Coming and Recent Events (5 August)

Still on holiday, but just a quick post on some recent hearings of interest and some future ones of interest.

Coming Events

  • On 6 August, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an open meeting to likely consider the following items:
    • C-band Auction Procedures. The Commission will consider a Public Notice that would adopt procedures for the auction of new flexible-use overlay licenses in the 3.7–3.98 GHz band (Auction 107) for 5G, the Internet of Things, and other advanced wireless services. (AU Docket No. 20-25)
    • Radio Duplication Rules. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would eliminate the radio duplication rule with regard to AM stations and retain the rule for FM stations. (MB Docket Nos. 19-310. 17-105)
    • Common Antenna Siting Rules. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would eliminate the common antenna siting rules for FM and TV broadcaster applicants and licensees. (MB Docket Nos. 19-282, 17-105)
    • Telecommunications Relay Service. The Commission will consider a Report and Order to repeal certain TRS rules that are no longer needed in light of changes in technology and voice communications services. (CG Docket No. 03-123)
  • On 7 August, Australia’s Parliamentary Joint Committee On Intelligence and Security will hold a public hearing “to review amendments made to Commonwealth legislation by the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018.” The committee is supposed to wrap up this inquiry by 30 September.
  • The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will hold the “Exploring Artificial Intelligence (AI) Trustworthiness: Workshop Series Kickoff Webinar,” “a NIST initiative involving private and public sector organizations and individuals in discussions about building blocks for trustworthy AI systems and the associated measurements, methods, standards, and tools to implement those building blocks when developing, using, and testing AI systems” on 6 August.
  • On 18 August, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will host the “Bias in AI Workshop, a virtual event to develop a shared understanding of bias in AI, what it is, and how to measure it.”

Recent Past Events

  • On 3 August the House Oversight and Reform Committee held a hearing on the tenth “Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act” (FITARA) scorecard on federal information technology.
  • On 4 August, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing titled “Findings and Recommendations of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission” that follows a 30 July House Armed Services hearing on the same topic. These witnesses appeared before the committee:
    • Senator Angus S. King, Jr. (I-ME), Co-Chair, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
    • Representative Michael J. Gallagher (R-WI), Co-Chair, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
    • Brigadier General John C. Inglis, ANG (Ret.), Commissioner, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
  • On 5 August the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held an oversight hearing on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with the agency’s chair and four commissioners.
  • On 5 August, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing to “Examine Efforts to Improve Cybersecurity for the Energy Sector” with these witnesses:
    • Mr. Alexander Gates, Senior Advisor, Office of Policy for Cybersecurity, Energy Security, & Emergency Response, U.S. Department of Energy
    • Mr. Joseph McClelland, Director, Office of Energy Infrastructure Security, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    • Mr. Steve Conner, President and CEO, Siemens Energy, Inc.
    • Mr. Thomas F. O’Brien, Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer, PJM Interconnection

© 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.

Image by Bishnu Sarangi from Pixabay

EDPB Issues FAQs On Privacy Shield Decision

While the EDPB does not provide absolute answers on how US entities looking to transfer EU personal data should proceed, the agencies provide their best thinking on what the path forward looks like.

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

On 24 July, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has addressed, in part, the implications of the recent decision that struck down the European Union-United States Privacy Shield, an agreement that had allowed US companies to transfer and process the personal data of EU citizens. The EDPB fully endorsed the view that the United States’ (US) surveillance regime, notably Section 702 of the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (FISA) and Executive Order (EO) 12333, makes most transfers to the US illegal except perhaps if entities holding and using the data take extra steps to protect it. The EDPB references another means that allows for transfers to possibly continue but that generally requires informed and explicit consent from each and every EU person involved. Finally, the EDPB does not address whether the European Commission (EC) and the US are able to execute a third agreement that would be legal under EU law.

The EDPB, which is comprised of the European Union’s (EU) data protection authorities (DPAs), has formally adopted a document spelling out its view on if data transfers under Privacy Shield to the US are still legal and how companies should proceed in using standard contractual clauses (SCCs) and Binding Corporate Rules (BCR), two alternative means of transferring data aside from Privacy Shield. The EDPB’s views suggest the DPAs and supervisory authorities (SA) in each EU nation are going to need to work on a case-by-case basis regarding the latter two means, for the EDPB stressed these are to be evaluated individually. Given recent criticism of how nations are funding and resourcing their DPAs, there may be capacity issues in managing this new work alongside existing enforcement and investigation matters. Moreover, the EDPB discusses use of the exceptions available in Article 49 of the General Data Privacy Regulation (GDPR), stressing that most such transfers are to be occasional.

In last week’s decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) invalidated the European Commission’s adequacy decision on the EU-US Privacy Shield, thus throwing into question all transfers of personal data from the EU into the US that relied on this means. The CJEU was more circumspect in ruling on the use of standard contractual clauses (SCC), another way to legally transfer personal data out of the EU in compliance with the bloc’s law. The court seems to suggest there may be cases in which the use of SCCs may be inadequate given a country’s inadequate protections of the data of EU residents, especially with respect to national security and law enforcement surveillance. The EDPB issued a statement when the decision was made supporting the CJEU but has now adopted a more detailed explanation of its views on the implications of the decision for data controllers, data processors, other nations, EU DPAs and SAs.

In “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on the judgment of the CJEU in Case C-311/18 -Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian Schrems,” the EDPB explains its current thinking on the decision, much of which is built on existing guidance and interpretation of the GDPR. The EDPB explained that the FAQ “aims at presenting answers to some frequently asked questions received by SAs and will be developed and complemented along with further analysis, as the EDPB continues to examine and assess the judgment of the CJEU.”

Here are notable excerpts:

  • Is there any grace period during which I can keep on transferring data to the U.S. without assessing my legal basis for the transfer? No, the Court has invalidated the Privacy Shield Decision without maintaining its effects, because the U.S. law assessed by the Court does not provide an essentially equivalent level of protection to the EU. This assessment has to be taken into account for any transfer to the U.S.
  • I was transferring data to a U.S. data importer adherent to the Privacy Shield, what should I do now? Transfers on the basis of this legal framework are illegal. Should you wish to keep on transferring data to the U.S., you would need to check whether you can do so under the conditions laid down below.
  • I am using SCCs with a data importer in the U.S., what should I do? The Court found that U.S. law (i.e., Section 702 FISA and EO 12333) does not ensure an essentially equivalent level of protection. Whether or not you can transfer personal data on the basis of SCCs will depend on the result of your assessment, taking into account the circumstances of the transfers, and supplementary measures you could put in place. The supplementary measures along with SCCs, following a case-by-case analysis of the circumstances surrounding the transfer, would have to ensure that U.S. law does not impinge on the adequate level of protection they guarantee. If you come to the conclusion that, taking into account the circumstances of the transfer and possible supplementary measures, appropriate safeguards would not be ensured, you are required to suspend or end the transfer of personal data. However, if you are intending to keep transferring data despite this conclusion, you must notify your competent SA.
  • I am using Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) with an entity in the U.S., what should I do? Given the judgment of the Court, which invalidated the Privacy Shield because of the degree of interference created by the law of the U.S. with the fundamental rights of persons whose data are transferred to that third country, and the fact that the Privacy Shield was also designed to bring guarantees to data transferred with other tools such as BCRs, the Court’s assessment applies as well in the context of BCRs, since U.S. law will also have primacy over this tool.
  • Whether or not you can transfer personal data on the basis of BCRs will depend on the result of your assessment, taking into account the circumstances of the transfers, and supplementary measures you could put in place. These supplementary measures along with BCRs, following a case-by-case analysis of the circumstances surrounding the transfer, would have to ensure that U.S. law does not impinge on the adequate level of protection they guarantee. If you come to the conclusion that, taking into account the circumstances of the transfer and possible supplementary measures, appropriate safeguards would not be ensured, you are required to suspend or end the transfer of personal data. However if you are intending to keep transferring data despite this conclusion, you must notify your competent SA.
  • Can I rely on one of the derogations of Article 49 GDPR to transfer data to the U.S.? It is still possible to transfer data from the EEA to the U.S. on the basis of derogations foreseen in Article 49 GDPR provided the conditions set forth in this Article apply. The EDPB refers to its guidelines on this provision. In particular, it should be recalled that when transfers are based on the consent of the data subject, it should be:
    • explicit,
    • specific for the particular data transfer or set of transfers (meaning that the data exporter must make sure to obtain specific consent before the transfer is put in place even if this occurs after the collection of the data has been made),and
    • informed, particularly as to the possible risks of the transfer (meaning the data subject should also informed of the specific risks resulting from the fact that their data will be transferred to a country that does not provide adequate protection and that no adequate safeguards aimed at providing protection for the data are being implemented).
  • With regard to transfers necessary for the performance of a contract between the data subject and the controller, it should be borne in mind that personal data may only be transferred when the transfer is occasional. It would have to be established on a case-by-case basis whether data transfers would be determined as “occasional” or “non-occasional”. In any case, this derogation can only be relied upon when the transfer is objectively necessary for the performance of the contract.
  • In relation to transfers necessary for important reasons of public interest(which must be recognized in EU or Member States’ law), the EDPB recalls that the essential requirement for the applicability of this derogation is the finding of an important public interest and not the nature of the organisation, and that although this derogation is not limited to data transfers that are “occasional”, this does not mean that data transfers on the basis of the important public interest derogation can take place on a large scale and in a systematic manner. Rather, the general principle needs to be respected according to which the derogations as set out in Article 49 GDPR should not become “the rule” in practice, but need to be restricted to specific situations and each data exporter needs to ensure that the transfer meets the strict necessity test.

© 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.

Image by Maret H. from Pixabay

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (28 July)

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

Here are Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events.

Coming Events

  • On 28 July, the House Rules Committee will consider the rule for and amendments to the H.R. 7617—Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021 [Defense, Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Homeland Security, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2021].
  • On 28 July, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee’s Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled “The PACT Act and Section 230: The Impact of the Law that Helped Create the Internet and an Examination of Proposed Reforms for Today’s Online World.”
  • On 28 July the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee’s Investigations and Oversight and Research and Technology Subcommittees will hold a joint virtual hearing titled “The Role of Technology in Countering Trafficking in Persons” with these witnesses:
    • Ms. Anjana Rajan, Chief Technology Officer, Polaris
    • Mr. Matthew Daggett, Technical Staff, Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Systems Group, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    • Ms. Emily Kennedy, President and Co-Founder, Marinus Analytics
  • On  29 July, the House Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law Subcommittee will hold its sixth hearing on “Online Platforms and Market Power” titled “Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google” that will reportedly have the heads of the four companies as witnesses.
  • On 30 July the House Oversight and Reform Committee will hold a hearing on the tenth “Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act” (FITARA) scorecard on federal information technology.
  • On 30 July, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee’s Security Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled “The China Challenge: Realignment of U.S. Economic Policies to Build Resiliency and Competitiveness” with these witnesses:
    • The Honorable Nazak Nikakhtar, Assistant Secretary for Industry and Analysis, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
    • Dr. Rush Doshi, Director of the Chinese Strategy Initiative, The Brookings Institution
    • Mr. Michael Wessel, Commissioner, U.S. – China Economic and Security Review Commission
  • On 4 August, the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing titled “Findings and Recommendations of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission” with these witnesses:
    • Senator Angus S. King, Jr. (I-ME), Co-Chair, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
    • Representative Michael J. Gallagher (R-WI), Co-Chair, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
    • Brigadier General John C. Inglis, ANG (Ret.), Commissioner, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
  • On 6 August, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an open meeting to likely consider the following items:
    • C-band Auction Procedures. The Commission will consider a Public Notice that would adopt procedures for the auction of new flexible-use overlay licenses in the 3.7–3.98 GHz band (Auction 107) for 5G, the Internet of Things, and other advanced wireless services. (AU Docket No. 20-25)
    • Radio Duplication Rules. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would eliminate the radio duplication rule with regard to AM stations and retain the rule for FM stations. (MB Docket Nos. 19-310. 17-105)
    • Common Antenna Siting Rules. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would eliminate the common antenna siting rules for FM and TV broadcaster applicants and licensees. (MB Docket Nos. 19-282, 17-105)
    • Telecommunications Relay Service. The Commission will consider a Report and Order to repeal certain TRS rules that are no longer needed in light of changes in technology and voice communications services. (CG Docket No. 03-123)

Other Developments

  • The United States’ (US) Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an agency within the Executive Office of the President, has issued a memorandum in the same vein as other Trump Administration initiatives to increase the US government’s buying of goods and services produced domestically. Noting that 40% of the funds provided by Congress through annual legislation will be spent between 1 July and 30 September (roughly $200 billion), OMB urged federal agencies “to keep the following considerations in mind to support timely awards and maximize return on investment from each taxpayer dollar” among others:
    • Take full advantage of acquisition flexibilities and innovative tools. This week, the President’s Management Agenda unveiled a new cross-agency priority goal (CAP Goal) on “frictionless acquisition.” This CAP Goal creates a management platform to leverage modem buying strategies that have been shown to achieve just-in-time delivery with improved customer satisfaction and enable access to a broader and more innovative suite of companies and solutions. Agencies can review the resources on acquisition innovation and opportunities for collaboration by going to the frictionless CAP Goal on performance.gov.
      • The Goal Statement of this new CAP is “The Federal Government will deliver commercial items at the same speed as the market place & manage customers’ delivery expectations for acquisitions of non-commercial items by breaking down barriers to entry using modern business practices and technologies” as explained in a detailed presentation on frictionless acquisition released this month.
    • Use the resources of category management. As part of the ongoing transformation of federal acquisition, procurement involving common needs has been organized around categories of spending led by market experts who share business intelligence and help agencies avoid duplicative contracting work. This business structure has saved taxpayers more than $27 billion since FY 2016 and made it much easier for buyers to make rapid, well­ informed decisions on how best to acquire IT hardware, security, consulting services and many other every day needs that account for more than half of all contract spending. To stay current with market trends and available federal solutions, agencies should bookmark the category management dashboards on the acquisition gateway at https://hallways.cap.gsa.gov/app/#/.
    • Buy American. E.O. 13881 strengthens the general preference for American-made goods and, for the first time in 65 years, increases the percentage of U.S. manufactured content that must be in a product to qualify for the preference, including a very high standard for iron and steel. Agencies are encouraged to work with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) to consider early implementation, as appropriate, while the rulemaking process proceeds.
    • In a related memorandum issued earlier this month, OMB asserted
      • Under the President’s Management Agenda and the leadership of OMB ‘s Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), the Administration has elevated the importance of acquisition innovation and category management as key pillars of a modernized procurement system. These pillars are proving to be critical assets in the face of market conditions that require heightened agility and the ongoing need r physical distancing as communities take steps to reopen. We are seeing smart use of existing contract vehicles and resources, supported by our category management market experts, such as for cleaning and distinction, information technology related to telework and healthcare, and enhanced entry screening services. We are also seeing growing examples of agencies leveraging innovative business practices, such as virtual acquisitions, that save time and enable acquisitions to continue where they might otherwise have been stopped.
      • OMB went on to detail best practices and examples in how agencies have adapted their procurement authority to the pandemic commensurate with ongoing Administration priorities such as category management
  • Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and some of her Democratic colleagues wrote Attorney General William Barr “to raise serious concerns regarding Google LLC’s (Google) proposed acquisition of Fitbit, Inc. (Fitbit)”. They stated
    • We are aware that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice is investigating this transaction and has issued a Second Request to gather additional information about the acquisition’s potential effects on competition. Amid reports that Google is offering modest, short-term concessions to overseas enforcers to avoid a full-scale investigation of the transaction in Europe, we write to urge the Division to continue with its efforts to conduct a thorough and comprehensive review of this proposed merger and to take any and all enforcement action warranted by the law and the evidence.
    • This letter comes at a time when the Department of Justice is considering Google’s potential antitrust practices and whether to file suit. The European Commission is also investigating the Google acquisition of FitBit.
    • Klobuchar is the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights Subcommittee and was joined on the letter by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
  • Facebook and members of a class action and their attorneys have reached a second settlement in a suit brought under Illinois’ “Biometric Information Privacy Act” after a first settlement was rejected by the judge overseeing Patel, et al. v. Facebook, Inc.,. In January, the plaintiffs and Facebook agreed on a $550 million settlement to resolve claims the social media giant used and stored  people’s images contrary to the Illinois ban on such practices absent explicit consent. Facebook faced liability of up to $5000 per person affected and more than $40 billion in total potential liability. However, the judge thought the settlement was too low considering the Illinois legislature expressed its intention that violations would be punished more on the order of $1000 per person. Now, the parties have added $100 million, arriving at a $650 million settlement the judge will still need to bless.
  • Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made a speech at the Ronald Reagan Library “to make clear that the threats to Americans that President Trump’s China policy aims to address are clear and our strategy for securing those freedoms established.” Pompeo’s speech in the fourth in a series of Trump Administration officials making the Administration’s case against the People’s Republic of China (PRC), in some cases conflating PRC’s vying with the United States worldwide with the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting the PRC is responsible for the course of the virus in the US and not Trump Administration policy.
  • The Department of Defense’s National Security Agency (NSA) and Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) “released an advisory for critical infrastructure Operational Technology (OT) and Industrial Controls Systems (ICS) assets to be aware of current threats we observe, prioritize assessing their cybersecurity defenses and take appropriate action to secure their systems.” The agencies asserted “[d]ue to the increase in adversary capabilities and activities, the criticality to U.S. national security and way of life, and the vulnerability of OT systems, civilian infrastructure makes attractive targets for foreign powers attempting to harm to US interests or retaliate for perceived US aggression.”
  • The Secretary of Defense released a memorandum for Department of Defense (DOD) regarding “poor Proper Operations Security (OPSEC) practices within DOD in the past have resulted in the unauthorized disclosure or ” leaks” of controlled unclassified information (CUI), including information to be safeguarded under the CUI category for OPSEC, as well as classified national security information (together referred to here as “non-public information”). Secretary of Defense Mark Esper asserted “[o]ngoing reviews reveal a culture of insufficient OPSEC practices and habits within the DOD” and stated “[m]y goal, through an OPSEC campaign, is to change that culture across DOD by reminding DOD personnel.”
  • The United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published its annual report for 2019-2020, “covering what the Information Commissioner has called a “transformative period” for privacy and data protection and broader information rights.” The ICO offered these highlights:
    • Supporting and protecting the public and organisations
      • The Age Appropriate Design Code, introduced by the Data Protection Act 2018, was published in January. When it comes into full effect, it will help steer businesses to comply with current information rights legislation.
      • We intervened in the High Court case on the use of facial recognition technology by the South Wales Police as part of our work to ensure that the use of this technology does not infringe people’s rights.  As a response to the judgement, we issued the first Commissioner’s Opinion.
      • Our new freedom of information strategy was launched which sets out how we work to create a culture of openness in public authorities.  It also commits us to making the case for reform of the access to information law as set out previously in our Outsourcing Oversight report.
      • In figures:
        • We received 38,514 data protection complaints.
        • We closed 39,860 data protection cases (up from 34,684 in 2018/19) .
        • We received 6,367 freedom of information complaint cases.
    • Enforcement
      • We took regulatory action 236 times in response to breaches of the legislation that we regulate. That included 54 information notices, eight assessment notices, seven enforcement notices, four cautions, eight prosecutions and 15 fines.  
      • Over 2,100 investigations were conducted.
    • Innovation
      • Through our successful regulatory sandbox service, we have worked with a number of innovative organisations of all sizes to explore new data uses in a safe way while helping to ensure their customers’ privacy.
      • We also received additional resources from the government’s regulators innovation fund to set up a hub with other regulators to streamline and reduce burdens on businesses and public services using data.
      • In January, we launched our consultation on an AI framework to allow the auditing and assessment of the risk associated with AI applications and how to ensure their use is transparent, fair and accountable.
    • International
      • On a global scale, we continue to chair the Global Privacy Assembly, driving forward the development of the assembly into an international network that can have an impact on key data protection issues across the year. This helps to protect UK citizen’s personal data as it crosses borders and helps UK businesses operating internationally.
      • Due to the period covered by the report it does not reflect the impact of COVID-19 although, acknowledging the pandemic, Ms Denham said: ”The digital evolution of the past decade has accelerated at a dizzying speed in the past few months. Digital services are now central to how so many of us work, entertain ourselves and talk to friends and family.”

Further Reading

  • The Twitter Hacks Have to Stop” – The Atlantic. Bruce Schneier makes the case that the United States and other western democracies must step in and regulate vital platforms like Twitter for security and size given the central role they play in most societies. Letting these companies implement their own security without oversight or transparency has led to a situation where the account of world leaders or government agencies are vulnerable to hacks and misinformation. Schneier thinks the size and dominance of Twitter, Facebook, etc is a major part of this problem that must also be addressed.
  • US and Australia set to launch campaign to counter disinformation” – Sydney Morning Herald. Two of the Five Eyes allies met in Washington on 27 July for their annual Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) and part of their planning on how to counter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is working together on an effort to address the PRC’s disinformation campaigns. The already close relationship between Washington and Canberra has deepened as tensions between the United States (US) and PRC continue to escalate. However, the US and Australia are framing this initiative as aiming to counter all disinformation in the Indo-Pacific region, suggesting other nations may be waging disinformation campaigns of concern, including the Russian Federation and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
  • Russia’s GRU Hackers Hit US Government and Energy Targets” – WIRED. Starting in December 2018, APT28 (aka Fancy Bear), a Russian hacking group, targeted and penetrated a number of United States (US) entities, including federal and state governments, educational institutions, and energy companies. APT28 is closely associated with Glavnoye razvedyvatel’noye upravleniye (GRU), the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and is the entity behind the takedowns of Ukraine’s electrical grid in 2015 and 2016 among other high profile hacks and attacks. The timing of these attacks, sometimes executed as phishing attacks, is interesting for it comes after US Cyber Command and possibly the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) took down Russia’s Internet Research Agency and other actions designed to deter Russian interference in the 2019 mid-term elections in November 2018.
  • “Hurting People  At Scale” – Facebook’s Employees Reckon With The Social Network They’ve Built” – BuzzFeed News. This article documents the dissent and turmoil inside the company about content moderation, which some see the social media giant doing dismally. Some employees and ex-employees are taking issue with how CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his leadership are acting or not to take down extreme and violent content.
  • Big Tech Funds a Think Tank Pushing for Fewer Rules. For Big Tech.” – The New York Times. The Global Antitrust Institute at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School has been pushing for less regulation of antitrust statutes and regulations, especially in “educating” antitrust officials at conferences. It has also been financially supported by large technology companies which benefit from these policies and has not been transparent about its funding or the extent to which these companies’ positions on antitrust inform its efforts and output. A similar New York Times investigation into other Washington DC think tanks exposed the transactional nature of some of these institutions, donors, and positions.

© 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.

PRC Legislation and Report

The chair and ranking member of a Senate committee mark out their perspectives on how the US should change its foreign policy to address the PRC.

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held its hearing on competition between the United States (US) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), committee Republicans and the top Democrat articulated their views on how the US should respond to the PRC’s rise in the form of legislation for the former and a report for the latter. There is agreement the PRC’s actions poses problems for the US in a variety of ways, but there are significant differences in the proposed policy solutions to the PRC. A significant limit that should be acknowledged are the Constitutional limits on how far Congress can direct or influence the powers of the President to conduct foreign policy. Consequently, these Members direct the executive branch to report on certain ideal actions, which can create pressure on Administration officials to comply so long as there is not conflict with current Administration policy.

Chair Jim Risch (R-ID), East Asia, The Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy Subcommittee Chair Cory Gardner (R-CO), Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism Subcommittee Chair Mitt Romney (R-UT), and Multilateral International Development, Multilateral Institutions, and International Economic, Energy, and Environmental Policy Subcommittee Chair Todd Young (R-IN) introduced the “Strengthening Trade, Regional Alliances, Technology, and Economic and Geopolitical Initiatives Concerning China Act” (STRATEGIC Act) (S.4272), a comprehensive package of policy and funding changes the US should make to counter the rise of the PRC, some of which necessarily pertains to technology issues.

In their press release, Risch, Gardner, Romney, and Young highlighted “[k]ey provisions:”

  • Tackle China’s economic practices that distort global markets and hurt U.S. businesses, especially intellectual property (IP) theft and mass government subsidization and sponsorship of Chinese companies.
  • Confront tech competition by increasing technology collaboration with allies and partners.
  • Safeguard institutions from malign and undue PRC influence.
  • Strengthen U.S. posture in the Indo-Pacific to protect its interests, allies, and partners.
  • Prioritize cooperation over conflict when possible on areas such as arms control, North Korea, and the environment, if the PRC demonstrates good faith and transparency.

The STRATEGIC Act would, among other things do the following:

  • Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and not less frequently than annually thereafter, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, the United States Trade Representative, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall create a list (referred to in this section as the ‘‘intellectual property violators list’’), which identifies all centrally administered, state-owned enterprises:
    • a significant act or series of acts of intellectual property theft that subjected a United States economic sector or particular company incorporated in the United States to harm; or
    • an act or government policy of involuntary or coerced technology transfer of intellectual property ultimately owned by a company incorporated in the United States.”
  • Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the United States Trade Representative and the Secretary of Commerce, shall publish an unclassified report in the Federal Register that comprehensively identifies and measures—
    • subsidies provided by the Government of the PRC to enterprises in the PRC in contravention of agreed trade and other rules; and
    • discriminatory treatment favoring enterprises in the PRC over foreign market participants.
  • The President, acting through the Secretary of Commerce, and in consultation with the Secretary of State and any other individuals the President determines should be consulted, shall issue regulations requiring United States entities with at least $100,000,000 of assets or other investment in the PRC to submit a semiannual report regarding the impact of the corporate social credit system on the ability of such United States companies to conduct business or otherwise operate in the PRC.
  • Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for the following 5 years, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of the Treasury, shall submit an unclassified report to the appropriate congressional committees that describes the risks posed to the United States by the presence in United States capital markets of companies incorporated in the PRC.
  • The Secretary of State, in coordination with the heads of other participating executive branch agencies, shall establish and develop a program to facilitate and encourage regular dialogues between United States Government regulatory and technical agencies and their counterpart organizations in allied and partner countries, both bilaterally and in relevant multilateral institutions and organizations
  • The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce, is authorized to establish a program to facilitate the contracting by United States embassies for the professional services of qualified experts, on a reimbursable fee for service basis, to assist interested United States persons and business entities with supply chain management issues related to the PRC
  • The President, acting through the Secretary of State, should undertake regular efforts to coordinate with other members of the coalition…to establish and advocate for norms, standards, and regulations to ensure that the development and application of new and emerging technologies uphold the goals of shared prosperity, security, and commitment to human rights, including through engagement in international organizations and standards-setting bodies
  • The President shall establish an interagency working group to provide assistance and technical expertise to enhance the representation and leadership of the United States at international bodies that set standards for equipment, systems, software, and virtually-defined networks that support 5th and future generations mobile telecommunications systems and infrastructure, such as the International Telecommunication Union and the 3rd Generation Partnership Project; and work with allies, partners, and the private sector to increase productive engagement.
  • The President may issue a finding that a country constitutes a significant threat to the national security of the United States and should be designated a ‘country of national security concern’
  • Ban Senate confirmed Department of State officials from representing countries of national security concern and ban the confirmation by the Senate for Department of State nominees who have represented such nations.
  • The Secretary of State shall establish, within the Bureau of International Organization Affairs of the Department of State, the Office of Integrity in the United Nations System
  • Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, as appropriate, shall develop a strategy for cooperation with the PRC to combat wildlife and related trafficking

Also, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hearing on the People’s Republic of China, Ranking Member Bob Menendez (D-NJ) released a report “The New Big Brother: China and Digital Authoritarianism,” a year-long “effort to provide a holistic study of the threats posed to the United States, our allies, and the international community” by “digital authoritarianism” defined as “[t]he use of information and communications technology (ICT) products and services to surveil, repress, and manipulate domestic and foreign populations.” Menendez proposes targeted proposals so the US can push back on the digital authoritarianism of the PRC and other nations such as the Russian Federation. Some of these ideas could get folded into the STRATEGIC Act or similar legislation in order to garner Democratic support for a Republican bill.

Menendez explained the problem:

  • The growth and development of the digital domain worldwide has fundamentally changed how individuals, companies, and nations interact, work, and communicate –and with it the structure of global governance. Digitally-enabled technologies ranging from the Internet to mobile communications to emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, are accelerating the transmittal and receiving of information, enabling greater trade interactions and economic development, securing communications for our military and our allies, and aiding in the development of even newer, more capable technologies, amongst many other benefits. The United States has not only played a primary role in developing these new technologies, but it has worked to ensure the digital domain operates with openness, stability, reliability, interoperability, security, and respect for human rights.
  • These principles are under threat from authoritarian regimes, however, which see the advent of new technologies in a far more sinister light: as a means of surveilling and controlling populations, stifling the free flow of information, ensuring the survival of their governments, and as tools for malign influence campaigns worldwide. While multiple authoritarian governments have begun to utilize the digital domain in this manner, the People’s Republic of China is at the forefront of developing and expanding a new, different, and deeply troubling governance model for the digital domain: digital authoritarianism.
  • The rise of this new and worrying model of digital authoritarianism holds the potential to fundamentally alter the character of the digital domain.

In the cover letter to the report, Menendez asserted

The report’s comprehensive analysis of China’s digital authoritarianism describes how the People’s Republic of China is successfully developing and implementing its malign governance model internally and, increasingly, making inroads with other countries to also embrace its new digital doctrine. It further illustrates how the expansion of digital authoritarianism in China and abroad has drastic consequences for U.S. and allied security interests, the promotion of human rights, and the future stability of cyberspace. Consequently, the report calls for a series of both Congressional and Executive actions designed to counter China’s efforts to expand its model of digital authoritarianism; to strengthen U.S. technological innovation; and, to reinvigorate our diplomatic endeavors around the globe on digital issues.

In a separate document, Menendez pulled out the key findings and recommendations made by staff:

Key Findings

  • China’s efforts to advance and proliferate its information and communications technology (ICT) hardware and systems, both in China and overseas, represent not only a desire to continually expand its economy, but also a push to establish, expand, internationalize, and institutionalize a model for digital governance that this report describes as “digital authoritarianism.”
  • If left unchecked, China, not the U.S. and our allies, will write the rules of the digital domain, opening the doors for digital authoritarianism to govern the Internet and associated technologies.
  • To CCP leadership, the digital domain is a space that must be controlled by the Party. As such, development of new digitally enabled technologies must operate in line with Party principles. Without such control, CCP leaders fear these technologies could weaken the CCP’s hold over its citizens.
  • By building out so much of the digital infrastructure in the developing world, China could end up dominating a large portion of the global communications market, positioning it to potentially pressure other governments or conduct espionage.
  • At the United Nations, China has played a counterproductive role in efforts to build consensus on a free and fair future of cyberspace. China’s behavior echoes its consistent undermining of UN efforts that could highlight its own poor human rights record
  • The Administration’s current policy is insufficient to combat China’s digital authoritarianism, and its alienation of allies has further stunted the United States’ ability to influence other countries away from China’s digital authoritarianism model.
  • The surveillance system in Xinjiang has aided in the detention of possibly more than 2 million Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs, and members of other Muslim groups in Xinjiang, according to the U.S. State Department. In Xinjiang, Chinese government and police authorities retain what amounts to near absolute control of the entire ICT domain, and, through that control, have been able to repress and subjugate Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in the region.
  • Foreign technology platforms are restricted from operating in China, allowing Chinese platforms that offer similar services to thrive and expand into new markets. Thanks to this market inefficiency, China now retains some of the most valuable Internet companies in the world by market capitalization, including Alibaba, Tencent, and Baidu.
  • The United States currently does not have a domestic 5G supplier for the equipment that makes up the Radio Access Network (RAN) for 5G. Instead, countries seeking viable alternatives to Chinese 5G RAN infrastructure rely on companies such as Swedish company Ericsson, South Korea-based Samsung, or Finnish firm Nokia to build out core components of their layer of the 5G infrastructure.
  • The United States could find a future advantage by leading on mmWave technologies, since 1) this band is the spectrum where ultra-fast innovations may arise and 2) a fully actualized 5G network will see devices seamlessly utilize and transition between both the sub-6 and mmWave bands.

Recommendations

  • It is critical that the United States government stimulate technological innovation in the United States by increasing government research and development funding, adopting a more extensive industrial policy, developing and attracting superior talent to the United States’ technology sector, strengthening bilateral and multilateral technology initiatives with like- minded allies and partners, and ensuring a competitive advantage for domestic companies in overseas markets.
  • Create an Industry Consortium on 5G: Congress should create a consortium comprised of leading U.S. telecommunications and technology companies that would be mandated to create the American 5G telecommunications alternative, exploring both cost-effective hardware and software solutions.
  • Establish a Digital Rights Promotion Fund: Congress should establish and authorize a Digital Rights Promotion Fund, which will provide grants and investments directly to entities that support the promotion of a free, secure, stable, and open digital domain and fight against the authoritarian use of information and communications technologies. The fund will provide these groups, especially those existing in countries experiencing undue surveillance or other forms of digital authoritarianism, the resources needed to better push back against the spread of digital authoritarianism. Groups able to receive money would include:
    • Local activist organizations promoting a free digital domain and working to counter oppressive surveillance regimes in countries where digital authoritarianism is apparent or on the rise.
    • Nonprofit organizations that advocate for the adoption of international governance standards for the digital domain based on openness, transparency, and the rule of law, including the protection of human rights.
    • Think tanks and other institutional bodies that provide scholarship and policy recommendations for best paths forward to protect against the rise of authoritarian surveillance.
  • Establish a Cyber Service Academy: Through legislative action, Congress should establish a new federal service academy similar to our other military service academies, with the specific aim of developing the future of our technology force. In addition to providing students a four year undergraduate education, the academy shall prepare students to become future military leaders in key digital and emerging technology fields, including robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), and cybersecurity.
  • Build a Coalition of Likeminded Allies on Critical Technology Issues: The President should lead an international effort, in coordination with our allies and partners, to counter Chinese efforts to develop and proliferate digital domain products, technologies, and services that are not predicated on free, democratic values.
  • Establish and Empower New Cyber Leadership within the State Department: Congress should pass the Cyber Diplomacy Act of 2019, or similar legislation, that establishes a new office or bureau of cyber issues at the State Department, which shall report to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs.

© 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.

China Hearing

The extent of the PRC’s threat and options for countering its challenge, especially in the  realm of technology, were discussed by a Senate committee.

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing titled “Advancing Effective U.S. Competition With China: Objectives, Priorities, and Next Steps” that showed a shared agreement on challenge posed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) but different views on how to manage the challenge. The hearing comes at a time when tensions between the United States and the PRC continue to escalate across a number of fronts with the Trump Administration and a number of Congressional Republicans using increasingly strong rhetoric against Beijing. In concert with the hearing, the chair and three other Republicans introduced legislation “to advance a comprehensive strategy for U.S. competition with the People’s Republic of China (PRC)” per their press release. The Ranking Member also issued a report “by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democratic Staff on China’s digital authoritarianism” according to his statement.

Chair Jim Risch (R-ID) stated stated “[a]s the Trump Administration has correctly recognized, China is a strategic and global competitor of the United States…[and] [i]t will be the greatest foreign policy challenge the United States faces in the decades to come. The policies of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) undermine U.S. interests and values, including those we share with allies and partners around the world.” Risch asserted

  • COVID-19 has brought this challenge to the forefront of American life. We now know just how much the CCP’s decisions and actions directly affect U.S. citizens, our allies and partners, and the entire world. And we know not even a global pandemic will stop China’s aggressive behavior – whether that’s in Hong Kong, the South China Sea, or along the Indian border.
  • Over the last three years, the Trump Administration has taken numerous steps to put the United States on a stronger path to competing with China. Last week I was glad to see long overdue sanctions on CCP officials for human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Tibet. I was also pleased that we declared China’s claims in the South China Sea as unlawful, and deployed two carrier battle groups there for exercises. And after the CCP crushed Hong Kong’s autonomy, the president made the tough but necessary decision to end certain types of special treatment for Hong Kong.

Risch said

  • In May, the administration published a report on the implementation of its China strategy that goes into more detail. So this is a good time for the Committee to conduct oversight regarding our objectives, what we’ve done, and where we go from here.
  • This is also an opportunity to discuss China legislation put forward by members of this committee and others. This week, I introduced the “Strengthening Trade, Regional Alliances, Technology, and Economic and Geopolitical Initiatives Concerning China Act” (STRATEGIC Act) (S.4272). It is a comprehensive approach to China with concrete policies in several key areas of the competition. I’ll describe some of them briefly.
  • We must continue our focus on China’s anti-competitive economic policies. The Chinese government engages in intellectual property theft and massive financing of Chinese companies, and the most abusive anti-free market tactic of forced technology transfer. This is a horrible practice – it’s reprehensible.
  • These policies are designed to push others out of the market and create monopolies. Innovative American companies like Micron Technologies, based in my home state of Idaho, know these challenges well. Their intellectual property was stolen by a Chinese company, who then patented that technology in China and sued Micron. The STRATEGIC Act authorizes new tools for U.S. companies to address the harms caused by such policies, among several other provisions.
  • To maintain our economic and technological edge, it’s not enough to just push back on what China is doing. We also have to strengthen and invest in ourselves. In other committees, I have focused on this issue by supporting legislation promoting U.S. manufacturing of critical technologies, fortifying cyber security for our infrastructure and small businesses, and strengthening our technology workforce.
  • The STRATEGIC Act focuses on increasing technology collaboration with allies and partners. America is a world hub for innovation, and we can boost that innovation further by working with our highly capable partners. If we do, we will all be in a better position to develop the technologies of the future, and ensure they are used to uphold individual freedom, human rights, and prosperity.

Risch stressed “the importance of deterrence” and added

  • The United States, of course, does not seek any sort of military confrontation with China. However, China’s military is getting bigger, more capable, and becoming more aggressive. In the Indo-Pacific region, we should all be a lot more worried about the CCP’s plans for Taiwan, given what it just did to Hong Kong. In addition to the South China Sea, Japan faces almost daily incursions and pressure in the East China Sea. Beyond the region, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is also helping the Chinese military expand its presence.
  • We have to make it completely clear to the CCP that we are willing and able to defend our interests. That means reaffirming our commitments to our Indo-Pacific allies – even as they need to take on a larger role in defending the interests we share. The STRATEGIC Act focuses on key steps for advancing defense cooperation with our allies, including advocating for several difficult but important policy changes. 
  • I want to stress that this bill that I’ve introduced does not seek to block China. Rather, what it does is it offers prosperity. It offers an invitation to join the international community and operate under the rule of law and under international norms. If that happens, we all will prosper.
  • We should not miss the bipartisan opportunity that we have today to address these things. I’ll close with a note about bipartisanship.
  • Time and time again – on everything from human rights to investment screening – the Senate has worked across the aisle on China. But unfortunately, in recent months, that has become a lot harder. We have a long road ahead of us in this competition. We cannot allow partisanship to get in the way, even in an election year. Whatever happens in November, China will remain an issue. If we do not work together, the United States as a whole will be weaker.
  • I introduced this bill to push forward a serious, and bipartisan, conversation about the Senate’s role in advancing an effective strategy of competition. I want to thank several of my colleagues on this committee, from both sides of the aisle, for joining me in that effort. There is both Republican and Democrat input into this bill, not only from this committee, but also from think tanks around Washington, D.C., including Democrat think tanks. And I hope this will be the start of more cooperation to come.
  • When we get to a final bill, I’m very hopeful that that bill will contain items that everyone has an interest in. There’s been a number of people that have introduced bills. I know the ranking member is about to introduce a bill – I have no doubt that there will be things in there that we can all embrace. And I hope that as we get to a final bill, we will have things that we can embrace on a bipartisan basis.

Ranking Member Bob Menendez (D-NJ) remarked “I think the administration is asking the right questions about China and the U.S.-China relationship…[but] [u]nfortunately, however, I find that the administration’s strategies and policies fall well short of answering the enormity of the challenge.” He contended that “[w]e need, instead, as the title of this hearing suggests, an “effective” China strategy.”

Menendez stated

  • The China of 2020 is not the China of 1972, or even the China of 2000, or 2010. China today is challenging the United States across every dimension of power — political, diplomatic, economic, innovation, military, even cultural, and with an alternative and deeply disturbing model for global governance. China today, led by the Communist Party and propelled by Xi Jinping’s hyper-nationalism, is unlike any challenge we have faced as a nation before.
  • Emboldened by the retrenchment, shortcomings, and sometimes enablement of the Trump administration, China today is more active and more assertive in the region and in the international community than ever before.
  • Indeed, just since this this past March, China has increased its patrols near the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea as well as its coercive activities in South China Sea, conducted air and maritime patrols intended to threaten Taiwan, clashed with India along the Actual Line of Control (the People’s Liberation Army’s first use of force abroad in 30 years), and continued to implement a morally repugnant campaign of genocide in Xinjiang, its cruel oppression of the Tibetan people, and the crushing of its own civil liberty.

Menendez explained

  • Just yesterday I released a report, “The New Big Brother,” looking at how China has stepped-up its game in seeking to export a new model of digital authoritarianism and manipulate new technologies to control its own citizens and people worldwide.
  • Aside from bluster, rhetoric, and some hastily written sanctions, what has the response been from this administration? The administration is now taking strong action on Hong Kong, but for months, when the people of Hong Kong needed us, the President was silent and complicit in China’s erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy, happy to trade Hong Kong for his so-called trade deal. Along with the Chairman, I welcome regular Freedom of Navigation assertions and the administration’s recent clarification of our approach to claims in the South China Sea, but the reality is that over the past three years China’s aggression and coercion in the South China Sea has continued completely unchecked.

Menendez said “[i]n short, I am deeply concerned that the Administration’s approach is one that labors under the mistaken belief that just being confrontational is the same thing as being competitive.” He asserted

  • That is my question, in fact, about the action that the administration announced today in Houston. I am all for safeguarding our national security. I understand the importance of being tough with China. But being tough is the means, not the ends. So while there may be reason for taking this action — and I look forward to a briefing on it in an appropriate setting — I want to understand better not just the tactical considerations, but how this measure advances our strategy. What is the effect we expect this to have on China’s behavior? When China “retaliates,” as they have said they will, what will be our next move? And our next after that? I’m obviously not asking you to disclose specific actions, which I know you won’t, and shouldn’t, but as this is not a simple two-step dance, so help me understand where you think this is going.
  • I ask this because there should be little doubt that we are indeed in a new era of strategic competition with China — and the United States needs a new strategic framework and a new set of organizing principles to address the challenges of this new era. So far, and despite all the bluster, that effective new strategy has been utterly lacking from this administration.

Menendez continued

  • One of these core organizing principles, I would suggest, is the importance of working in close coordination with our allies and partners to develop a shared and effective approach to China. And I have to say, Secretary Biegun, that the administration’s disastrously wrong-headed, alienating, and attacking approach to our alliances has been one of the most disheartening to witness these past several years.
  • Our alliances, our partnerships, and the shared values on which they stand, and our reliability in the face of adversity are our “special sauce” for effective global leadership. 

Menendez contended

  • I know you will argue that this president and this administration have been uniquely successful with China.
  • I know that you are good at your job. But facts are indeed stubborn things.
  • Now, before this hearing devolves into a hearing bashing China and the World Health Organization for the COVID pandemic, let me assure you I stand second to no one in this body regarding concerns over how China’s paranoid totalitarianism contributed to its spread. But blame game politics won’t save American lives. Instead of relying on science and knowledge, the administration has spent its energy towards finding fault and racially inflammatory rhetoric that both threatens the safety and wellbeing of Asian Americans and further alienates us on the global stage, including at the G-7 and the UN Security Council.
  • If this administration is truly concerned about China’s malign intent at the World Health Organization and elsewhere, there is a simple solution — show up. Take action. If the U.S. leads, others will follow. If we leave the field open, if our own country cannot develop a serious strategy at home, others, like China, are only too eager to step into the vacuum.

Menendez added

  • I know the Chairman has introduced legislation today on China. I welcome his effort. As I mentioned at another hearing this morning, I am also working with colleagues on a bill to create a comprehensive China strategy, crosscutting jurisdictions beyond and including this committee, including trade and economic issues and investments here at home, which we plan to shortly introduce. Given the shortcomings of President Trump’s “all bluster and tactics, no strategy” approach to China, a comprehensive and integrated approach is needed. I suspect that there will be many areas of agreement between my bill and the Chairman’s, and so look forward to working with him on a combined approach.
  • And it is in this spirit, Mr. Secretary, that I implore you today to engage beyond this hearing in a genuine conversation with us about how we work together to develop a comprehensive approach to China, to reset our strategy and diplomacy, to reinvest and replenish the sources of our national strength and competitiveness at home, to place our partnerships and allies first, and that reflects our fundamental values as Americans.

Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun stated

  • Over the course of many years and across multiple administrations, in our relations with Beijing, the United States has sought to spur China’s integration into the rules-based international order by strengthening, not undermining, international law, norms, and institutions. Over more than three decades, U.S. policies towards China have been aimed at that goal – by supporting China’s economic development through the massive outpouring of international assistance and lending to develop infrastructure and economic institutions; by beneficial trade treatment and robust foreign investment; by facilitation of Chinese membership in global institutions such as the World Trade Organization; by development and humanitarian assistance, by the education of millions of China’s brightest scholars at our best schools; and by intensive commercial diplomacy to address strategic and sectoral economic concerns. We anchored economic and diplomatic policies toward China in the expectation that they would produce the gradual but eventual opening and liberalization of China and its peaceful rise in a manner that would enhance stability in the Indo- Pacific and beyond, increase the freedoms of its own people, and expand global prosperity in a mutually beneficial manner.Where this Administration diverges from previous Administrations is in the will to face an uncomfortable truth in the U.S.-China relationship – the policies of the past three decades have simply not produced the outcome for which so many had hoped. As stated in the 2017 National Security Strategy: “(f)or decades, U.S. policy was rooted in the belief that support for China’s rise and for its integration into the post-war international order would liberalize China. Contrary to our hopes, China expanded its power at the expense of the sovereignty of others. China gathers and exploits data on an unrivaled scale and spreads features of its authoritarian system, including corruption and the use of surveillance. It is building the most capable and well-funded military in the world, after our own. Its nuclear arsenal is growing and diversifying. Part of China’s military modernization and economic expansion is due to its access to the U.S. innovation economy, including America’s world-class universities.”
  • As further stated in the National Security Strategy, “(a)lthough the United States seeks to continue to cooperate with China, China is using economic inducements and penalties, influence operations, and implied military threats to persuade other states to further its political and security agenda. China’s infrastructure investments and trade strategies reinforce its geopolitical aspirations. Its efforts to build and militarize outposts in the South China Sea endanger the free flow of trade, threaten the sovereignty of other nations, and undermine regional stability. China has mounted a rapid military modernization campaign designed to limit U.S. access to the region and provide China a freer hand there. China presents its ambitions as mutually beneficial, but Chinese dominance risks diminishing the sovereignty of many states in the Indo-Pacific. States throughout the region are calling for sustained U.S. leadership in a collective response that upholds a regional order respectful of sovereignty and independence.”
  • Secretary [of State Mike] Pompeo summed up this strategic shift in his October 30 speech: “It is no longer realistic to ignore the fundamental differences between our two systems and the impact that…the differences in those systems have on American national security…Today, we are finally realizing the degree to which the Communist Party is truly hostile to the United States and our values.”
  • An honest assessment of trends in the U.S.-China relationship suggests that reconsideration of U.S. policy toward China is urgent and overdue. The United States must respond with the full toolkit of policy instruments. These instruments will be adapted to defend against PRC efforts to undermine U.S.-supported institutions, respond to actions that encroach upon the sovereign interests of our allies and partners, hold the PRC accountable for its human rights violations and abuses, and respond to Chinese policies that fail to provide reciprocal opportunities for equivalent U.S. entities.
  • Concerns about Beijing’s policies are fueled by a growing number of disputes and areas of concern. These longstanding areas of concern include intellectual property theft and commercial espionage (including through cyber-enabled means), unequal treatment of U.S. diplomats, exporters and investors, non-governmental organizations, social media companies, and traditional media outlets and journalists in China, as well as the abuse by PRC security services of the United States’ open and welcoming posture toward Chinese students and researchers.
  • Additional areas of concern include the dismantling of Hong Kong’s autonomy, liberty, and democratic institutions, military pressure against Taiwan, arbitrary mass detentions and other human rights abuses in Xinjiang, efforts to eliminate Tibetan identity, and the assertion of unfounded maritime claims in the South China Sea. Finally, there is growing alarm in the United States and around the world with the Chinese government’s use of military and economic coercion and state-sponsored disinformation campaigns against the United States and our allies and partners, including, among others, India, Australia, Canada, the European Union, and several individual European governments.

Biegun stated “United States foreign policy toward the People’s Republic of China roughly falls within five broad areas:

  • First, using the full toolkit of United States foreign policy instruments including diplomatic engagement, public diplomacy, foreign assistance, commercial diplomacy, trade law, law enforcement, export controls and sanctions, and military deterrence;
  • Second, steady application of pressure to push back the PRC’s attempt to change and replace the U.S.-led free and open international order in areas of dispute or competition;
  • Third, reciprocal and transparent treatment of PRC institutions and organizations commensurate with PRC treatment of equivalent U.S. entities;
  • Fourth, close cooperation among all U.S. stakeholders in the relationship with the People’s Republic of China, including bipartisan engagement, Congressional-Executive coordination, the expert and think tank community, academia, business and civil society;
  • And fifth, strengthening international cooperation with allies and partners on shared concerns with the conduct of the Chinese Communist Party, with special emphasis in the Indo-Pacific.

Biegun asserted

The United States and the PRC are likely for the foreseeable future to remain competitors, but this does not mean our two nations need to be enemies. As the Administration has reiterated, we seek a constructive and results-oriented relationship with Beijing, and we will cooperate with China where our interests align. U.S. policies are designed to protect our interests, we do not envision a zero sum game as long as China abides by the key principle of reciprocity and transparency. Indeed, we want to see a prosperous China that is at peace with its own people and with its neighbors. Historically, in shaping the U.S.-China relationship, numerous Presidents have engaged with China’s leaders in direct diplomacy and held any number of strategic dialogues, sectoral dialogues, and security dialogues over the past several decades to resolve problems and advance mutual interests.

© 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.

Photo by mentatdgt from Pexels

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (21 July)

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

Here are Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events.

Coming Events

  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold its fifth annual PrivacyCon on 21 July and has released its agenda.
  • On 22 July, the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee will markup a number of bills and nominations, including:
    • The nomination of Derek Kan to the Office of Management and Budget’s Deputy Director
    • The “Federal Emergency Pandemic Response Act” (S.4204)
    • The “Securing Healthcare and Response Equipment Act of 2020” (S.4210)
    • The “National Response Framework Improvement Act of 2020” (S.4153)
    • The “National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center Pandemic Modeling Act of 2020” (S.4157)
    • The “PPE Supply Chain Transparency Act of 2020” (S.4158)
    • The “REAL ID Act Modernization Act” (S.4133)
    • The “Safeguarding American Innovation Act” (S.3997)
    • The “Information Technology Modernization Centers of Excellence Program Act” (S.4200)
    • The “Telework for U.S. Innovation Act” (S.4318)
    • The “GAO Database Modernization Act” (S.____)
    • The “CFO Vision Act of 2020” (S.3287)
    • The “No Tik Tok on Government Devices Act” (S. 3455)
    • The “Cybersecurity Advisory Committee Authorization Act of 2020” (S. 4024)
  • On 23 July, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee’s Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet Subcommittee will hold a hearing on “The State of U.S. Spectrum Policy” with the following witnesses:
    • Mr. Tom Power, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, CTIA
    • Mr. Mark Gibson, Director of Business Development, CommScope
    • Dr. Roslyn Layton, Visiting Researcher, Aalborg University
    • Mr. Michael Calabrese, Director, Wireless Future Project, Open Technology Institute at New America
  • On  27 July, the House Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law Subcommittee will hold its sixth hearing on “Online Platforms and Market Power” titled “Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google” that will reportedly have the heads of the four companies as witnesses.
  • On 6 August, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an open meeting to likely consider the following items:
    • C-band Auction Procedures – The Commission will consider a Public Notice that would adopt procedures for the auction of new flexible-use overlay licenses in the 3.7–3.98 GHz band (Auction 107) for 5G, the Internet of Things, and other advanced wireless services. (AU Docket No. 20-25)
    • Radio Duplication Rules – The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would eliminate the radio duplication rule with regard to AM stations and retain the rule for FM stations. (MB Docket Nos. 19-310. 17-105)
    • Common Antenna Siting Rules – The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would eliminate the common antenna siting rules for FM and TV broadcaster applicants and licensees. (MB Docket Nos. 19-282, 17-105)
    • Telecommunications Relay Service – The Commission will consider a Report and Order to repeal certain TRS rules that are no longer needed in light of changes in technology and voice communications services. (CG Docket No. 03-123)
    • Inmate Calling Services – The Commission will consider a Report and Order on Remand and a Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would respond to remands by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and propose to comprehensively reform rates and charges for the inmate calling services within the Commission’s jurisdiction.  (WC Docket No. 12-375)

Other Developments

  • A United States court has denied a motion by an Israeli technology company to dismiss an American tech giant’s suit that the former infected its messaging system with malware for purposes of espionage and harassment. In October 2019, WhatsApp and Facebook filed suit against the Israeli security firm, NSO Group, alleging that in April 2019, it sent “malware to approximately 1,400 mobile phones and devices…designed to infect the Target Devices for the purpose of conducting surveillance of specific WhatsApp users.” This step was taken, Facebook and WhatsApp claim, in order to circumvent WhatApp’s end-to-end encryption. The social media companies are suing “for injunctive relief and damages pursuant to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California Penal Code § 502, and for breach of contract and trespass to chattels.” In the District Court’s ruling from last week, it rejected the NSO Group’s claims that it deserved sovereign immunity from the lawsuit because it was working for sovereign governments among others and will allow WhatsApp and Facebook to proceed with their suit.
  • The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) published a report “on how EU institutions, bodies and agencies (EUIs) carry out Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) when processing information that presents a high risk to the rights and freedom of natural persons” according to the EDPS’ press release. The EDPS detailed its lessons learned, suggestions on how EU institutions could execute better DPIAs, and additional guidance on how DPIAs should be performed in the future.
  • The Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe rendered his opinion in case concerning the possible lability of YouTube and Uploaded for a user posting copyrighted materials without the consent of the owners. In a CJEU summary, Øe found “as EU law currently stands, online platform operators, such as YouTube and Uploaded, are not directly liable for the illegal uploading of protected works by the users of those platforms.” Øe noted that “Directive  2019/790 on  copyright  and  related rights  in  the  Digital  Single  Market introduces, for online platform operators such as YouTube, a new liability regime specific to works illegally uploaded by  the  users  of  such  platforms….which  must  be  transposed  by  each Member State into its national law by 7 June 2021at the latest, requires, inter alia, those operators to obtain an authorisation from the rightholders, for example by concluding a licensing agreement, for the works uploaded by users of their platforms.” The Advocate General’s decisions are not binding but work to inform the CJEU as it decides cases, but it is not uncommon for the CJEU to incorporate the Advocate General’s findings in their decisions.
  • The United Kingdom’s Parliament’s House of Lords’ Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technologies released its report regarding “a pandemic of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’…[that] [i]f allowed to flourish these counterfeit truths will result in the collapse of public trust, and without trust democracy as we know it will simply decline into irrelevance.” The committee explained the report “addresses a number of concerns, including the urgent case for reform of electoral law and our overwhelming need to become a digitally literate society” including “forty-five  recommendations  which,  taken  together,  we  believe could serve as a useful response to a whole series of concerns.”
  • Belgium’s data protection authority, the Autorité de protection des données, has fined Google €600,000 for violations related to the company’s failure to heed the right to be forgotten as enforced under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).  
  • The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released two crosswalks undertaken by outside entities comparing the NIST Privacy Framework: A Tool for Improving Privacy through Enterprise Risk Management to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and ISO/IEC 27701, private sector privacy guidance:
    • The Enterprivacy Consulting Group’s crosswalk for the GDPR-Regulation 2016/679.
  • Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) sent Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey a second letter regarding the Twitter hack and asserted:
    • [R]eports also indicate that screenshots of Twitter’s internal tools have been circulating within the hacking community. One such screenshot indicates that Twitter employs tools allowing it to append “Search Blacklist,” “Trends Blacklist,” “Bounced,” and “ReadOnly” flags to user accounts. Given your insistence in testimony to Congress that Twitter does not engage in politically biased “shadowbanning” and the public interest in Twitter’s moderation practices, it is notable that Twitter reportedly suspended user accounts sharing screenshots of this panel.
    • Hawley posed a series of questions seeking to root out a bias against conservative viewpoints on the platform, a frequently leveled charge.
  • The Ranking Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, House Energy and Commerce Committee, and House Financial Services Committee wrote President Donald Trump to “encourage you to consider utilizing your ability under existing authorities to sanction PRC-linked hackers” for “targeting U.S. institutions and “attempting to identify and illicitly obtain valuable intellectual property (IP) and public health data related to vaccines, treatments, and testing from networks and personnel affiliated with COVID-19-related research.” In a May unclassified public service announcement, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and CISA named the People’s Republic of China as a nation waging a cyber campaign against U.S. COVID-19 researchers. The agencies stated they “are issuing this announcement to raise awareness of the threat to COVID-19-related research.” Last week, The United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), Canada’s Communications  Security Establishment (CSE), United States’ National Security Agency (NSA) and the United States’ Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security  Agency (CISA) issued a joint advisory on a Russian hacking organization’s efforts have “targeted various organisations involved in COVID-19 vaccine development in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, highly likely with the intention of stealing information and intellectual property relating to the development and testing of COVID-19 vaccines.”

Further Reading

  • Twitter’s security holes are now the nation’s problem“ – Politico; “Twitter hack triggers investigations and lawmaker concerns” – The Washington Post; “Hackers Convinced Twitter Employee to Help Them Hijack Accounts” – Vice’s Motherboard; “Twitter Struggles to Unpack a Hack Within Its Walls” and “Hackers Tell the Story of the Twitter Attack From the Inside” – The New York Times. After the hacking last week that took over a number of high profile people’s accounts (e.g. Barack Obama, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, etc.), policymakers in Washington are pressing Twitter for explanations and remediation to prevent any such future attacks, especially in the run up to the 2020 election. Reportedly, a group of hackers looking to push a Bitcoin scam took over accounts of famous people and then made it appear they were selling Bitcoin. Republicans and Democrats in the United States’ capital are alarmed that such a hack by another nation could throw the country and world into chaos. One media outlet is reporting the hackers provided proof they bribed a Twitter employee with access to administrative credentials to pull off the hack. Another is reporting that a hacker got into Twitter’s Slack channel where the credentials were posted. Nonetheless, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has opened an inquiry. It is unclear whether the hackers accessed people’s DM’s, and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) noted he has secured a commitment from the company in 2018 to use encryption to secure DMs that has not yet been implemented. The company will have to answer more tough questions at a time when it is in the crosshairs of the rump Administration for alleged abuses of 47 U.S.C. 230 in stifling conservative viewpoints after the platform fact checked the President and has taken down a range of accounts. And, of course, working in the background is the company’s 2011 settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in which the agency claimed Twitter violated the FTC Act by “engag[ing] in a number of practices that, taken together, failed to provide reasonable and appropriate security to: prevent unauthorized access to nonpublic user information and honor the privacy choices exercised by its users in designating certain tweets as nonpublic…[and by] fail[ing] to prevent unauthorized administrative control of the Twitter system.” If the agency investigates and finds similar misconduct, they could seek sizeable monetary damages in federal court.
  • F.T.C.’s Facebook Investigation May Stretch Past Election” – The New York Times. Even though media accounts say the United States Department of Justice will bring an antitrust action against Google possibly as early as this month, it now appears the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will not be bringing a case against Facebook until next year. It appears the agency is weighing whether it should depose CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg and has made additional rounds of document requests, all of which has reportedly slowed down the investigation. Of course, should the investigation stretch into next year, a President Joe Biden could designate a new chair of the agency, which could change the scope and tenor of the investigation.
  • New Emails Reveal Warm Relationship Between Kamala Harris And Big Tech” – HuffPost. Obtained via an Freedom of Information request, new email from Senator Kamala Harris’ (D-CA) tenure as her state’s attorney general suggest she was willing to overlook the role Facebook, Google, and others played and still play in one of her signature issues: revenge porn. This article makes the case Harris came down hard on a scammer running a revenge porn site but did not press the tech giants with any vigor to take down such material from their platforms. Consequently, the case is made if Harris is former Vice President Joe Biden’s vice presidential candidate, this would signal a go easy approach on large companies even though many Democrats have been calling to break up these companies and vigorously enforce antitrust laws. Harris has largely not engaged on tech issues during her tenure in the Senate. To be fair, many of these companies are headquartered in California and pump billions of dollars into the state’s economy annually, putting Harris in a tricky position politically. Of course, such pieces should be taken with a grain of salt since it may have been suggested or planted by one of Harris’ rivals for the vice president nomination or someone looking to settle a score.
  • Inside Big Tech’s Years-Long Manipulation Of American Op-Ed Pages” – Big Technology from Alan Krantowitz. To no great surprise, large technology companies have adopted a widely used tactic of getting someone sympathetic to “write” an op-ed for a local newspaper to show it is not just big companies pushing for a policy. In this case, it was, and likely still is, the argument against breaking up the tech giants or regulating them more closely. In one case, it is not clear the person who allegedly “wrote” the article actually even knew about it.
  • Trump campaign pushes Facebook ads bashing TikTok” – CNN. The White House is using new means to argue TikTok poses a threat to Americans and national security: advertisements on Facebook by the Trump campaign. The ads repeated the same basic message that has been coming out of the White House that TikTok has been denying: that the app collects and sends user sensitive user data to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Another wrinkle TikTok pointed to is that Facebook is readying a competitor, Instagram Reels, set to be unveiled as early as this week.

© 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.

Photo by Produtora Midtrack from Pexels

House Appropriations Committee Passes Bills With Funding For and Directives To Technology Agencies

Four bills full of technology funding and programmatic direction are reported to the House.

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

The House Appropriations Committee finished work on four of the FY 2021 appropriations bills that fund a substantial portion of the United States’ (US) government’s technology programs and activities. Often appropriations bills are the primary vehicle by which Congress changes executive branch policy through the use of its funding powers, and so the bills and their committee reports contain a range of directives and instructions year-to-year. The House is set to finish committee consideration of all 12 bills this month, but there is no indication as to when the Senate Appropriations Committee will take up its bills. Given the late start on appropriations, it is all but certain the federal government will be operating under a stopgap funding bill for some portion of the first quarter of the next fiscal year. The outcome of the election could result in a further postponing of full appropriations and delaying of passage of technology funding and program changes.

FY 2021 Homeland Security Appropriations Act

In advance of the 15 July markup, the House Appropriations Committee made available its Committee Report to accompany the FY 2021 Homeland Security Appropriations Act.

The package includes $2.6 million for a Joint Cybersecurity Coordination Group (JCCG) inside DHS “serve as a coordinating entity that will help the Department identify strategic priorities and synchronize cyber-related activities across the operational components.” This new entity comes about because the Trump Administration requested its creation as part of its FY 2021 budget request. The Committee expressed disappointment with “the lack of quality and detail provided in CISA’s fiscal year 2021 budget justification documents, to include several errors and unjustified adjustments that appear to be attributable to CISA’s premature proposal for a new Program, Project, or Activity (PPA) structure and raise questions about whether the budget could be executed as requested.” Consequently, the Committee directed that CISA “submit the fiscal year 2022 budget request at the same level of PPA detail as provided in the table at the end of this report with no further adjustments to the PPA structure.”

Among other programmatic and funding highlights, the Committee

  • “[E]ncourage[d] CISA to continue to use commercial, human-led threat behavioral analysis and technology, and to employ private sector, industry-specific, threat intelligence and best practices to better characterize potential consequences to critical infrastructure sectors during a systemic cyber event.”
  • Urged “CISA and the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI–ISAC) to expand outreach to the most vulnerable jurisdictions” with respect to election security assistance.
  • Directed “CISA to continue providing the semiannual briefing on the National Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS) program and the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM)”
  • Pointed to $5.8 million to set up a ‘‘central Federal information security incident center,’ a requirement mandated by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) (P.L. 113-283) and $9.3 million “to establish a formal program office to coordinate supply chain risk management efforts for federal civilian agencies; act as the executive agent for the Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC), as authorized by the SECURE Technology Act, 2018 (Public Law 115– 390); and fund various supply chain related efforts and services.”
  • Emphasized its increase of $6 million as compared to FY 2020 “to grow CISA’s threat hunting capabilities” “[i]n the face of cyber threats from nation-state adversaries such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.”
  • [P]rovide[d] an increase of $11,568,000 above the request to establish a Joint Cyber Center (JCC) for National Cyber Defense to bring together federal and State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) governments, industry, and international partners to strategically and operationally counter nation-state cyber threats.”
  • Bestowed “an increase of $10,022,000 above the request for the underlying infrastructure that enables better identification, analysis, and publication of known vulnerabilities and common attack patterns, including through the National Vulnerability Database, and to expand the coordinated responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities.”
  • Noted “[t]hrough the Shared Cybersecurity Services Office (SCSO), CISA serves as the Quality Services Management Office for federal cybersecurity” and explained “[t]o help improve efforts to make strategic cybersecurity services available to federal agencies, the Committee includes $5,064,000 above the request to sustain prior year investments and an additional $5,000,000 to continue to expand the office.”
  • Expressed its concern “about cyber vulnerabilities within supply chains, which pose unacceptable risks to the nation’s physical and cyber infrastructure and, therefore, to national security” and provided “an increase of $18,005,000 above the request to continue the development of capabilities to address these risks through the ICT Supply Chain Risk Management Task Force and other stakeholders, such as the FASC.”

FY 2021 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act

The FY 2021 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act has a provision that would bar either the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from taking certain actions related to Executive Order 13925, “Preventing Online Censorship” issued in May by the White House after Twitter fact checked a pair of President Donald Trump’s Tweets that contained untruthful claims about voting by mail. It is very unlikely Senate Republicans, some of whom have publicly supported this Executive Order will allow this language into the final bill funding the agencies.

Under the Executive Order, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is to file a petition for rulemaking with the FCC to clarify the interplay between clauses of 47 USC 230, notably whether the liability shield that protects companies like Twitter and Facebook for content posted on an online platform also extends to so-called “editorial decisions,” presumably actions like Twitter’s in fact checking Trump regarding mail balloting. The NTIA would also ask the FCC to define better the conditions under which an online platform may take down content in good faith that are “deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” The NTIA is also ask the FCC to promulgate any other regulations necessary to effectuate the EO. The FTC was directed consider whether online platforms are violating Section 5 of the FTC Act barring unfair or deceptive practices, which “may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.”

In the Committee Report for the FY 2021 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, the House Appropriations Committee explained it provided $341 million for the FTC, “a $10,000,000 increase over fiscal year 2020… will increase the FTC’s capabilities both to monitor mergers and acquisitions that could reduce competition or lead to higher prices, and to take enforcement action against companies that fail to take reasonable steps to secure their customer data or that engage in other problematic trade practices.”

The Committee detailed the following program and funding provisions related to the FTC, including combatting fraudulent calls to seniors, robocalls, fraudulent health care calls, and the following:

  • Cryptocurrency.— The Committee encourages the FTC to work with the Securities and Exchange Commission, other financial regulators, consumer groups, law enforcement, and other public and private stakeholders to identify and investigate fraud related to cryptocurrencies market and discuss methods to empower and protect consumers.”
  • Consumer Repair Rights.—The Committee is aware of the FTC’s ongoing review of how manufacturers—in particular mobile phone and car manufacturers—may limit repairs by consumers and repair shops, and how those limitations may increase costs, limit choice, and impact consumers’ rights under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Not later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, the FTC is directed to provide to the Committee, and to publish online, a report on anticompetitive practices related to repair markets. The report shall provide recommendations on how to best address these problems.
  • Antitrust Actions.—The Committee directs the GAO to study FTC and DOJ antitrust actions over the past 25 years. The study shall examine the following questions: How many instances have FTC and DOJ been on opposing sides of the same matter? In how many of these instances was the split created by (a) the FTC intervening in DOJ’s case; and (b) the DOJ intervening in FTC’s case? In these instances, how (if at all) did the split affect the final outcome (e.g., did the judicial opinion cite the split or explain how it affected the court’s decision)? In how many instances has an FTC action appeared before the Supreme Court? Of these instances, in how many cases did the FTC represent itself (rather than be represented by the Solicitor General)? In how many instances has the DOJ or FTC reneged on a clearance agreement with the other agency? In how many of these instances was the disruption created by (a) the FTC’s decision to renege on the agreement; and (b) the DOJ’s decision to renege on the agreement? How many amicus briefs did each agency file in each year? How many of the total amicus briefs filed by DOJ were done so at the invitation of the court? How many of the total amicus briefs filed by FTC were done so at the invitation of the court?

With respect to the FCC, the package provides $376 million and requires a host of programmatic responses, including:

  • Broadband Maps.—The Committee provides significant funding for upfront costs associated with implementation of the Broadband DATA Act. The Committee anticipates funding related to the Broadband DATA Act will decline considerably in future years and expects the FCC to repurpose a significant amount of staff currently working on economic, wireline, and wireless issues to focus on broadband mapping.
  • Broadband Access.—The Committee believes that deployment of broadband in rural and economically disadvantaged areas is a driver of economic development, jobs, and new educational opportunities. The Committee supports FCC efforts to judiciously allocate Universal Service Fund (USF) funds for these areas.
  • Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.—The Committee appreciates the significant investment the FCC is planning to make to deploy broadband services to unserved areas. The Committee recognizes the need for government programs to minimize instances in which two different providers receive support from two different programs to serve the same location. However, the Committee is concerned that current program rules may have the unintended consequence of discouraging other funding sources from participating in broadband deployment, particularly State-based programs. The Committee directs the FCC to adjust program rules to ensure applicants, and the States in which those applicants would deploy broadband, are not put at a disadvantage when applying for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund based on the State’s proactive, independent investment in broadband.
  • Lifeline Service.—The Committee is concerned that changes to the Lifeline minimum service standards and support levels will adversely impact low-income Americans, including many suffering from economic hardships due to the coronavirus. The Committee directs the FCC to pause implementation of any changes to the currently applicable minimum service standards for Lifeline-supported mobile broadband service and any changes in the current levels of Lifeline support for voice services until the FCC has completed the State of the Lifeline Marketplace Report required by the 2016 Lifeline Order…
  • Mid-Band Spectrum.—The Committee believes that Fifth-Generation (5G) mobile technology is critical to U.S. national and economic security. A key component of the U.S. strategy for 5G is ensuring that U.S. wireless providers have enough mid-band spectrum (frequencies between 3 GHz and 24 GHz), which provides fast data connections while also traveling longer distances. The Committee is concerned that the U.S. is falling behind other countries in the allocation of such spectrum. The Committee urges the Administration and the FCC to work expeditiously to identify and make available more mid-band spectrum for 5G so that the U.S. does not fall further in the race to deploy 5G networks and services.
  • 5G Supply Chain.—The Committee understands the importance of a secure 5G technology supply chain. The Committee encourages the FCC to investigate options for increasing supply chain diversity, competition, and network security via interoperable technologies and open standard-based interfaces.

The Committee had a range of mandates for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

  • Federal and Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity.—The Committee is aware that Federal agencies and the nation’s critical infrastructure face unique cybersecurity threats. Executive Order 13800, issued on May 11, 2017, directs agency heads to implement several risk management and cybersecurity measures, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity. OMB is directed to report, within 90 days of enactment of this Act, on the status of compliance with Executive Order 13800 by each applicable agency. The report shall identify risk management and cybersecurity compliance gaps and outline the steps each agency needs to take to manage such risks. OMB shall prioritize working with the applicable agency heads to address remaining gaps and inconsistencies.
  • Federal Information Technology Workforce.—OMB is directed to consult with the Office of Personnel Management and the General Services Administration and report to the Committee, no later than September 30, 2021, on gaps in Federal information technology workforce skills, disciplines, and experience required to enable the Federal government to modernize its ability to use technology and develop effective citizen-facing digital services to carry out its mission.

The Committee noted its additional funding to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) for Election Security Grants of $500 million:

  • [T]he Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) (P.L. 116–136) included $400,000,000 for grants to States to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The Committee is gravely concerned by persistent threats from Russia and other foreign actors attempting to influence the U.S. democratic process, and vulnerabilities that continue to exist throughout the Nation’s election system.
  • Since fiscal year 2018, Congress has provided $805,000,000 in grants to States to improve the security of elections for Federal office.
  • However, that funding has been inconsistent, unpredictable, and insufficient to meet the vast need across all the States and territories.
  • Congress must provide a consistent, steady source of Federal funds to support State and local election officials on the frontlines of protecting U.S. elections. The bill requires States to use payments to replace direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machines with voting systems that require the use of an individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballot, marked by the voter by hand or through the use of a non-tabulating ballot marking device or system, and made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the vote is cast and counted.
  • Funds shall only be available to a State or local election jurisdiction for further election security improvements after a State has submitted a certification to the EAC that all DRE voting machines have been or are in the process of being replaced. Funds shall be available to States for the following activities to improve the security of elections for Federal office:
    • implementing a post-election, risk-limiting audit system that provides a high level of confidence in the accuracy of the final vote tally;
    • maintaining or upgrading election-related computer systems, including voter registration systems, to address cyber vulnerabilities identified through DHS scans or similar assessments of existing election systems;
    • facilitating cyber and risk mitigation training for State and local election officials;
    • implementing established cybersecurity best practices for election systems; and other priority activities and
    • investments identified by the EAC, in consultation with DHS, to improve election security.
  • The EAC shall define in the Notice of Grant Award the eligible investments and activities for which grant funds may be used by the States. The EAC shall review all proposed investments to ensure funds are used for the purposes set forth in the Notice of Grant Award.
  • The bill also requires that not less than 50 percent of the payment made to a State be allocated in cash or in kind to local government entities responsible for the administration of elections for Federal office.

Regarding the General Services Administration (GSA), the Committee directed the following:

  • Interagency Task Force on Health and Human Services Information Technology (IT).— The Committee urges the Chief Information Office and Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of HHS, in collaboration with the White House CTO and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), as well as the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) within HHS, 18F within the GSA, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure security Agency (CISA) within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to establish an interagency task force that will examine existing IT infrastructure in Federal health human service programs nationwide and identify the limitations to successfully integrating and modernizing health and human services IT, and the network security necessary for health and human services IT interoperability. The task force shall submit to the Committee within 180 days of enactment on this Act a report on its progress and on recommendations for further Congressional action, which should include estimated costs for agencies to make progress on interoperability initiatives.
  • Category Management.—The Committee is interested in understanding the effects of GSA’s category management policy on contracts with small businesses. Category management refers to the business practice of buying common goods and services as an enterprise to eliminate redundancies, increase efficiency, and deliver more value and savings from the Federal government’s acquisition programs. Within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, the Committee directs GSA, in cooperation with SBA, to submit a report to the Committee on the number of contracts that could have been awarded under sections 8(a), 8(m), 15(a), 15(j), 31, or 36 of the Small Business Act, but were exempted by category management since its implementation.

The Committee made the following recommendations generally:

  • Cyberspace Solarium Commission Recommendations.—The Committee recognizes and supports the priorities and recommendations laid out in the Cyberspace Solarium Commission’s report and urges Federal departments and agencies to align cybersecurity budgetary priorities with those laid out by the Commission. In particular, the Committee calls attention to recommendation 3.2, Develop and Maintain Continuity of the Economy Planning; recommendation 4.6.3, Strengthen the Capacity of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, particularly with respect to the need to train Federal bankruptcy judges; recommendation 3.4, Improve and Enhance the Funding of the Election Assistance Commission; and recommendation 3.1, Strengthen Sector-specific Agencies’ Ability to Manage Critical Infrastructure Risk, particularly with respect to the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection.
  • Zero Trust Model.—The Committee is aware that the most effective cybersecurity systems are based on the zero trust model, which is designed not only to prevent cyber intrusions but to prevent cyberthieves from accessing or removing protected information. To ensure that Federal agencies achieve the highest level of security against cyberattacks in the shortest amount of time, the Committee encourages all agencies to acquire and deploy zero trust cybersecurity software that is compatible with all existing operating systems and hardware platforms used by Federal agencies. The Committee also encourages Federal agencies to acquire and utilize software compatible with all existing operating systems and hardware platforms that will enable agencies to measure or quantify their risk of a cybersecurity attack in the months ahead and the types of cyberattack the agency is most likely to experience. Upon learning the risk and type of cyberattack the agency is most likely to face, the agency shall immediately take remedial action to minimize such risk. Agencies shall include information in their fiscal year 2022 Congressional Justification to Congress on their progress in complying with this directive.

FY 2021 Department of Defense Appropriations Act

On 14 July, the House Appropriations Committee marked up and reported out the “FY 2021 Department of Defense Appropriations Act,” which would provide $695 billion for the Department of Defense (DOD), “an increase of $1,294,992,000 above the fiscal year 2020 enacted level and a decrease of $3,695,880,000 below the budget request.”

The Committee Report contained these technology-related provisions:

  • ZERO TRUST ARCHITECTURE. The Committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to implement a Zero Trust Architecture to increase its cybersecurity posture and enhance the Department’s ability to protect its systems and data.
  • DISTRIBUTED LEDGER TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. The Committee is aware that distributed ledger technologies, such as blockchain, may have potentially useful applications for the Department of Defense, which include but are not limited to distributed computing, cybersecurity, logistics, and auditing. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Under Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering) to consider research and development to explore the use of distributed ledger technologies for defense applications.
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PARTNERSHIPS. The Committee is aware of the United States-Singapore partnership focusing on applying artificial intelligence in support of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations, which will help first responders better serve those in disaster zones. The Committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to pursue similar partnerships with additional partners in different regions, including the Middle East.
  • CYBER EDUCATION COLLABORATIVES. The Committee remains concerned by widespread shortages in cybersecurity talent across both the public and private sector. In accordance with the recommendations of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, the Committee encourages the Under Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering) to direct cyber-oriented units to collaborate with local colleges and universities on research, fellowships, internships, and cooperative work experiences to expand cyber-oriented education opportunities and grow the cybersecurity workforce. The Committee also appreciates that veterans and transitioning servicemembers could serve as a valuable recruiting pool to fill gaps in the cybersecurity workforce. Accordingly, the Committee encourages the Under Secretary to prioritize collaboration with colleges and universities near military installations as well as the veteran population.
  • 5G TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY. The Committee is concerned about reports that foreign manufacturers are significantly ahead of United States companies in the development and deployment of 5G telecommunications technologies, which poses a national security risk to the United States and its allies. Without a robust domestic 5G supply chain, the United States will be vulnerable to 5G systems that facilitate cyber intrusion from hostile actors. In order to secure a reliable 5G system and a domestic supply chain that meets the national security needs of the United States and its allies, the Committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to accelerate engagement with domestic industry partners that are developing 5G systems. Additionally, the Committee is aware of the significant investments being made in 5G efforts but is concerned with the level of detail provided for congressional oversight. The Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering) to conduct quarterly execution briefings with the House and Senate Appropriations Committees beginning not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act.
  • MILITARY INFORMATION SUPPORT OPERATIONS. Over the past decade, the bulk of activities under Military Information Support Operations (MISO) focused on countering violent extremist organizations (VEO). While VEOs remain an ongoing threat and require continued vigilance, peer and near-peer adversaries like China and Russia are using social media and other vectors to weaken domestic and international institutions and undermine United States interests. This new information environment and the difficulty of discriminating between real and fake information heightens the importance of enhancing and coordinating United States government information-related capabilities as a tool of diplomatic and military strategy.
  • The Committee recognizes the efforts and accomplishments of the United States Special Operations Command and other agencies within the executive branch to operate in the digital domain. However, it is difficult to view individual agency activities as a coordinated whole of government effort. Over the past several years, the classified annex accompanying annual Department of Defense Appropriations Acts included direction focusing on the individual activities of geographic combatant commands. However, information messaging strategies to counter Chinese and Russian malign influences cuts across these geographic boundaries and requires coordination between multiple government agencies using different authorities.
  • Therefore, in order to better understand how MISO activities support a whole of government messaging strategy, the Committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict) to submit a report for MISO activities for the individual geographic combatant commands justified by the main pillars of the National Defense Strategy to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees not later than 15 days after submission of the fiscal year 2022 budget request and annually thereafter. The report shall include spend plans identifying the requested and enacted funding levels for both voice and internet activities and how those activities are coordinated with the Intelligence Community and the Department of State. The enacted levels will serve as the baseline for reprogramming in accordance with section 8007 of this Act. Furthermore, the Committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict) to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, an annual report that provides details on each combatant commands’ MISO activities by activity name, description, goal or objective, target audience, dissemination means, executed funds, and assessments of their effectiveness. Additional details for the report are included in the classified annex accompanying this Act.

FY 2021 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Act

Also on 14 July, the “FY 2021 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Act” was also marked up and reported out and its Committee Report contains these provisions:

  • Cybersecurity Threats.—The Committee remains concerned that as the Census Bureau looks to modernize data collection methods, the Census Bureau could potentially be exploited by nefarious actors who seek to undermine the integrity of census data, which is vital to democratic institutions, and gain access to sensitive information otherwise protected by law. These threats include both hacking into the Census Bureau IT infrastructure and efforts to use supercomputing to unmask the privacy of census respondents. The Committee directs the Census Bureau to prioritize cyber protections and high standards of data differential privacy, while also maintaining the accuracy of the data, and expects the Census Bureau to update the Committee regularly on these efforts.
  • Cybersecurity and Privacy.—The proliferation of data generation, storage, and usage associated with the digital economy is making it increasingly important to protect that data with effective cryptography and privacy standards. The Committee is concerned that individual, corporate, and public-sector data privacy is continuously at risk from attacks by individual actors, criminal organization, and nation-states. The Committee urges NIST to address the rapidly emerging threats in this field by furthering the development of new and needed cryptographic standards and technologies.
  • National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education.—The Committee notes with concern the shortage of cybersecurity professionals across the government and private sector, from entry level applicants to experienced professionals. The Committee therefore supports the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) and directs NIST to provide resources commensurate with the prior fiscal year for this effort.
  • Cybersecurity Conformity Assessment Programs.—The Committee instructs NIST, in collaboration with other relevant organizations, to report to the Committee no later than 270 days after the enactment of this Act on challenges and approaches to establishing and managing voluntary cybersecurity conformity assessment programs for information and communication technologies including federal cloud technologies.
  • Cybersecurity Training.—Within the increase to Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), the Committee directs NIST to maintain the core services of the MEP and encourages NIST to utilize existing expertise within its Information Technology Laboratory to increase cybersecurity technical training to small manufacturers to strengthen their cybersecurity capabilities given the troubling threats from state and non-state actors and other emerging threats.
  • Cybersecurity threat information sharing.—The Committee supports sharing by DOJ of cybersecurity threat warnings and intelligence with private companies who may benefit from actionable information to deter, prevent, or mitigate threats. The Committee asks DOJ to provide a briefing on this topic not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act.
  • Chinese-government affiliated companies.—The Committee is concerned with companies operating within the United States that are known to have substantial ties to the Chinese government, including full or partial ownership by the Chinese government, and that are required by Chinese law to assist in espionage activities, including collection of personally identifiable information of American citizens. Such companies may pose cybersecurity risks, such as vulnerabilities in their equipment, and some are the subject of ongoing Congressional and Executive Branch investigations involving their business practices. The Committee directs DOJ to enforce applicable laws and prevent the operation of known foreign entities who participate in the theft of American intellectual property, the harvesting of personal identifiable information on behalf of a foreign government, and the unlawful surveillance of American citizens by adversarial state-owned enterprises.

© 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.

Further Reading and Other Developments (17 July)

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

Speaking of which, the Technology Policy Update is being published daily during the week, and here are the Other Developments and Further Reading from this week.

Other Developments

  • Acting Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Marco Rubio (R-FL), Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Jim Risch (R-ID), and Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and John Cornyn (R-TX) wrote Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Secretary of Defense Mike Esper “to ask that the Administration take immediate measures to bring the most advanced digital semiconductor manufacturing capabilities to the United States…[which] are critical to our American economic and national security and while our nation leads in the design of semiconductors, we rely on international manufacturing for advanced semiconductor fabrication.” This letter follows the Trump Administration’s May announcement that the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (TSMC) agreed to build a $12 billion plant in Arizona. It also bears note that one of the amendments pending to the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021“ (S.4049) would establish a grants program to stimulate semiconductor manufacturing in the US.
  • Senators Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) sent a letter to Facebook “regarding its failure to prevent the propagation of white supremacist groups online and its role in providing such groups with the organizational infrastructure and reach needed to expand.” They also “criticized Facebook for being unable or unwilling to enforce its own Community Standards and purge white supremacist and other violent extremist content from the site” and posed “a series of questions regarding Facebook’s policies and procedures against hate speech, violence, white supremacy and the amplification of extremist content.”
  • The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) published the Pipeline Cyber Risk Mitigation Infographic that was “[d]eveloped in coordination with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)…[that] outlines activities that pipeline owners/operators can undertake to improve their ability to prepare for, respond to, and mitigate against malicious cyber threats.”
  • Representative Kendra Horn (D-OK) and 10 other Democrats introduced legislation “requiring the U.S. government to identify, analyze, and combat efforts by the Chinese government to exploit the COVID-19 pandemic” that was endorsed by “[t]he broader Blue Dog Coalition” according to their press release. The “Preventing China from Exploiting COVID-19 Act” (H.R.7484) “requires the Director of National Intelligence—in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland Security—to prepare an assessment of the different ways in which the Chinese government has exploited or could exploit the pandemic, which originated in China, in order to advance China’s interests and to undermine the interests of the United States, its allies, and the rules-based international order.” Horn and her cosponsors stated “[t]he assessment must be provided to Congress within 90 days and posted in unclassified form on the DNI’s website.”
  • The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the “Genetic Non-Discrimination Act” and denied a challenge to the legality of the statute brought by the government of Quebec, the Attorney General of Canada, and others. The court found:
    • The pith and substance of the challenged provisions is to protect individuals’ control over their detailed personal information disclosed by genetic tests, in the broad areas of contracting and the provision of goods and services, in order to address Canadians’ fears that their genetic test results will be used against them and to prevent discrimination based on that information. This matter is properly classified within Parliament’s power over criminal law. The provisions are supported by a criminal law purpose because they respond to a threat of harm to several overlapping public interests traditionally protected by the criminal law — autonomy, privacy, equality and public health.
  • The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission published a report “analyzing the evolution of U.S. multinational enterprises (MNE) operations in China from 2000 to 2017.” The Commission found MNE’s operations in the People’s Republic of China “may indirectly erode the  United  States’  domestic industrial competitiveness  and  technological  leadership relative  to  China” and “as U.S. MNE activity in China increasingly focuses on the production of high-end technologies, the risk  that  U.S.  firms  are  unwittingly enabling China to  achieve  its industrial  policy and  military  development objectives rises.”
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Huawei filed their final briefs in their lawsuit before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit arising from the FCC’s designation of Huawei as a “covered company” for purposes of a rule that denies Universal Service Funds (USF) “to purchase or obtain any equipment or services produced or provided by a covered company posing a national security threat to the integrity of communications networks or the communications supply chain.” Huawei claimed in its brief that “[t]he rulemaking and “initial designation” rest on the FCC’s national security judgments..[b]ut such judgments fall far afield of the FCC’s statutory  authority  and  competence.” Huawei also argued “[t]he USF rule, moreover, contravenes the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause.” The FCC responded in its filing that “Huawei challenges the FCC’s decision to exclude carriers whose networks are vulnerable to foreign interference, contending that the FCC has neither statutory nor constitutional authority to make policy judgments involving “national security”…[but] [t]hese arguments are premature, as Huawei has not yet been injured by the Order.” The FCC added “Huawei’s claim that the Communications Act textually commits all policy determinations with national security implications to the President is demonstrably false.”
  • European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) Wojciech Wiewiórowski released his Strategy for 2020-2024, “which will focus on Digital Solidarity.” Wiewiórowski explained that “three core pillars of the EDPS strategy outline the guiding actions and objectives for the organisation to the end of 2024:
    • Foresight: The EDPS will continue to monitor legal, social and technological advances around the world and engage with experts, specialists and data protection authorities to inform its work.
    • Action: To strengthen the EDPS’ supervision, enforcement and advisory roles the EDPS will promote coherence in the activities of enforcement bodies in the EU and develop tools to assist the EU institutions, bodies and agencies to maintain the highest standards in data protection.
    • Solidarity: While promoting digital justice and privacy for all, the EDPS will also enforce responsible and sustainable data processing, to positively impact individuals and maximise societal benefits in a just and fair way.
  • Facebook released a Civil Rights Audit, an “investigation into Facebook’s policies and practices began in 2018 at the behest and encouragement of the civil rights community and some members of Congress.” Those charged with conducting the audit explained that they “vigorously advocated for more and would have liked to see the company go further to address civil rights concerns in a host of areas that are described in detail in the report” including but not limited to
    • A stronger interpretation of its voter suppression policies — an interpretation that makes those policies effective against voter suppression and prohibits content like the Trump voting posts — and more robust and more consistent enforcement of those policies leading up to the US 2020 election.
    • More visible and consistent prioritization of civil rights in company decision-making overall.
    • More resources invested to study and address organized hate against Muslims, Jews and other targeted groups on the platform.
    • A commitment to go beyond banning explicit references to white separatism and white nationalism to also prohibit express praise, support and representation of white separatism and white nationalism even where the terms themselves are not used.
    • More concrete action and specific commitments to take steps to address concerns about algorithmic bias or discrimination.
    • They added that “[t]his report outlines a number of positive and consequential steps that the company has taken, but at this point in history, the Auditors are concerned that those gains could be obscured by the vexing and heartbreaking decisions Facebook has made that represent significant setbacks for civil rights.”
  • The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) released a white paper titled “The Role of AI Technology in Pandemic Response and Preparedness” that “outlines a series of investments and initiatives that the United States must undertake to realize the full potential of AI to secure our nation against pandemics.” NSCAI noted its previous two white papers:
  • Secretary of Defense Mark Esper announced that Chief Technology Officer Michael J.K. Kratsios has “been designated to serve as Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering” even though he does not have a degree in science. The last Under Secretary held a PhD. However, Kratsios worked for venture capitalist Peter Thiel who backed President Donald Trump when he ran for office in 2016.
  • The United States’ Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued research “to develop a cyber security risk analysis methodology for communications-based connected railroad technologies…[and] [t]he use-case-specific implementation of the methodology can identify potential cyber attack threats, system vulnerabilities, and consequences of the attack– with risk assessment and identification of promising risk mitigation strategies.”
  • In a blog post, a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) economist asserted cybercrime may be having a much larger impact on the United States’ economy than previously thought:
    • In a recent NIST report, I looked at losses in the U.S. manufacturing industry due to cybercrime by examining an underutilized dataset from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which is the most statistically reliable data that I can find. I also extended this work to look at the losses in all U.S. industries. The data is from a 2005 survey of 36,000 businesses with 8,079 responses, which is also by far the largest sample that I could identify for examining aggregated U.S. cybercrime losses. Using this data, combined with methods for examining uncertainty in data, I extrapolated upper and lower bounds, putting 2016 U.S. manufacturing losses to be between 0.4% and 1.7% of manufacturing value-added or between $8.3 billion and $36.3 billion. The losses for all industries are between 0.9% and 4.1% of total U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), or between $167.9 billion and $770.0 billion. The lower bound is 40% higher than the widely cited, but largely unconfirmed, estimates from McAfee.
  • The Government Accountability Office (GAO) advised the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that it needs a comprehensive strategy for implementing 5G across the United States. The GAO concluded
    • FCC has taken a number of actions regarding 5G deployment, but it has not clearly developed specific and measurable performance goals and related measures–with the involvement of relevant stakeholders, including National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)–to manage the spectrum demands associated with 5G deployment. This makes FCC unable to demonstrate whether the progress being made in freeing up spectrum is achieving any specific goals, particularly as it relates to congested mid-band spectrum. Additionally, without having established specific and measurable performance goals with related strategies and measures for mitigating 5G’s potential effects on the digital divide, FCC will not be able to assess the extent to which its actions are addressing the digital divide or what actions would best help all Americans obtain access to wireless networks.
  • The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued “Time Guidance for Network Operators, Chief Information Officers, and Chief Information Security Officers” “to inform public and private sector organizations, educational institutions, and government agencies on time resilience and security practices in enterprise networks and systems…[and] to address gaps in available time testing practices, increasing awareness of time-related system issues and the linkage between time and cybersecurity.”
  • Fifteen Democratic Senators sent a letter to the Department of Defense, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), and U.S. Cyber Command, urging them “to take additional measures to fight influence campaigns aimed at disenfranchising voters, especially voters of color, ahead of the 2020 election.” They called on these agencies to take “additional measures:”
    • The American people and political candidates are promptly informed about the targeting of our political processes by foreign malign actors, and that the public is provided regular periodic updates about such efforts leading up to the general election.
    • Members of Congress and congressional staff are appropriately and adequately briefed on continued findings and analysis involving election related foreign disinformation campaigns and the work of each agency and department to combat these campaigns.
    • Findings and analysis involving election related foreign disinformation campaigns are shared with civil society organizations and independent researchers to the maximum extent which is appropriate and permissible.
    • Secretary Esper and Director Ratcliffe implement a social media information sharing and analysis center (ISAC) to detect and counter information warfare campaigns across social media platforms as authorized by section 5323 of the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act.
    • Director Ratcliffe implement the Foreign Malign Influence Response Center to coordinate a whole of government approach to combatting foreign malign influence campaigns as authorized by section 5322 of the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act.
  • The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) unveiled an issue brief “Why New Calls to Subvert Commercial Encryption Are Unjustified” arguing “that government efforts to subvert encryption would negatively impact individuals and businesses.” ITIF offered these “key takeaways:”
    • Encryption gives individuals and organizations the means to protect the confidentiality of their data, but it has interfered with law enforcement’s ability to prevent and investigate crimes and foreign threats.
    • Technological advances have long frustrated some in the law enforcement community, giving rise to multiple efforts to subvert commercial use of encryption, from the Clipper Chip in the 1990s to the San Bernardino case two decades later.
    • Having failed in these prior attempts to circumvent encryption, some law enforcement officials are now calling on Congress to invoke a “nuclear option”: legislation banning “warrant-proof” encryption.
    • This represents an extreme and unjustified measure that would do little to take encryption out of the hands of bad actors, but it would make commercial products less secure for ordinary consumers and businesses and damage U.S. competitiveness.
  • The White House released an executive order in which President Donald Trump determined “that the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) is no longer sufficiently autonomous to justify differential treatment in relation to the People’s Republic of China (PRC or China) under the particular United States laws and provisions thereof set out in this order.” Trump further determined “the situation with respect to Hong Kong, including recent actions taken by the PRC to fundamentally undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States…[and] I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to that threat.” The executive order would continue the Administration’s process of changing policy to ensure Hong Kong is treated the same as the PRC.
  • President Donald Trump also signed a bill passed in response to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) passing legislation the United States and other claim will strip Hong Kong of the protections the PRC agreed to maintain for 50 years after the United Kingdom (UK) handed over the city. The “Hong Kong Autonomy Act” “requires the imposition of sanctions on Chinese individuals and banks who are included in an annual State Department list found to be subverting Hong Kong’s autonomy” according to the bill’s sponsor Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA).
  • Representative Stephen Lynch, who chairs House Oversight and Reform Committee’s National Security Subcommittee, sent letters to Apple and Google “after the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) confirmed that mobile applications developed, operated, or owned by foreign entities, including China and Russia, could potentially pose a national security risk to American citizens and the United States” according to his press release. He noted in letters sent by the technology companies to the Subcommittee that:
    • Apple confirmed that it does not require developers to submit “information on where user data (if any such data is collected by the developer’s app) will be housed” and that it “does not decide what user data a third-party app can access, the user does.”
    • Google stated that it does “not require developers to provide the countries in which their mobile applications will house user data” and acknowledged that “some developers, especially those with a global user base, may store data in multiple countries.”
    • Lynch is seeking “commitments from Apple and Google to require information from application developers about where user data is stored, and to make users aware of that information prior to downloading the application on their mobile devices.”
  • Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison announced a settlement with Frontier Communications that “concludes the three major investigations and lawsuits that the Attorney General’s office launched into Minnesota’s major telecoms providers for deceptive, misleading, and fraudulent practices.” The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) stated
    • Based on its investigation, the Attorney General’s Office alleged that Frontier used a variety of deceptive and misleading practices to overcharge its customers, such as: billing customers more than they were quoted by Frontier’s agents; failing to disclose fees and surcharges in its sales presentations and advertising materials; and billing customers for services that were not delivered.
    • The OAG “also alleged that Frontier sold Minnesotans expensive internet services with so-called “maximum speed” ratings that were not attainable, and that Frontier improperly advertised its service as “reliable,” when in fact it did not provide enough bandwidth for customers to consistently receive their expected service.”
  • The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) issued guidelines “on the criteria of the Right to be Forgotten in the search engines cases under the GDPR” that “focuses solely on processing by search engine providers and delisting requests  submitted by data subjects” even Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation applies to all data controllers. The EDPB explained “This paper is divided into two topics:
    • The first topic concerns the grounds a data subject can rely on for a delisting request sent to a search engine provider pursuant to Article 17.1 GDPR.
    • The second topic concerns the exceptions to the Right to request delisting according to Article 17.3 GDPR.
  • The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) “is seeking views on draft Rules and accompanying draft Privacy Impact Assessment that authorise third parties who are accredited at the ‘unrestricted’ level to collect Consumer Data Right (CDR) data on behalf of another accredited person.” The ACCC explained “[t]his will allow accredited persons to utilise other accredited parties to collect CDR data and provide other services that facilitate the provision of goods and services to consumers.” In a March explanatory statement, the ACCC stated “[t]he CDR is an economy-wide reform that will apply sector-by-sector, starting with the banking sector…[and] [t]he objective of the CDR is to provide individual and business consumers (consumers) with the ability to efficiently and conveniently access specified data held about them by businesses (data holders), and to authorise the secure disclosure of that data to third parties (accredited data recipients) or to themselves.” The ACCC noted “[t]he CDR is regulated by both the ACCC and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) as it concerns both competition and consumer matters as well as the privacy and confidentiality of consumer data.” Input is due by 20 July.
  • Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of the Interior (Interior) found that even though the agency spends $1.4 billion annually on cybersecurity “[g]uarding against increasing cybersecurity threats” remains one of Interior’s top challenges. The OIG asserted Interior “continues to struggle to implement an enterprise information technology (IT) security program that balances compliance, cost, and risk while enabling bureaus to meet their diverse missions.”
  • In a summary of its larger investigation into “Security over Information Technology Peripheral Devices at Select Office of Science Locations,” the Department of Energy’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) that “identified weaknesses related to access controls and configuration settings” for peripheral devices (e.g. thumb drives, printers, scanners and other connected devices)  “similar in type to those identified in prior evaluations of the Department’s unclassified cybersecurity program.”
  • The House Homeland Security Committee’s Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation Subcommittee Ranking Member John Katko (R-NY) “a comprehensive national cybersecurity improvement package” according to his press release, consisting of these bills:
    • The “Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director and Assistant Directors Act:”  This bipartisan measure takes steps to improve guidance and long-term strategic planning by stabilizing the CISA Director and Assistant Directors positions. Specifically, the bill:
      • Creates a 5-year term for the CISA Director, with a limit of 2 terms. The term of office for the current Director begins on date the Director began to serve.
      • Elevates the Director to the equivalent of a Deputy Secretary and Military Service Secretaries.
      • Depoliticizes the Assistant Director positions, appointed by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), categorizing them as career public servants. 
    • The “Strengthening the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2020:” This measure mandates a comprehensive review of CISA in an effort to strengthen its operations, improve coordination, and increase oversight of the agency. Specifically, the bill:
      • Requires CISA to review how additional appropriations could be used to support programs for national risk management, federal information systems management, and public-private cybersecurity and integration. It also requires a review of workforce structure and current facilities and projected needs. 
      • Mandates that CISA provides a report to the House and Senate Homeland Committees within 1-year of enactment. CISA must also provide a report and recommendations to GSA on facility needs. 
      • Requires GSA to provide a review to the Administration and House and Senate Committees on CISA facilities needs within 30-days of Congressional report. 
    • The “CISA Public-Private Talent Exchange Act:” This bill requires CISA to create a public-private workforce program to facilitate the exchange of ideas, strategies, and concepts between federal and private sector cybersecurity professionals. Specifically, the bill:
      • Establishes a public-private cyber exchange program allowing government and industry professionals to work in one another’s field.
      • Expands existing private outreach and partnership efforts. 
  • The Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is ordering United States federal civilian agencies “to apply the July 2020 Security Update for Windows Servers running DNS (CVE-2020-1350), or the temporary registry-based workaround if patching is not possible within 24 hours.” CISA stated “[t]he software update addresses a significant vulnerability where a remote attacker could exploit it to take control of an affected system and run arbitrary code in the context of the Local System Account.” CISA Director Christopher Krebs explained “due to the wide prevalence of Windows Server in civilian Executive Branch agencies, I’ve determined that immediate action is necessary, and federal departments and agencies need to take this remote code execution vulnerability in Windows Server’s Domain Name System (DNS) particularly seriously.”
  • The United States (US) Department of State has imposed “visa restrictions on certain employees of Chinese technology companies that provide material support to regimes engaging in human rights abuses globally” that is aimed at Huawei. In its statement, the Department stated “Companies impacted by today’s action include Huawei, an arm of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surveillance state that censors political dissidents and enables mass internment camps in Xinjiang and the indentured servitude of its population shipped all over China.” The Department claimed “[c]ertain Huawei employees provide material support to the CCP regime that commits human rights abuses.”
  • Earlier in the month, the US Departments of State, Treasury, Commerce, and of Homeland Security issued an “advisory to highlight the harsh repression in Xinjiang.” The agencies explained
    • Businesses, individuals, and other persons, including but not limited to academic institutions, research service providers, and investors (hereafter “businesses and individuals”), that choose to operate in Xinjiang or engage with entities that use labor from Xinjiang elsewhere in China should be aware of reputational, economic, and, in certain instances, legal, risks associated with certain types of involvement with entities that engage in human rights abuses, which could include Withhold Release Orders (WROs), civil or criminal investigations, and export controls.
  • The United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), Canada’s Communications  Security Establishment (CSE), United States’ National Security Agency (NSA) and the United States’ Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security  Agency (CISA) issued a joint advisory on a Russian hacking organization’s efforts have “targeted various organisations involved in COVID-19 vaccine development in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, highly likely with the intention of stealing information and intellectual property relating to the development and testing of COVID-19 vaccines.” The agencies named APT29 (also known as ‘the Dukes’ or ‘Cozy Bear’), “a cyber espionage group, almost certainly part of the Russian intelligence services,” as the culprit behind “custom malware known as ‘WellMess’ and ‘WellMail.’”
    • This alert follows May advisories issued by Australia, the US, and the UK on hacking threats related to the pandemic. Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) issued “Advisory 2020-009: Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) actors targeting Australian health sector organisations and COVID-19 essential services” that asserted “APT groups may be seeking information and intellectual property relating to vaccine development, treatments, research and responses to the outbreak as this information is now of higher value and priority globally.” CISA and NCSC issued a joint advisory for the healthcare sector, especially companies and entities engaged in fighting COVID-19. The agencies stated that they have evidence that Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups “are exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic as part of their cyber operations.” In an unclassified public service announcement, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and CISA named the People’s Republic of China as a nation waging a cyber campaign against U.S. COVID-19 researchers. The agencies stated they “are issuing this announcement to raise awareness of the threat to COVID-19-related research.”
  • The National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) has released a draft National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) for comment due by 28 August. Draft NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-181 Revision 1, Workforce Framework for Cybersecurity (NICE Framework) that features several updates, including:
    • an updated title to be more inclusive of the variety of workers who perform cybersecurity work,
    • definition and normalization of key terms,
    • principles that facilitate agility, flexibility, interoperability, and modularity,
    • introduction of competencies,
  • Representatives Glenn Thompson (R-PA), Collin Peterson (D-MN), and James Comer (R-KY) sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “questioning the Commission’s April 20, 2020 Order granting Ligado’s application to deploy a terrestrial nationwide network to provide 5G services.”
  • The European Commission (EC) is asking for feedback on part of its recently released data strategy by 31 July. The EC stated it is aiming “to create a single market for data, where data from public bodies, business and citizens can be used safely and fairly for the common good…[and] [t]his initiative will draw up rules for common European data spaces (covering areas like the environment, energy and agriculture) to:
    • make better use of publicly held data for research for the common good
    • support voluntary data sharing by individuals
    • set up structures to enable key organisations to share data.
  • The United Kingdom’s Parliament is asking for feedback on its legislative proposal to regulate Internet of Things (IoT) devices. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport explained “the obligations within the government’s proposed legislative framework would fall mainly on the manufacturer if they are based in the UK, or if not based in the UK, on their UK representative.” The Department is also “developing an enforcement approach with relevant stakeholders to identify an appropriate enforcement body to be granted day to day responsibility and operational control of monitoring compliance with the legislation.” The Department also touted the publishing of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute’s (ETSI) “security baseline for Internet-connected consumer devices and provides a basis for future Internet of Things product certification schemes.”
  • Facebook issued a white paper, titled “CHARTING A WAY FORWARD: Communicating Towards People-Centered and Accountable Design About Privacy,” in which the company states its desire to be involved in shaping a United States privacy law (See below for an article on this). Facebook concluded:
    • Facebook recognizes the responsibility we have to make sure that people are informed about the data that we collect, use, and share.
    • That’s why we support globally consistent comprehensive privacy laws and regulations that, among other things, establish people’s basic rights to be informed about how their information is collected, used, and shared, and impose obligations for organizations to do the same, including the obligation to build internal processes that maintain accountability.
    • As improvements to technology challenge historic approaches to effective communications with people about privacy, companies and regulators need to keep up with changing times.
    • To serve the needs of a global community, on both the platforms that exist now and those that are yet to be developed, we want to work with regulators, companies, and other interested third parties to develop new ways of informing people about their data, empowering them to make meaningful choices, and holding ourselves accountable.
    • While we don’t have all the answers, there are many opportunities for businesses and regulators to embrace modern design methods, new opportunities for better collaboration, and innovative ways to hold organizations accountable.
  • Four Democratic Senators sent Facebook a letter “about reports that Facebook has created fact-checking exemptions for people and organizations who spread disinformation about the climate crisis on its social media platform” following a New York Times article this week on the social media’s practices regarding climate disinformation. Even though the social media giant has moved aggressively to take down false and inaccurate COVID-19 posts, climate disinformation lives on the social media platform largely unmolested for a couple of reasons. First, Facebook marks these sorts of posts as opinion and take the approach that opinions should be judged under an absolutist free speech regime. Moreover, Facebook asserts posts of this sort do not pose any imminent harm and therefore do not need to be taken down. Despite having teams of fact checkers to vet posts of demonstrably untrue information, Facebook chooses not to, most likely because material that elicits strong reactions from users drive engagement that, in turn, drives advertising dollars. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-WA), Tom Carper (D-DE), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) argued “[i]f Facebook is truly “committed to fighting the spread of false news on Facebook and Instagram,” the company must immediately acknowledge in its fact-checking process that the climate crisis is not a matter of opinion and act to close loopholes that allow climate disinformation to spread on its platform.” They posed a series of questions to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on these practices, requesting answers by 31 July.
  • A Canadian court has found that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) “admittedly collected information in a manner that is contrary to this foundational commitment and then relied on that information in applying for warrants under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, RSC 1985, c C-23 [CSIS Act]” according to a court summary of its redacted decision. The court further stated “[t]he Service and the Attorney General also admittedly failed to disclose to the Court the Service’s reliance on information that was likely collected unlawfully when seeking warrants, thereby breaching the duty of candour owed to the Court.” The court added “[t]his is not the first time this Court has been faced with a breach of candour involving the Service…[and] [t]he events underpinning this most recent breach were unfolding as recommendations were being implemented by the Service and the Attorney General to address previously identified candour concerns.” CSIS was found to have illegally collected and used metadata in a 2016 case ion its conduct between 2006-2016. In response to the most recent ruling, CSIS is vowing to implement a range of reforms. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) is pledging the same.
  • The United Kingdom’s National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) announced the withdrawal of “[t]he ‘Digital device extraction – information for complainants and witnesses’ form and ‘Digital Processing Notice’ (‘the relevant forms’) circulated to forces in February 2019 [that] are not sufficient for their intended purpose.” In mid-June, the UK’s data protection authority, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) unveiled its “finding that police data extraction practices vary across the country, with excessive amounts of personal data often being extracted, stored, and made available to others, without an appropriate basis in existing data protection law.” This withdrawal was also due, in part, to a late June Court of Appeal decision.  
  • A range of public interest and advocacy organizations sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) noting “there are intense efforts underway to do exactly that, via current language in the House and Senate versions of the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that ultimately seek to reverse the FCC’s recent bipartisan and unanimous approval of Ligado Networks’ regulatory plans.” They urged them “not endorse efforts by the Department of Defense and its allies to veto commercial spectrum authorizations…[and][t]he FCC has proven itself to be the expert agency on resolving spectrum disputes based on science and engineering and should be allowed to do the job Congress authorized it to do.” In late April, the FCC’s “decision authorize[d] Ligado to deploy a low-power terrestrial nationwide network in the 1526-1536 MHz, 1627.5-1637.5 MHz, and 1646.5-1656.5 MHz bands that will primarily support Internet of Things (IoT) services.” The agency argued the order “provides regulatory certainty to Ligado, ensures adjacent band operations, including Global Positioning System (GPS), are sufficiently protected from harmful interference, and promotes more efficient and effective use of [the U.S.’s] spectrum resources by making available additional spectrum for advanced wireless services, including 5G.”
  • The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) rendered his opinion on the European Commission’s White Paper on Artificial Intelligence: a European approach to excellence and trust and recommended the following for the European Union’s (EU) regulation of artificial intelligence (AI):
    • applies both to EU Member States and to EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies;
    • is designed to protect from any negative impact, not only on individuals, but also on communities and society as a whole;
    • proposes a more robust and nuanced risk classification scheme, ensuring any significant potential harm posed by AI applications is matched by appropriate mitigating measures;
    • includes an impact assessment clearly defining the regulatory gaps that it intends to fill.
    • avoids overlap of different supervisory authorities and includes a cooperation mechanism.
    • Regarding remote biometric identification, the EDPS supports the idea of a moratorium on the deployment, in the EU, of automated recognition in public spaces of human features, not only of faces but also of gait, fingerprints, DNA, voice, keystrokes and other biometric or behavioural signals, so that an informed and democratic debate can take place and until the moment when the EU and Member States have all the appropriate safeguards, including a comprehensive legal framework in place to guarantee the proportionality of the respective technologies and systems for the specific use case.
  • The Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), Germany’s domestic security agency, released a summary of its annual report in which it claimed:
    • The Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Republic of Turkey remain the main countries engaged in espionage activities and trying to exert influence on Germany.
    • The ongoing digital transformation and the increasingly networked nature of our society increases the potential for cyber attacks, worsening the threat of cyber espionage and cyber sabotage.
    • The intelligence services of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China in particular carry out cyber espionage activities against German agencies. One of their tasks is to boost their own economies with the help of information gathered by the intelligence services. This type of information-gathering campaign severely threatens the success and development opportunities of German companies.
    • To counteract this threat, Germany has a comprehensive cyber security architecture in place, which is operated by a number of different authorities. The BfV plays a major role in investigating and defending against cyber threats by detecting attacks, attributing them to specific attackers, and using the knowledge gained from this to draw up prevention strategies. The National Cyber Response Centre, in which the BfV plays a key role, was set up to consolidate the co-operation between the competent agencies. The National Cyber Response Centre aims to optimise the exchange of information between state agencies and to improve the co-ordination of protective and defensive measures against potential IT incidents.

Further Reading

  • Trump confirms cyberattack on Russian trolls to deter them during 2018 midterms” – The Washington Post. In an interview with former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, President Donald Trump confirmed he ordered a widely reported retaliatory attack on the Russian Federation’s Internet Research Agency as a means of preventing interference during the 2018 mid-term election. Trump claimed this attack he ordered was the first action the United States took against Russian hacking even though his predecessor warned Russian President Vladimir Putin to stop such activities and imposed sanctions at the end of 2016. The timing of Trump’s revelation is interesting given the ongoing furor over reports of Russian bounties paid to Taliban fighters for killing Americans the Trump Administration may have known of but did little or nothing to stop.
  • Germany proposes first-ever use of EU cyber sanctions over Russia hacking” – Deutsche Welle. Germany is looking to use the European Union’s (EU) cyber sanctions powers against Russia for its alleged 2015 16 GB exfiltration of data from the Bundestag’s systems, including from Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office. Germany has been alleging that Fancy Bear (aka APT28) and Russia’s military secret service GRU carried out the attack. Germany has circulated its case for sanctions to other EU nations and EU leadership. In 2017, the European Council declared “[t]he EU diplomatic response to malicious cyber activities will make full use of measures within the Common Foreign and Security Policy, including, if necessary, restrictive measures…[and] [a] joint EU response to malicious cyber activities would be proportionate to the scope, scale, duration, intensity, complexity, sophistication and impact of the cyber activity.”
  • Wyden Plans Law to Stop Cops From Buying Data That Would Need a Warrant” – VICE. Following on a number of reports that federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies are essentially sidestepping the Fourth Amendment through buying location and other data from people’s smartphones, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) is going to draft legislation that would seemingly close what he, and other civil libertarians, are calling a loophole to the warrant requirement.
  • Amazon Backtracks From Demand That Employees Delete TikTok” – The New York Times. Amazon first instructed its employees to remove ByteDance’s app, TikTok, on 11 July from company devices and then reversed course the same day, claiming the email had been erroneously sent out. The strange episode capped another tumultuous week for ByteDance as the Trump Administration is intensifying pressure in a number of ways on the company which officials claim is subject to the laws of the People’s Republic of China and hence must share information with the government in Beijing. ByteDance counters the app marketed in the United States is through a subsidiary not subject to PRC law. ByteDance also said it would no longer offer the app in Hong Kong after the PRC change in law has extended the PRC’s reach into the former British colony. TikTok was also recently banned in India as part of a larger struggle between India and he PRC. Additionally, the Democratic National Committee warned staff about using the app this week, too.
  • Is it time to delete TikTok? A guide to the rumors and the real privacy risks.” – The Washington Post. A columnist and security specialist found ByteDance’s app vacuums up information from users, but so does Facebook and other similar apps. They scrutinized TikTok’s privacy policy and where the data went, and they could not say with certainty that it goes to and stays on servers in the US and Singapore. 
  • California investigating Google for potential antitrust violations” – Politico. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is going to conduct his own investigation of Google aside and apart from the investigation of the company’s advertising practices being conducted by virtually every other state in the United States. It was unclear why Becerra opted against joining the larger probe launched in September 2019. Of course, the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice is also investigating Google and could file suit as early as this month.
  • How May Google Fight an Antitrust Case? Look at This Little-Noticed Paper” – The New York Times. In a filing with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Google claimed it does not control the online advertising market and it is borne out by a number of indicia that argue against a monopolistic situation. The company is likely to make the same case to the United States’ government in its antitrust inquiry. However, similar arguments did not gain tractions before the European Commission, which levied a €1.49 billion for “breaching EU antitrust rules” in March 2019.
  •  “Who Gets the Banhammer Now?” – The New York Times. This article examines possible motives for the recent wave of action by social media platforms to police a fraction of the extreme and hateful speech activists and others have been asking them to take down for years. This piece makes the argument that social media platforms are businesses and operate as such and expecting them to behave as de facto public squares dedicated to civil political and societal discourse is more or less how we ended up where we are.
  • TikTok goes tit-for-tat in appeal to MPs: ‘stop political football’ – The Australian. ByteDance is lobbying hard in Canberra to talk Ministers of Parliament out of possibly banning TikTok like the United States has said it is considering. While ByteDance claims the data collected on users in Australia is sent to the US or Singapore, some experts are arguing just to maintain and improve the app would necessarily result in some non-People’s Republic of China (PRC) user data making its way back to the PRC. As Australia’s relationship with the PRC has grown more fraught with allegations PRC hackers infiltrated Parliament and the Prime Minister all but saying PRC hackers were targeting hospitals and medical facilities, the government in Canberra could follow India’s lead and ban the app.
  • Calls for inquiry over claims Catalan lawmaker’s phone was targeted” – The Guardian. British and Spanish newspapers are reporting that an official in Catalonia who favors separating the region from Spain may have had his smartphone compromised with industrial grade spyware typically used only by law enforcement and counterterrorism agencies. The President of the Parliament of Catalonia Roger Torrent claims his phone was hacked for domestic political purposes, which other Catalan leaders argued, too. A spokesperson for the Spanish government said “[t]he government has no evidence that the speaker of the Catalan parliament has been the victim of a hack or theft involving his mobile.” However, the University of Toronto’s CitizenLab, the entity that researched and claimed that Israeli firm NSO Group’s spyware was deployed via WhatsApp to spy on a range of journalists, officials, and dissidents, often by their own governments, confirmed that Torrent’s phone was compromised.
  • While America Looks Away, Autocrats Crack Down on Digital News Sites” – The New York Times. The Trump Administration’s combative relationship with the media in the United States may be encouraging other nations to crack down on digital media outlets trying to hold those governments to account.
  •  “How Facebook Handles Climate Disinformation” – The New York Times. Even though the social media giant has moved aggressively to take down false and inaccurate COVID-19 posts, climate disinformation lives on the social media platform largely unmolested for a couple of reasons. First, Facebook marks these sorts of posts as opinion and take the approach that opinions should be judged under an absolutist free speech regime. Moreover, Facebook asserts posts of this sort do not pose any imminent harm and therefore do not need to be taken down. Despite having teams of fact checkers to vet posts of demonstrably untrue information, Facebook chooses not to, most likely because material that elicits strong reactions from users drive engagement that, in turn, drives advertising dollars.
  • Here’s how President Trump could go after TikTok” – The Washington Post. This piece lays out two means the Trump Administration could employ to press ByteDance in the immediate future: use of the May 2019 Executive Order “Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain” or the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States process examining ByteDance of the app Music.ly that became TikTok. Left unmentioned in this article is the possibility of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) examining its 2019 settlement with ByteDance to settle violations of the “Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act” (COPPA).
  • You’re Doomscrolling Again. Here’s How to Snap Out of It.” – The New York Times. If you find yourself endlessly looking through social media feeds, this piece explains why and how you might stop doing so.
  • UK selling spyware and wiretaps to 17 repressive regimes including Saudi Arabia and China” – The Independent. There are allegations that the British government has ignored its own regulations on selling equipment and systems that can be used for surveillance and spying to other governments with spotty human rights records. Specifically, the United Kingdom (UK) has sold £75m to countries non-governmental organizations (NGO) are rated as “not free.” The claims include nations such as the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and others. Not surprisingly, NGOs and the minority Labour party are calling for an investigation and changes.
  • Google sued for allegedly tracking users in apps even after opting out” – c/net. Boies Schiller Flexner filed suit in what will undoubtedly seek to become a class action suit over Google’s alleged continuing to track users even when they turned off tracking features. This follows a suit filed by the same firm against Google in June, claiming its browser Chrome still tracks people when they switch to incognito mode.
  • Secret Trump order gives CIA more powers to launch cyberattacks” – Yahoo! News. It turns out that in addition to signing National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) 13 that revamped and eased offensive cyber operations for the Department of Defense, President Donald Trump signed a presidential finding that has allowed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to launch its own offensive cyber attacks, mainly at Russia and Iran, according to unnamed former United States (US) officials according to this blockbuster story. Now, the decision to commence with an attack is not vetted by the National Security Council; rather, the CIA makes the decision. Consequently, there have been a number of attacks on US adversaries that until now have not been associated with the US. And, the CIA is apparently not informing the National Security Agency or Cyber Command of its operations, raising the risk of US cyber forces working at cross purposes or against one another in cyberspace. Moreover, a recently released report blamed the lax security environment at the CIA for a massive exfiltration of hacking tools released by Wikileaks. 
  • Facebook’s plan for privacy laws? ‘Co-creating’ them with Congress” – Protocol. In concert with the release of a new white paper, Facebook Deputy Chief Privacy Officer Rob Sherman sat for an interview in which he pledged the company’s willingness to work with Congress to co-develop a national privacy law. However, he would not comment on any of the many privacy bills released thus far or the policy contours of a bill Facebook would favor except for advocating for an enhanced notice and consent regime under which people would be better informed about how their data is being used. Sherman also shrugged off suggestions Facebook may not be welcome given its record of privacy violations. Finally, it bears mention that similar efforts by other companies at the state level have not succeeded as of yet. For example, Microsoft’s efforts in Washington state have not borne fruit in the passage of a privacy law.
  • Deepfake used to attack activist couple shows new disinformation frontier” – Reuters. We are at the beginning of a new age of disinformation in which fake photographs and video will be used to wage campaigns against nations, causes, and people. An activist and his wife were accused of being terrorist sympathizers by a university student who apparently was an elaborate ruse for someone or some group looking to defame the couple. Small errors gave away the ruse this time, but advances in technology are likely to make detection all the harder.
  • Biden, billionaires and corporate accounts targeted in Twitter hack” – The Washington Post. Policymakers and security experts were alarmed when the accounts of major figures like Bill Gates and Barack Obama were hacked yesterday by some group seeking to sell bitcoin. They argue Twitter was lucky this time and a more ideologically motivated enemy may seek to cause havoc, say on the United States’ coming election. A number of experts are claiming the penetration of the platform must have been of internal controls for so many high profile accounts to be taken over at the same time.
  • TikTok Enlists Army of Lobbyists as Suspicions Over China Ties Grow” – The New York Times. ByteDance’s payments for lobbying services in Washington doubled between the last quarter of 2019 and thirst quarter of 2020, as the company has retained more than 35 lobbyists to push back against the Trump Administration’s rhetoric and policy changes. The company is fighting against a floated proposal to ban the TikTok app on national security grounds, which would cut the company off from another of its top markets after India banned it and scores of other apps from the People’s Republic of China. Even if the Administration does not bar use of the app in the United States, the company is facing legislation that would ban its use on federal networks and devices that will be acted upon next week by a Senate committee. Moreover, ByteDance’s acquisition of the app that became TikTok is facing a retrospective review of an inter-agency committee for national security considerations that could result in an unwinding of the deal. Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been urged to review ByteDance’s compliance with a 2019 settlement that the company violated regulations protecting the privacy of children that could result in multi-billion dollar liability if wrongdoing is found.
  • Why Google and Facebook Are Racing to Invest in India” – Foreign Policy. With New Delhi banning 59 apps and platforms from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), two American firms have invested in an Indian giant with an eye toward the nearly 500 million Indians not yet online. Reliance Industries’ Jio Platforms have sold stakes to Google and Facebook worth $4.5 billion and $5.7 billion that gives them prized positions as the company looks to expand into 5G and other online ventures. This will undoubtedly give a leg up to the United States’ online giants in vying with competitors to the world’s second most populous nation.
  • “Outright Lies”: Voting Misinformation Flourishes on Facebook” – ProPublica. In this piece published with First Draft, “a global nonprofit that researches misinformation,” an analysis of the most popular claims made about mail voting show that many of them are inaccurate or false, thus violating the platforms terms of services yet Facebook has done nothing to remove them or mark them as inaccurate until this article was being written.
  • Inside America’s Secretive $2 Billion Research Hub” – Forbes. Using contract information obtained through Freedom of Information requests and interviews, light is shined on the little known non-profit MITRE Corporation that has been helping the United States government address numerous technological problems since the late 1950’s. The article uncovers some of its latest, federally funded projects that are raising eyebrows among privacy advocates: technology to life people’s fingerprints from social media pictures, technology to scan and copy Internet of Things (IoT) devices from a distance, a scanner to read a person’s DNA, and others.
  • The FBI Is Secretly Using A $2 Billion Travel Company As A Global Surveillance Tool” – Forbes. In his second blockbuster article in a week, Forbes reporter Thomas Brewster exposes how the United States (US) government is using questionable court orders to gather travel information from the three companies that essentially provide airlines, hotels, and other travel entities with back-end functions with respect to reservations and bookings. The three companies, one of whom, Sabre is a US multinational, have masses of information on you if you have ever traveled, and US law enforcement agencies, namely the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is using a 1789 statute to obtain orders all three companies have to obey for information in tracking suspects. Allegedly, this capability has only been used to track terror suspects but will now reportedly be used for COVID-19 tracking.
  • With Trump CIA directive, the cyber offense pendulum swings too far” – Yahoo! News. Former United States (US) National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard Clarke argues against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) having carte blanche in conducting cyber operations without the review or input of other federal agencies. He suggests that the CIA in particular, and agencies in general, tend to push their authority to the extreme, which in this case could lead to incidents and lasting precedents in cyberspace that may haunt the US. Clarke also intimated that it may have been the CIA and not Israel that launched cyber attacks on infrastructure facilities in Tehran this month and last.

© 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.

Europe’s Highest Court Strikes Down Privacy Shield

The agreement that has been allowing US companies to transfer the personal data of EU residents to the US was found to be invalid under EU law. The EU’s highest court seem to indicate standard contractual clauses, a frequently used means to transfer data, may be acceptable.

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

In the second major ruling from the European Union (EU) this week, earlier today, its highest court invalidated the agreement that has allowed multinational corporations and others to transfer the personal data of EU citizens to the United States (US) for commercial purposes since 2016. The court did not, however, find illegal standard contractual clauses, the means by which many such transfers are occurring. This is the second case an Austrian privacy activist has brought, alleging that Facebook was transferring his personal data into the US in violation of European law because US law, especially surveillance programs, resulted in less protection and fewer rights. The first case resulted in the previous transfer agreement being found illegal, and now this case has resulted in much the same outcome. The import of this ruling is not immediately clear.

Maximillian Schrems filed a complaint against Facebook with the Data Protection Commission (DPC) in 2013, alleging that the company’s transfer of his personal data violated his rights under EU law because of the mass US surveillance revealed by former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden. Ultimately, this case resulted in a 2015 Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling that invalidated the Safe Harbor agreement under which the personal data of EU residents was transferred to the US by commercial concerns. The EU and US executed a follow on agreement, the EU-US Privacy Shield, that was designed to address some of the problems the CJEU turned up, and the US passed a law, the “Judicial Redress Act of 2015” (P.L. 114-126), to provide EU citizens a way to exercise their EU rights in US courts via the “Privacy Act of 1974.”

However, Schrems continued and soon sought to challenge the legality of the European Commission’s signing off on the Privacy Shield agreement, the adequacy decision issued in 2016, and also the use of standard contractual clauses (SCC) by companies for the transfer of personal data to the US. The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) explained in a recent decision on Denmark’s SCC that

  • According to Article 28(3) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the processing by a data processor shall be governed by a contract or other legal act under Union or Member State law that is binding on the processor with regard to the controller, setting out a set of specific aspects to regulate the contractual relationship between the parties. These include the subject-matter and duration of the processing, its nature and purpose, the type of personal data and categories of data subjects, among others.
  • Under Article 28(6) GDPR, without prejudice to an individual contract between the data controller and the data processor, the contract or the other legal act referred in paragraphs (3) and (4) of Article 28 GDPR may be based, wholly or in part on SCCs.

In a summary of its decision, the CJEU explained

The GDPR provides that the transfer of such data to a third country may, in principle, take place only if the third country in question ensures an adequate level of data protection. According to the GDPR, the Commission may find that a third country ensures, by reason of its domestic law or its international commitments, an adequate level of protection. In the absence of an adequacy decision, such transfer may take place only if the personal data exporter established in the EU has provided appropriate safeguards, which may arise, in particular, from standard data protection clauses adopted by the Commission, and if data subjects have enforceable rights and effective legal remedies. Furthermore, the GDPR details the conditions under which such a transfer may take place in the absence of an adequacy decision or appropriate safeguards.

The CJEU found

  • Regarding the level of protection required in respect of such a transfer, the Court holds that the requirements laid down for such purposes by the GDPR concerning appropriate safeguards, enforceable rights and effective legal remedies must be interpreted as meaning that data subjects whose personal data are transferred to a third country pursuant to standard data protection clauses must be afforded a level of protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the EU by the GDPR, read in the light of the Charter. In those circumstances, the Court specifies that the assessment of that level of protection must take into consideration both the contractual clauses agreed between the data exporter established in the EU and the recipient of the transfer established in the third country concerned and, as regards any access by the public authorities of that third country to the data transferred, the relevant aspects of the legal system of that third country.
  • Regarding the supervisory authorities’ obligations in connection with such a transfer, the Court holds that, unless there is a valid Commission adequacy decision, those competent supervisory authorities are required to suspend or prohibit a transfer of personal data to a third country where they take the view, in the light of all the circumstances of that transfer, that the standard data protection clauses are not or cannot be complied with in that country and that the protection of the data transferred that is required by EU law cannot be ensured by other means, where the data exporter established in the EU has not itself suspended or put an end to such a transfer.

The CJEU stated “the limitations on the protection of personal data arising from the domestic law of the US on the access and use by US public authorities of such data transferred from the EU to that third country, which the Commission assessed in [its 2016 adequacy decision], are not circumscribed in a way that satisfies requirements that are essentially equivalent to those required under EU law, by the principle of proportionality, in so far as the surveillance programmes based on those provisions are not limited to what is strictly necessary.”

The CJEU found the process put in place by the US government to handle complaints inadequate. The 2016 Privacy Shield resulted in the creation of an Ombudsman post that EU citizens could submit their complaints. This position is currently held by Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Keith Krach.

The CJEU stated “the Ombudsperson mechanism referred to in that decision does  not  provide  data  subjects with any  cause  of  action  before  a  body  which  offers guarantees substantially equivalent to those required by EU law, such as to ensure both the independence  of  the Ombudsperson  provided  for  by  that  mechanism  and the  existence  of rules  empowering  the  Ombudsperson  to  adopt  decisions  that  are  binding  on  the US intelligence services.”

The decision on SCCs is more ambiguous as it is not entirely clear the circumstances under which they can be used. In its decision, the CJEU made clear that SCCs are not necessarily legal under EU law:

although there are situations in which, depending on the law and practices in force in the third country concerned, the recipient of such a transfer is in a position to guarantee the necessary protection of the data solely on the basis of standard data protection clauses, there are others in which the content of those standard clauses might not constitute a sufficient means of ensuring, in practice, the effective protection of personal data transferred to the third country concerned. That is the case, in particular, where the law of that third country allows its public authorities to interfere with the rights of the data subjects to which that data relates.

Reaction from the parties was mixed, particularly on what the CJEU’s ruling means for SCCs even though there was agreement that the Privacy Shield will soon no longer govern data transfers from the EU to the US.

The DPC issued a statement in which it asserted

Today’s judgment provides just that, firmly endorsing the substance of the concerns expressed by the DPC (and by the Irish High Court) to the effect that EU citizens do not enjoy the level of protection demanded by EU law when their data is transferred to the United States. In that regard, while the judgment most obviously captures Facebook’s transfers of data relating to Mr Schrems, it is of course the case that its scope extends far beyond that, addressing the position of EU citizens generally.

The DPC added

So, while in terms of the points of principle in play, the Court has endorsed the DPC’s position, it has also ruled that the SCCs transfer mechanism used to transfer data to countries worldwide is, in principle, valid, although it is clear that, in practice, the application of the SCCs transfer mechanism to transfers of personal data to the United States is now questionable. This is an issue that will require further and careful examination, not least because assessments will need to be made on a case by case basis.

At a press conference, EC Vice-President Věra Jourová claimed the “CJEU declared the Privacy Shield decision invalid, but also confirmed that the standard contractual clauses remain a valid tool for the transfer of personal data to processors established in third countries.” She asserted “[t]his means that the transatlantic data flows can continue, based on the broad toolbox for international transfers provided by the GDPR, for instance binding corporate rules or SCCs.” Jourová contended with regard to next steps, “[w]e are not starting from scratch…[and] [o]n the contrary, the Commission has already been working intensively to ensure that this toolbox is fit for purpose, including the modernisation of the Standard Contractual Clauses.” Jourová stated “we will be working closely with our American counterparts, based on today’s ruling.”

European Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders stated

  • First, I welcome the fact that the Court confirmed the validity of our Decision on SCCs.
    • We have been working already for some time on modernising these clauses and ensuring that our toolbox for international data transfers is fit for purpose.
    • Standard Contractual Clauses are in fact the most used tool for international transfers of personal data and we wanted to ensure they can be used by businesses and fully in line with EU law.
    • We are now advanced with this work and we will of course take into account the requirements of judgement.
    • We will work with the European Data Protection Board, as well as the 27 EU Member States. It will be very important to start the process to have a formal approval to modernise the Standard Contractual Clauses as soon as possible. We have been in an ongoing process about such a modernisation for some time, but with an attention to the different elements of the decision of the Court today.
  • My second point: The Court has invalidated the Privacy Shield. We have to study the judgement in detail and carefully assess the consequences of this invalidation.

Reynders stated that “[i]n the meantime, transatlantic data flows between companies can continue using other mechanisms for international transfers of personal data available under the GDPR.”

In a statement, US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross

While the Department of Commerce is deeply disappointed that the court appears to have invalidated the European Commission’s adequacy decision underlying the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, we are still studying the decision to fully understand its practical impacts.

Ross continued

We have been and will remain in close contact with the European Commission and European Data Protection Board on this matter and hope to be able to limit the negative consequences to the $7.1 trillion transatlantic economic relationship that is so vital to our respective citizens, companies, and governments. Data flows are essential not just to tech companies—but to businesses of all sizes in every sector. As our economies continue their post-COVID-19 recovery, it is critical that companies—including the 5,300+ current Privacy Shield participants—be able to transfer data without interruption, consistent with the strong protections offered by Privacy Shield.

The Department of Commerce stated it “will continue to administer the Privacy Shield program, including processing submissions for self-certification and re-certification to the Privacy Shield Frameworks and maintaining the Privacy Shield List.” The agency added “[t]oday’s decision does not relieve participating organizations of their Privacy Shield obligations.”

© 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.

Image by harakir from Pixabay

FTC Settles A Pair of Privacy Shield Cases

The FTC imposes 20 year commitments for two companies who were not meeting their requirements in terms of transferring the personal data of EU residents out of Europe.

First things first, if you would like to receive my Technology Policy Update, email me. You can find some of these Updates from 2019 and 2020 here.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced its second Privacy Shield violation settlement in the last few weeks that will impose obligations over the next 20 years so long as the United States (US) companies choose to transfer and process the data of European Union (EU) citizens and residents. The 2016 agreement requires US entities to self-certify compliance subject to enforcement by the FTC for most companies and violations are punished under the Section 5 prohibition against deceptive practices of the FTC Act. The agreement requires a range of practices for those companies that choose to participate, including heeding standards for notice, consent, accountability for onward transfers, data security, data integrity and purpose limitation. A failure to fully comply represents a violation subject to enforcement.

In the settlement announced this week, the FTC claimed Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. “participated in the Privacy Shield framework and complied with the program’s requirements, even though the company had allowed its certification to lapse in 2018” according to the agency’s press release. The FTC added

After Ortho’s certification lapsed, the Department of Commerce warned the company to either remove the claims or take steps to recertify its participation in the Privacy Shield program, which the company failed to do, the complaint alleges. The FTC also alleges Ortho violated the Privacy Shield principles by failing to verify annually that statements about its Privacy Shield practices were accurate. In addition, it also failed to comply with a Privacy Shield requirement that it affirm that the company would continue to apply Privacy Shield protections to personal information collected while participating in the program, according to the complaint.

In a Consent Agreement set to run for 20 years, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. “whether acting directly or indirectly, in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of any product or service, must affirm to the Department of Commerce, within ten (10) days after the effective date of this Order and on an annual basis thereafter for as long as it retains such information, that it will

1. continue to apply the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework principles to the personal information it received while it participated in the Privacy Shield; or

2. protect the information by another means authorized under EU (for the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework) or Swiss (for the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield framework) law, including by using a binding corporate rule or a contract that fully reflects the requirements of the relevant standard contractual clauses adopted by the European Commission

If the company decides not to participate in the Privacy Shield, it must delete all data within 10 days.

The FTC meted out a stiffer penalty to NTT Global Data Centers, Inc., formerly known as RagingWire Data Centers for Privacy Shield compliance violations. The company “must hire a third-party assessor to verify that it is adhering to its Privacy Shield promises if it plans to participate in the framework” per the FTC’s press release. The FTC explained

In a complaint filed in November 2019, the FTC alleged that, between January 2017 and October 2018, RagingWire claimed in its online privacy policy and marketing materials that the company participated in the Privacy Shield framework and complied with the program’s requirements. In fact, the FTC alleged, the company’s certification lapsed in January 2018 and it failed to comply with certain Privacy Shield requirements while it was a participant in the program. The FTC also alleged that, upon allowing its certification to lapse, RagingWire failed to take the necessary steps to confirm that it would comply with its continuing obligations relating to data received pursuant to the framework.

In the 20 year Consent Order with NTT Global Data Centers, the FTC stipulated

no later than 120 days after the effective date of this Order and for so long as Respondent is a self-certified participant in Privacy Shield, Respondent and its officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, in connection with the advertisement, marketing, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of any product or service, shall obtain an annual outside compliance review from an independent third-party assessor approved by the Associate Director for the Division of Enforcement of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, that demonstrates that the assertions Respondent makes about its Privacy Shield practices are true, and that those Privacy Shield practices have been implemented as represented and in accord with the Privacy Shield Principles. (emphasis added).

NTT Global Data Centers must also

1. continue to apply the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework principles to the personal information it received while it participated in the Privacy Shield; or

2. protect the information by another means authorized under EU (for the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework) or Swiss (for the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield framework) law, including by using a binding corporate rule or a contract that fully reflects the requirements of the relevant standard contractual clauses adopted by the European Commission

The FTC split over the Consent Order against NTT Global Data Centers, with Commissioner Rohit Chopra dissenting for these reasons:

  • American businesses that participate in the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework should not have to compete with those that break their privacy promises.
  • The FTC charged a data center company with violating their Privacy Shield commitments, but our proposed settlement does not even attempt to adequately remedy the harm to the market.
  • The evidence in the record raises serious concerns that customers looking to follow the law relied on the company’s representations and may be locked into long-term contracts.
  • A quick settlement with a small firm for an inadvertent mistake may be appropriate, but it is inadequate for a dishonest, large firm violating a core pillar of Privacy Shield.
  • We must consider seeking additional remedies, including rights to renegotiate contracts, disgorgement of ill-gotten revenue and data, and notice and redress for customers.

Chair Joe Simons and Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine Wilson argued in their majority statement that

Commissioner Chopra would ask us to reject a settlement that protects consumers and furthers our Privacy Shield goals, to instead continue litigation during an ongoing pandemic. There is no need and doing so would unnecessarily divert resources from other important matters, including investigations of other substantive violations of Privacy Shield. We do not support moving the goalposts in this manner and for this reason vote to accept the settlement, which not just accords with but exceeds the relief the Commission unanimously sought to obtain at the outset of the case.

Despite these and other Privacy Shield enforcement actions, it is likely EU officials will still find US enforcement lacking. The European Data Protection Board (EDPB or Board) released its most recent annual assessment of the Privacy Shield in December 2019 and again found both the agreement itself and implementation wanting. There was some overlap between the concerns of the EDPB and the European Commission (EC) as detailed in its recently released third assessment of the Privacy Shield, but the EDPB discusses areas that were either omitted from or downplayed in the EC’s report. The EDPB’s authority is persuasive with respect to Privacy Shield and carries weight with the EC; however, its concerns as detailed in previous annual reports have pushed the EC to demand changes, including but not limited to, pushing the Trump Administration to nominate Board Members to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) and the appointment of a new Ombudsperson to handle complaints about how the U.S. Intelligence Community is handling the personal data of EU citizens.

In January 2019, in the “EU-U.S. Privacy Shield – Second Annual Joint Review,” the EDPB noted some progress by the US in implementing the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. However, the EU’s Data Protection Authorities (DPA) and EDPB took issue with a number of shortcomings in US implementation, many of which have been noted in previous analyses of US efforts to ensure that U.S. companies that agree to the Privacy Shield’s principles. Notably, the EDPB found problems with the assurances provided by the US government regarding the collection and use of personal data by national security and law enforcement agencies. The EDPB also found problems with how the Department of Commerce and FTC are enforcing the Privacy Shield in the US against commercial entities.

© 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.

Photo by ipse dixit on Unsplash