Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (18 November)

Further Reading

  • Trump fires top DHS official who refuted his claims that the election was rigged” By Ellen Nakashima and Nick Miroff — The Washington Post. As rumored, President Donald Trump has decapitated the United States’ (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Director Christopher Krebs was fired via Twitter, after he had endorsed a letter by 59 experts on election security who said there was no fraud in the election. Trump tweeted: “The recent statement by Chris Krebs on the security of the 2020 Election was highly inaccurate, in that there were massive improprieties and fraud — including dead people voting, Poll Watchers not allowed into polling locations, ‘glitches’ in the voting machines which changed votes from Trump to Biden, late voting, and many more. Therefore, effective immediately, Chris Krebs has been terminated as Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.” Of course, the statement CISA cosigned and issued last week asserting there was no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing in the election probably did not help his prospects. Additionally, CISA Deputy Director Matthew Travis was essentially forced out when he was informed the normal succession plan would be ignored and he would not become the acting head of CISA. A CISA senior civil servant, Brandon Wales, will helm the agency in an acting basis. Last week, CISA’s Assistant Director for Cybersecurity Bryan Ware was forced out.
  • NSA Spied On Denmark As It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report” By Thomas Newdick — The Drive. A Danish media outlet is claiming the United States U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) spied Denmark’s Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the defense firm Terma in order to help Lockheed Martin’s bid to sell F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to Denmark. Eurofighter GmbH and Saab were offering their Typhoon and Gripen fighters to replace Denmark’s F-16s. Reportedly, the NSA used an existing arrangement with Denmark to obtain information from a program allowing the NSA access to fiber optics cables in the country. It is likely Denmark did not have such surveillance in mind when it struck this agreement with the U.S. Two whistleblowers reports have been filed with the Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste (FE), Denmark’s Defense Intelligence Service, and there are allegations that the U.S. surveillance was illegal. However, the surveillance appears not to have influenced the Danish government, which opted for the F-35. Earlier this year, there were allegations the FE was improperly sharing Danish cables containing information on Danish citizens improperly.
  • Facebook Knows That Adding Labels To Trump’s False Claims Does Little To Stop Their Spread” By Craig Silverman and Ryan Mac — BuzzFeed News. These reporters must know half of Facebook’s staff because they always see what is going on internally with the company. In this latest scoop, they say they have seen internal numbers showing that labeling President Donald Trump’s false tweets have done little to slow their spread. In fact, labelling may only slow their spread by 8%. This outcome is contrary to a practice Facebook employed in 2017 under which fact checkers would label untrue posts as false. This reduced their virality by 80%.
  • Apple Halves Its App Store Fee for the Smaller Companies” By Jack Nicas — The New York Times. The holiday spirit must already be afoot in Cupertino, California, for small app developers will now only pay Apple 15% of in-app purchases for the privilege of being in the App Store. Of course, this decision has nothing to do with the antitrust pressure the company is facing in the European Union and United States (U.S.) and will have very little impact on their bottom line since app developers with less than $1 million in revenue (i.e., those entitled to a reduction) account for 2% of App Store revenue. It does give Apple leadership and executive some great talking points when pressed by antitrust investigators, legislators, and the media.
  • Inside the behind-the-scenes fight to convince Joe Biden about Silicon Valley” By Theodore Schleifer — recode. The jockeying among factions in the Democratic party and other stakeholders is fierce and will only grow fiercer when it comes to who will serve where in a Biden Administration. Silicon Valley and those who would reform tech are fighting to get people amenable to their policy goals placed in the new Administration. President-elect Joe Biden and his campaign were ambiguous on many tech policy issues and have flexibility which has been further helped by appointing people respected in both camps like new White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain.
  • Group of 165 Google critics calls for swift EU antitrust action – letter” By Foo Yun Chee — Reuters. A wide-ranging group of companies and industry associations are urging the European Union to investigate and punish what they see as Google’s anti-competitive dominance of online search engines, especially the One Box that now appears at the top of search results that points people to Google sites and products.

Other Developments

  • The European Union (EU) announced a revision of its export control process for allowing the export of dual use items, including cyber surveillance tools. The European Commission (EC) asserted “[t]hanks to the new Regulation, the EU can now effectively protect its interests and values and, in particular, address the risk of violations of human rights associated with trade in cyber-surveillance technologies without prior agreement at multilateral level…[and] also enhances the EU’s capacity to control trade flows in sensitive new and emerging technologies. The EC explained “[t]he new Regulation includes many of the Commission proposals for a comprehensive “system upgrade”, and will make the existing EU Export control system more effective by:
    • introducing a novel ‘human security’ dimension so the EU can respond to the challenges posed by emerging dual-use technologies – especially cyber-surveillance technologies – that pose a risk to national and international security, including protecting human rights;
    • updating key notions and definitions (e.g. definition of an “exporter” to apply to natural persons and researchers involved in dual-use technology transfers);
    • simplifying and harmonising licensing procedures and allowing the Commission to amend – by ‘simplified’ procedure, i.e. delegated act – the list of items or destinations subject to specific forms of control, thereby making the export control system more agile and able to evolve and adjust to circumstances;
    • enhancing information-exchange between licensing authorities and the Commission with a view to increasing transparency of licensing decisions;
    • coordination of, and support for, robust enforcement of controls, including enhancing secure electronic information-exchange between licensing and enforcement agencies;
    • developing an EU capacity-building and training programme for Member States’ licensing and enforcement authorities;
    • outreach to industry and transparency with stakeholders, developing a structured relationship with the private sector through specific consultations of stakeholders by the relevant Commission group of Member-State experts, and;
    • setting up a dialogue with third countries and seeking a level playing field at global level.
    • The European Parliament contended:
      • The reviewed rules, agreed by Parliament and Council negotiators, govern the export of so-called dual use goods, software and technology – for example, high-performance computers, drones and certain chemicals – with civilian applications that might be repurposed to be used in ways which violate human rights.
      • The current update, made necessary by technological developments and growing security risks, includes new criteria to grant or reject export licenses for certain items.
      • The Parliament added its negotiators
        • got agreement on setting up an EU-wide regime to control cyber-surveillance items that are not listed as dual-use items in international regimes, in the interest of protecting human rights and political freedoms;
        • strengthened member states’ public reporting obligations on export controls, so far patchy, to make the cyber-surveillance sector in particular more transparent;
        • increased the importance of human rights as licensing criterion; and
        • agreed on rules to swiftly include emerging technologies in the regulation.
  • The United States House of Representatives passed three technology bills by voice vote yesterday. Two of these bills would address in different ways the United States’ (U.S.) efforts to make up ground on the People’s Republic of China in the race to roll out 5G networks. It is possible but not foreseeable whether the Senate will take up these bills before year’s end and send them to the White House. It is possible given how discrete the bills are in scope. The House Energy and Commerce Committee provided these summaries:
    • The “Utilizing Strategic Allied (USA) Telecommunications Act of 2020” (H.R.6624) creates a new grant program through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to promote technology that enhances supply chain security and market competitiveness in wireless communications networks.
      • One of the bill’s sponsors, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Frank Pallone Jr (D-NJ) stated:
        • Earlier this year, the House passed, and the President signed, my Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act to create a program to fund the replacement of suspect network equipment. Suspect equipment, including that produced by Huawei and ZTE, could allow foreign adversaries to surveil Americans at home or, worse, disrupt our communications systems.
        • While we are still pushing for Congress to appropriate funds to that end, it is important to recognize that my legislation was only half the battle, even when it is funded. We also need to create and foster competition for trusted network equipment that uses open interfaces so that the United States is not beholden to a market for network equipment that is becoming less competitive. This bill before us today, the Utilizing Strategic Allied Telecommunications Act, or the USA Telecommunications Act, does just that.
        • The bipartisan legislation creates a grant program and authorizes $750 million in funding for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to help promote and deploy Open Radio Access Network technologies that can spur that type of competition. We must support alternatives to companies like Huawei and ZTE…
    • The “Spectrum IT Modernization Act of 2020” (H.R.7310) requires NTIA – in consultation with the Policy and Plans Steering Group – to submit to Congress a report on its plans to modernize agency information technology systems relating to managing the use of federal spectrum. 
      • A sponsor of the bill, House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Greg Walden (R-OR) explained:
      • H.R. 7310 would require NTIA to establish a process to upgrade their spectrum management infrastructure for the 21st century. The bill would direct the policy coordination arm of NTIA to submit a plan to Congress as to how they will standardize the data collection across agencies and then directs agencies with Federal spectrum assignments from NTIA to issue an implementation plan to interoperate with NTIA’s plan.
      • This is a good-government bill–it really is–and with continued support and oversight from Congress, we can continue the United States’ leadership in making Federal spectrum available for flexible use by the private sector.
    • The “Reliable Emergency Alert Distribution Improvement (READI) Act of 2020” (H.R.6096) amends the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act to classify emergency alerts from the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a type of alert that commercial mobile service providers may not allow subscribers to block from their devices. The bill also directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt regulations to facilitate coordination with State Emergency Communications Committees in developing and modernizing State Emergency Alert System plans. Finally, the READI Act directs the FCC to examine the feasibility of modernizing the Emergency Alert System by expanding alert distribution to the internet and streaming services.  
  • The same privacy activists that brought the suits that resulted in the striking down of the Safe Harbor and Privacy Shield agreements have filed complaints in Spain and Germany that Apple has violated the European Union’s (EU) e-Privacy Directive and laws in each nation through its use of IDFA (Apple’s Identifier for Advertisers). Because the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is not the grounds for the complaints, each nation could act without needing to consult other EU nations. Moreover, a similar system used by Google is also being investigated for possible violations. The group none of your business (noyb) asserted:
    • IDFA – the cookie in every iPhone user’s pocket. Each iPhone runs on Apple’s iOS operating system. By default, iOS automatically generates a unique “IDFA” (short for Identifier for Advertisers) for each iPhone. Just like a license plate this unique string of numbers and characters allows Apple and other third parties to identify users across applications and even connect online and mobile behaviour (“cross device tracking”).
    • Tracking without user consent. Apple’s operating system creates the IDFA without user’s knowledge or consent. After its creation, Apple and third parties (e.g. applications providers and advertisers) can access the IDFA to track users’ behaviour, elaborate consumption preferences and provide personalised advertising. Such tracking is strictly regulated by the EU “Cookie Law” (Article 5(3) of the e-Privacy Directive) and requires the users’ informed and unambiguous consent.
    • Insufficient “improvement” on third-party access. Recently Apple announced plans for future changes to the IDFA system. These changes seem to restrict the use of the IDFA for third parties (but not for Apple itself). Just like when an app requests access to the camera or microphone, the plans foresee a new dialog that asks the user if an app should be able to access the IDFA. However, the initial storage of the IDFA and Apple’s use of it will still be done without the users’ consent and therefore in breach of EU law. It is unclear when and if these changes will be implemented by the company.
    • No need for EU cooperation. As the complaint is based on Article 5(3) of the e-Privacy Directive and not the GDPR, the Spanish and German authorities can directly fine Apple, without the need for cooperation among EU Data Protection Authorities as under GDPR.
  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair made remarks at antitrust conference on how antitrust law should view “an acquisition of a nascent competitive threat by a monopolist when there is reason to think that the state of competition today may not tell the whole story.” Chair Joseph Simons views are timely for a number of reasons, particularly the extent to which large technology firms have sought and bought smaller, newer companies. Obviously, the acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram by Facebook and YouTube and AdSense by Google come to mind as the sorts of acquisitions United States (U.S.) regulators approved, possibly without much thought given to what a future market may look like for competition if the larger, dominant company is allowed to proceed. Simons suggested regulators and courts would be wise to give this aspect of antitrust mush more thought, which could theoretically inform the approach the Biden Department of Justice and FTC take. Simons stated:
    • And if firms are looking to the future, then antitrust enforcers should too. We must be willing and able to recognize that harm to competition might not be obvious from looking at the marketplace as it stands. If we confine ourselves to examining a static picture of the market at the moment we investigate a practice or transaction, without regard to the dynamic business realities at work, then we risk forfeiting the benefits of competition that could arise in the future to challenge the dominant firm, even when this future competition is to some extent uncertain.
    • Simons asserted:
      • A merger or acquisition can of course constitute anticompetitive conduct for purposes of Section 2 [of the Sherman Act]
      • From a competition perspective, a monopolist can “squash” a nascent competitor by buying it, not just by targeting it with anticompetitive actions as Microsoft did. In fact, from the monopolist’s perspective, it may be easier and more effective to buy the nascent threat (even if only to keep it out of the hands of others) than to target it with other types of anticompetitive conduct.
      • A central issue in potential competition cases is the nature and strength of evidence that the parties will become actual competitors in the future. Some cases have applied Section 7 [of the Clayton Act] narrowly in this context: too narrowly, I think, given that the purpose of Section 7 is to prohibit acquisitions that “may” substantially lessen competition or “tend” to create a monopoly.
    • Simons concluded:
      • But uncertainty has always been a feature of the competitive process, even in markets that appear to be simple or traditional, and dealing with uncertainty is all in a day’s work for an antitrust enforcer. I have referred to the Microsoft case repeatedly today, so, in closing, let me remind everyone that there was some uncertainty about the future in Microsoft as well. The court, in holding that the plaintiff does not and should not bear the burden of “reconstruct[ing] a product’s hypothetical development,” observed that the defendant should appropriately be “made to suffer the uncertain consequences of its own undesirable conduct.” The same holds when the monopolist has simply chosen to acquire the threat.
  • The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) revised the Workforce Framework for Cybersecurity (NICE Framework) that “improves communications about how to identify, recruit, develop, and retain cybersecurity talent ­ – offering a common, consistent lexicon that categorizes and describes cybersecurity work.” NIST explained:
    • The NICE Framework assists organizations with managing cybersecurity risks by providing a way to discuss the work and learners associated with cybersecurity. These cybersecurity risks are an important input into enterprise risk decisions as described in NIST Interagency Report 8286, Integrating Cybersecurity and Enterprise Risk Management (ERM).
    • NIST stated “[r]evisions to the NICE Framework (NIST Special Publication 800-181) provide:
      • A streamlined set of “building blocks” comprised of Task, Knowledge, and Skill Statements;
      • The introduction of Competencies as a mechanism for organizations to assess learners; and
      • A reference to artifacts, such as Work Roles and Knowledge Skills and Abilities statements, that will live outside of the publication to enable a more fluid update process.
  • A left center think tank published a report on how the United States (U.S.) and likeminded nations can better fight cybercrime. In the report addressed to President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, the Third Way presented the results of a “multiyear effort to define concrete steps to improve the government’s ability to tackle the scourge of cybercrime by better identifying unlawful perpetrators and imposing meaningful consequences on them and those behind their actions.” In “A Roadmap to Strengthen US Cyber Enforcement: Where Do We Go From Here?,” the Third Way made a list of detailed recommendations on how the Biden Administration could better fight cybercrime, but in the cover letter to the report, there was a high level summary of these recommendations:
    • In this roadmap, we identify the challenges the US government faces in investigating and prosecuting these crimes and advancing the level of international cooperation necessary to do so. Cyberattackers take great pains to hide their identity, using sophisticated tools that require technical investigative and forensic expertise to attribute the attacks. The attacks are often done at scale, where perpetrators prey on multiple victims across many jurisdictions and countries, requiring coordination across criminal justice agencies. The skills necessary to investigate these crimes are in high demand in the private sector, making it difficult to retain qualified personnel. A number of diplomatic barriers make cross-border cooperation difficult, a challenge exacerbated often by blurred lines line between state and non-state actors in perpetrating these crimes.
    • This roadmap recommends actions that your administration can take to develop a comprehensive strategy to reduce cybercrime and minimize its impact on the American people by identifying the perpetrators and imposing meaningful consequences on them. We propose you make clear at the outset to the American public and global partners that cyber enforcement will be a top priority for your administration. In reinstating a White House cybersecurity position, we have extensive recommendations on how that position should address cybercrime. And, to make policy from an intelligence baseline, we believe you should request a National Intelligence Estimate on the linkages between cybercrime and nation-state cyber actors to understand the scope of the problem.
    • Our law enforcement working group has detailed recommendations to improve and modernize law enforcement’s ability to track and respond to cybercrime. And our global cooperation working group has detailed recommendations on creating a cohesive international cyber engagement strategy; assessing and improving the capacity of foreign partners on cybercrime; and improving the process for cross-border data requests that are critical to solving these crimes. We believe that with these recommendations, you can make substantial strides in bringing cybercriminals to justice and deterring future cybercriminals from victimizing Americans.

Coming Events

© 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