakeholders “will have the opportunity to contribute to strengthening transparency and accountability concerning the collection, use and safeguarding of personal information online.” Ontario “is seeking advice on ways to:
    • Increase transparency for individuals, providing Ontarians with more detail about how their information is being used by businesses and organizations.
    • Enhance consent provisions allowing individuals to revoke consent at any time, and adopting an “opt-in” model for secondary uses of their information.
    • Introduce a right for individuals to request information related to them be deleted, subject to limitations (this is otherwise known as “right to erasure” or “the right to be forgotten”).
    • Introduce a right for individuals to obtain their data in a standard and portable digital format, giving them greater freedom to change service providers without losing their data (this is known as “data portability”).
    • Increase enforcement powers for the Information and Privacy Commissioner to ensure businesses comply with the law, including giving the commissioner the ability to impose penalties.
    • Introduce requirements for data that has been de-identified and derived from personal information to provide clarity of applicability of privacy protections.
    • Expand the scope and application of the law to include non-commercial organizations, including not-for-profits, charities, trade unions and political parties.
    • Create a legislative framework to enable the establishment of data trusts for privacy protective data sharing.
  • The United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued “Progress and Challenges in Modernizing DHS’ Information Technology (IT) Systems and Infrastructure” and found fault with these three systems:
    • DHS-wide Human Resources IT (HRIT)
    • DHS Legacy Major IT Financial System that “[s]erves as Coast Guard and Transportation Security Agency’s (TSA) financial system of record.
    • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Grants Management Mission Domain and Operational Environment
    • The OIG stated
      • The DHS 2019–2023 IT strategic plan included two distinct department-wide IT modernization initiatives: to adopt cloud-based computing and to consolidate data centers. However, not all components have complied with or fully embraced these efforts due to a lack of standard guidance and funding. Without consistent implementation of these efforts, DHS components remain hindered in their ability to provide personnel with more enhanced, up-to-date technology.
      • In the meantime, DHS continues to rely on deficient and outdated IT systems to perform mission-critical operations. We identified three legacy IT systems with significant operational challenges that negatively affected critical DHS functions, such as human resources and financial management, as well as disaster recovery mission operations. DHS has not made sufficient progress in replacing or augmenting these IT systems due to ineffective planning and inexperience in executing complex IT modernization efforts. Additionally, the DHS CIO has not performed mandated oversight of legacy IT to mitigate and reduce risks associated with outdated systems. Until DHS addresses these issues, it will continue to face significant challenges to accomplish mission operations efficiently and effectively
    • The OIG recommended:
      • We recommend the DHS OCIO develop department-wide guidance for implementing cloud technology and migrating legacy IT systems to the cloud. Recommendation
      • We recommend the DHS OCIO coordinate with components to develop and finalize a data center migration approach to accomplish strategic goals for reducing the footprint of DHS IT infrastructure. Recommendation
      • We recommend the DHS OCIO establish a process to assign risk ratings for major legacy IT investments, as required by the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act.
  • The University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab and the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law published a report “To Surveil and Predict: A Human Rights Analysis of Algorithmic Policing in Canada” that “focuses on the human rights and constitutional law implications of the use of algorithmic policing technologies by law enforcement authorities.” The authors found:
    • The research conducted for this report found that multiple law enforcement agencies across Canada have started to use, procure, develop, or test a variety of algorithmic policing methods. These programs include using and both developing predictive policing technologies and using algorithmic surveillance tools. Additionally, some law enforcement agencies have acquired tools with the capability of algorithmic policing technology, but they are not currently using that capability because, to date, they have not decided to do so. 
    • The authors “analyze the potential impacts of algorithmic policing technologies on the following rights: the right to privacy; the right to freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, and association; the right to equality and freedom from discrimination; the right to liberty and to be free from arbitrary detention; the right to due process; and the right to a remedy.”
  • The United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued “the Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Program Status Report as part of an update on efforts underway in support of Executive Order (E.O.) 13865 on Coordinating National Resilience to Electromagnetic Pulses…[that] establishes resilience and security standards for U.S. critical infrastructure as a national priority.”
    • DHS stated
      • E.O.13865 states, “An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) has the potential to disrupt, degrade, and damage technology and critical infrastructure systems. Human-made or naturally occurring EMPs can affect large geographic areas, disrupting elements critical to the Nation’s security and economic prosperity, and could adversely affect global commerce and stability. The federal government must foster sustainable, efficient, and cost-effective approaches to improving the Nation’s resilience to the effects of EMPs.”
      • In accordance with E.O.13865, the Department has identified initial critical infrastructure and associated functions that are at greatest risk from an EMP and is focusing efforts on the development and implementation of evidence-based and independently-tested EMP protection and mitigation technologies and resilience best practices. Initial efforts within the Department, working across the federal interagency, have focused on risk management to both the Energy and Communications Sectors.
  • Two United States Magistrate Judges denied three requests for a geofence warrant to serve on Google to obtain cell phone data from an area of Chicago for three forty-five minutes periods on three different days. The courts took the unusual step of unsealing the opinions for the proceedings which are not adversarial because the person or people suspected of being involved with the alleged crime are presumably unaware and therefore cannot contest the warrant application. If Google took an adversarial position, there is no indication in the decisions the company did so. However, Google did state in a filing that “[b]etween 2017 and 2018, Google saw a 1,500% increase in geofence requests…[and] [b]etween 2018 and 2019, that figure shot up another 500%.”
    • Moreover, one wonders if prosecutors did not also seek similar warrant requests from other companies such as telecommunications providers. Nonetheless, the judges ruled the geofence warrant requests violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a number of ways and suggested that narrower, more particular requests might have been legal.
    • In the first denial, the magistrate judge explained:
      • As to the first geofence request, the government has probable cause to believe that the suspect received the stolen pharmaceuticals from a commercial enterprise located within the designated geofence area during the designated forty-five minute interval in the early afternoon hours on the day of the first geofence request. The geofence, which has a 100-meter radius, is in a densely populated city, and the area contains restaurants, various commercial establishments, and at least one large residential complex, complete with a swimming pool, workout facilities, and other amenities associated with upscale urban living.
      • The second and third geofence requests focus on the same commercial enterprise where the government has probable cause to believe that the suspect shipped some of the stolen pharmaceuticals to a buyer, who purchased the pharmaceuticals from the suspect at the government’s direction. Again, the government’s requested geofence is a I00-meter radius area extending from the commercial establishment where the suspect shipped the pharmaceuticals and covers two separate dates for forty-five minute intervals in the early afternoon hours. This geofence includes medical offices and other single and multi-floor commercial establishments that are likely to have multiple patrons during the early afternoon hours.
      • The warrant application contemplates that the information will be obtained in three stages: (l) Google will be required to disclose to the government an anonymized list of devices that specifies information including the corresponding unique device ID, timestamp, coordinates, and data source, if available, of the devices that reported their location within the geofence during the forty-five minute periods; (2) the government will then review the list to prioritize the devices about which it wishes to obtain associated information; and (3) Google will then be required to disclose to the government the information identifying the Google account(s) for those devices about which the government further inquiries. The warrant application includes no criteria or limitations as to which cellular telephones government agents can seek additional information.

Further Reading

  • A Saudi Prince’s Attempt to Silence Critics on Twitter” By Bradley Hope and Justin Scheck – WIRED. Considering the United States Department of Justice indictments against three Saudi nationals in November 2019 and resulting news stories (“Why Do We Tolerate Saudi Money in Tech?” – The New York Times and “Former Twitter employees charged with spying for Saudi Arabia by digging into the accounts of kingdom critics” – The Washington Post), one would think what news is there in this excerpt on a book. But we learn that Twitter’s anti-establishment stance led the company’s lawyers to suspend the Saudi Twitter employee who the target of a U.S. investigation which allowed him to flee the U.S. Government lawyers were livid. The bigger issue is foreign operatives infiltrated social media platforms and then reaping information about selected people, especially dissidents.
  • When Algorithms Give Real Students Imaginary Grades” By Meredith Broussard – The New York Times. The International Baccalaureate (IB) program used an algorithm to hand out grades this past spring when in-person exams were cancelled. It did not go well as you might imagine. The same was true in the United Kingdom for its A-level exams, causing a furor there. The case id made for never using algorithms in education or related fields.
  • Wheely ride-hailing app writes to UK privacy watchdog over Moscow data demands” By Simon Goodley – The Guardian. A British ride-sharing company wrote the United Kingdom’s data protection authority about data requests made by the Moscow Department of Transportation (MDOT) on individual riders. Wheely made the case to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) that it could not hand over the data under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) unlike some of the app’s rivals who apparently complied with the demand. It is not clear whether the company’s GDPR obligations would apply in another jurisdiction. It may possible Wheely is trying to smear the other companies in the U.K.
  • Deepfake porn is now mainstream. And major sites are cashing in” By Matt BurgessWired. Through the use of artificial intelligence technology, people are making fake pornography in which actresses’ faces are affixed to women’s bodies that are engaged in sexual acts. These deepfake porn videos are soaring in popularity, and there are often not good options for taking them down or taking legal action. This is another area in which technology has outpaced policy and law.
  • Most cyber-security reports only focus on the cool threats” By Catalin Cimpanu – ZDNet. Turns out that commercial threat reports are issued with an eye towards generating business and considering that governments and huge contractors have the deepest pockets, the issues of concern are covered while other less lucrative areas like threats to civil society are largely ignored. These reports also influence policymakers and give them a distorted picture of cyber threats.

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog, and michaelkans.blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s