Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (19 January 2021)

Further Reading

  • Hong Kong telecoms provider blocks website for first time, citing security law” — Reuters; “A Hong Kong Website Gets Blocked, Raising Censorship Fears” By Paul Mozur and Aaron Krolik — The New York Times. The Hong Kong Broadband Network (HKBN) blocked access to a website about the 2019 protests against the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (called HKChronicles) under a recently enacted security law critics had warned would lead to exactly this sort of outcome. Allegedly, the Hong Kong police had invoked the National Security Law for the first time, and other telecommunications companies have followed suit.
  • Biden to counter China tech by urging investment in US: adviser” By Yifan Yu — Nikkei Asia. President-elect Joe Biden’s head of the National Economic Council said at a public event that the Biden Administration would focus less on tariffs and other similar instruments to counter the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Instead, the incoming President would try to foster investment in United States companies and technologies to fend off the PRC’s growing strength in a number of crucial fields. Also, a Biden Administration would work more with traditional U.S. allies to contest policies from Beijing.
  • Revealed: walkie-talkie app Zello hosted far-right groups who stormed Capitol” By Micah Loewinger and Hampton Stall — The Guardian. Some of the rioters and insurrectionists whop attacked the United States Capitol on 6 January were using another, lesser known communications app, Zello, to coordinate their actions. The app has since taken down a number of right-wing and extremist groups that have flourished for months if not years on the platform. It remains to be seen how smaller platforms will be scrutinized under a Biden Presidency. Zello has reportedly been aware that these groups have been using their platform and opted not to police their conduct.
  • They Used to Post Selfies. Now They’re Trying to Reverse the Election.” By Stuart A. Thompson and Charlie Warzel — The New York Times. The three people who amassed considerable extremist followings seem each to be part believer and part opportunist. A fascinating series of profiles about the three.
  • Telegram tries, and fails, to remove extremist content” By Mark Scott — Politico. Platforms other than Facebook and Twiiter are struggling to moderate right wing and extremist content that violates their policies and terms of service.

Other Developments

  • The Biden-Harris transition team announced that a statutorily established science advisor will now be a member of the Cabinet and named its nominee for this and other positions. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was created by executive order in the Ford Administration and then codified by Congress. However, the OSTP Director has not been a member of the Cabinet alongside the Senate-confirmed Secretaries and others. President-elect Joe Biden has decided to elevate the OSTP Director to the Cabinet, likely in order to signal the importance of science and technology in his Administration. The current OSTP has exercised unusual influence in the Trump Administration under the helm of OSTP Associate Director Michael Kratsios and shaped policy in a number of realms like artificial intelligence, national security, and others.
    • In the press release, the transition team explained:
      • Dr. Eric Lander will be nominated as Director of the OSTP and serve as the Presidential Science Advisor. The president-elect is elevating the role of science within the White House, including by designating the Presidential Science Advisor as a member of the Cabinet for the first time in history. One of the country’s leading scientists, Dr. Lander was a principal leader of the Human Genome Project and has been a pioneer in the field of genomic medicine. He is the founding director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, one of the nation’s leading research institutes. During the Obama-Biden administration, he served as external Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Dr. Lander will be the first life scientist to serve as Presidential Science Advisor.
      • Dr. Alondra Nelson will serve as OSTP Deputy Director for Science and Society. A distinguished scholar of science, technology, social inequality, and race, Dr. Nelson is president of the Social Science Research Council, an independent, nonprofit organization linking social science research to practice and policy. She is also a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study, one of the nation’s most distinguished research institutes, located in Princeton, NJ.
      • Dr. Frances H. Arnold and Dr. Maria Zuber will serve as the external Co-Chairs of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). An expert in protein engineering, Dr. Arnold is the first American woman to win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Dr. Zuber, an expert in geophysics and planetary science, is the first woman to lead a NASA spacecraft mission and has chaired the National Science Board. They are the first women to serve as co-chairs of PCAST.
      • Dr. Francis Collins will continue serving in his role as Director of the National Institutes of Health.
      • Kei Koizumi will serve as OSTP Chief of Staff and is one of the nation’s leading experts on the federal science budget.
      • Narda Jones, who will serve as OSTP Legislative Affairs Director, was Senior Technology Policy Advisor and Counsel for the Democratic staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
  • The United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a report on supply chain security by a public-private sector advisory body, which represents one of the lines of effort of the U.S. government to better secure technology and electronics that emanate from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). CISA’s National Risk Management Center co-chairs the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Task Force along with the Information Technology Sector Coordinating Council and the Communications Sector Coordinating Council. The ICT SCRM published its Year 2 Report that “builds upon” its Interim Report and asserted:
    • Over the past year, the Task Force has expanded upon its first-year progress to advance meaningful partnership around supply chain risk management. Specifically, the Task Force:
      • Developed reference material to support overcoming legal obstacles to information sharing
      • Updated the Threat Evaluation Report, which evaluates threats to suppliers, with additional scenarios and mitigation measures for the corresponding threat scenarios
      • Produced a report and case studies providing in -depth descriptions of control categories and information regarding when and how to use a Qualified List to manage supply chain risks
      • Developed a template for SCRM compliance assessments and internal evaluations of alignment to industry standards
      • Analyzed the current and potential impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic, and developed a system map to visualize ICT supply chain routes and identify chokepoints
      • Surveyed supply chain related programs and initiatives that provide opportunities for potential TaskForce engagement
    • Congress established an entity to address and help police supply chain risk at the end of 2018 in the “Strengthening and Enhancing Cyber-capabilities by Utilizing Risk Exposure Technology Act” (SECURE Act) (P.L. 115-390). The Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC) has a number of responsibilities, including:
      • developing an information sharing process for agencies to circulate decisions throughout the federal government made to exclude entities determined to be IT supply chain risks
      • establishing a process by which entities determined to be IT supply chain risks may be excluded from procurement government-wide (exclusion orders) or suspect IT must be removed from government systems (removal orders)
      • creating an exception process under which IT from an entity subject to a removal or exclusion order may be used if warranted by national interest or national security
      • issuing recommendations for agencies on excluding entities and IT from the IT supply chain and “consent for a contractor to subcontract” and mitigation steps entities would need to take in order for the Council to rescind a removal or exclusion order
      • In September 2020, the FASC released an interim regulation that took effect upon being published that “implement[s] the requirements of the laws that govern the operation of the FASC, the sharing of supply chain risk information, and the exercise of its authorities to recommend issuance of removal and exclusion orders to address supply chain security risks…”
  • The Australian government has released its bill to remake how platforms like Facebook, Google, and others may use the content of new media, including provision for payment. The “Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020” “establishes a mandatory code of conduct to help support the sustainability of the Australian news media sector by addressing bargaining power imbalances between digital platforms and Australian news businesses.” The agency charged with developing legislation, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), has tussled with Google in particular over what this law would look like with the technology giant threatening to withdraw from Australia altogether. The ACCC had determined in its July 2019 Digital Platform Inquiry:
    • that there is a bargaining power imbalance between digital platforms and news media businesses so that news media businesses are not able to negotiate for a share of the revenue generated by the digital platforms and to which the news content created by the news media businesses contributes. Government intervention is necessary because of the public benefit provided by the production and dissemination of news, and the importance of a strong independent media in a well-functioning democracy.
    • In an Explanatory Memorandum, it is explained:
      • The Bill establishes a mandatory code of conduct to address bargaining power imbalances between digital platform services and Australian news businesses…by setting out six main elements:
        • bargaining–which require the responsible digital platform corporations and registered news business corporations that have indicated an intention to bargain, to do so in good faith;
        • compulsory arbitration–where parties cannot come to a negotiated agreement about remuneration relating to the making available of covered news content on designated digital platform services, an arbitral panel will select between two final offers made by the bargaining parties;
        • general requirements –which, among other things, require responsible digital platform corporations to provide registered news business corporations with advance notification of planned changes to an algorithm or internal practice that will have a significant effect on covered news content;
        • non-differentiation requirements –responsible digital platform corporations must not differentiate between the news businesses participating in the Code, or between participants and non-participants, because of matters that arise in relation to their participation or non-participation in the Code;
        • contracting out–the Bill recognises that a digital platform corporation may reach a commercial bargain with a news business outside the Code about remuneration or other matters. It provides that parties who notify the ACCC of such agreements would not need to comply with the general requirements, bargaining and compulsory arbitration rules (as set out in the agreement); and
        • standard offers –digital platform corporations may make standard offers to news businesses, which are intended to reduce the time and cost associated with negotiations, particularly for smaller news businesses. If the parties notify the ACCC of an agreed standard offer, those parties do not need to comply with bargaining and compulsory arbitration (as set out in the agreement);
  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has reached a settlement with an mobile advertising company over “allegations that it failed to provide in-game rewards users were promised for completing advertising offers.” The FTC unanimously agreed to the proposed settlement with Tapjoy, Inc. that bars the company “from misleading users about the rewards they can earn and must monitor its third-party advertiser partners to ensure they do what is necessary to enable Tapjoy to deliver promised rewards to consumers.” The FTC drafted a 20 year settlement that will obligate Tapjoy, Inc. to refrain from certain practices that violate the FTC Act; in this case that includes not making false claims about the rewards people can get if they take or do not take some action in an online game. Tapjoy, Inc. will also need to submit compliance reports, keep records, and make materials available to the FTC upon demand. Any failure to meet the terms of the settlement could prompt the FTC to seek redress in federal court, including more than $43,000 per violation.
    • In the complaint, the FTC outlined Tapjoy, Inc.’s illegal conduct:
      • Tapjoy operates an advertising platform within mobile gaming applications (“apps”). On the platform, Tapjoy promotes offers of in-app rewards (e.g., virtual currency) to consumers who complete an action, such as taking a survey or otherwise engaging with third-party advertising. Often, these consumers must divulge personal information or spend money. In many instances, Tapjoy never issues the promised reward to consumers who complete an action as instructed, or only issues the currency after a substantial delay. Consumers who attempt to contact Tapjoy to complain about missing rewards find it difficult to do so, and many consumers who complete an action as instructed and are able to submit a complaint nevertheless do not receive the promised reward.  Tapjoy has received hundreds of thousands of complaints concerning its failure to issue promised rewards to consumers. Tapjoy nevertheless has withheld rewards from consumers who have completed all required actions.
    • In its press release, the FTC highlighted the salient terms of the settlement:
      • As part of the proposed settlement, Tapjoy is prohibited from misrepresenting the rewards it offers consumers and the terms under which they are offered. In addition, the company must clearly and conspicuously display the terms under which consumers can receive such rewards and must specify that the third-party advertisers it works with determine if a reward should be issued. Tapjoy also will be required to monitor its advertisers to ensure they are following through on promised rewards, investigate complaints from consumers who say they did not receive their rewards, and discipline advertisers who deceive consumers.
    • FTC Commissioners Rohit Chopra and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter issued a joint statement, and in their summary section, they asserted:
      • The explosive growth of mobile gaming has led to mounting concerns about harmful practices, including unlawful surveillance, dark patterns, and facilitation of fraud.
      • Tapjoy’s failure to properly police its mobile gaming advertising platform cheated developers and gamers out of promised compensation and rewards.
      • The Commission must closely scrutinize today’s gaming gatekeepers, including app stores and advertising middlemen, to prevent harm to developers and gamers.
    • On the last point, Chopra and Kelly Slaughter argued:
      • We should all be concerned that gatekeepers can harm developers and squelch innovation. The clearest example is rent extraction: Apple and Google charge mobile app developers on their platforms up to 30 percent of sales, and even bar developers from trying to avoid this tax through offering alternative payment systems. While larger gaming companies are pursuing legal action against these practices, developers and small businesses risk severe retaliation for speaking up, including outright suspension from app stores – an effective death sentence.
      • This market structure also has cascading effects on gamers and consumers. Under heavy taxation by Apple and Google, developers have been forced to adopt alternative monetization models that rely on surveillance, manipulation, and other harmful practices.
  • The United Kingdom’s (UK) High Court ruled against the use of general warrants for online surveillance by the Uk’s security agencies (MI5, MI6, and the Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ)). Privacy International (PI), a British advocacy organization, had brought the suit after Edward Snowden revealed the scope of the United States National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance activities, including bulk collection of information, a significant portion of which required hacking. PI sued in a special tribunal formed to resolve claims against British security agencies where the government asserted general warrants would suffice for purposes of mass hacking. PI disagreed and argued this was counter to 250 years of established law in the UK that warrants must be based on reasonable suspicion, specific in what is being sought, and proportionate. The High Court agreed with PI.
    • In its statement after the ruling, PI asserted:
      • Because general warrants are by definition not targeted (and could therefore apply to hundreds, thousands or even millions of people) they violate individuals’ right not to not have their property searched without lawful authority, and are therefore illegal.
      • The adaptation of these 250-year-old principles to modern government hacking and property interference is of great significance. The Court signals that fundamental constitutional principles still need to be applied in the context of surveillance and that the government cannot circumvent traditional protections afforded by the common law.
  • In Indiana, the attorney general is calling on the governor to “to adopt a safe harbor rule I proposed that would incentivize companies to take strong data protection measures, which will reduce the scale and frequency of cyberattacks in Indiana.” Attorney General Curtis Hill urged Governor Eric J. Holcomb to allow a change in the state’s data security regulations to be made effective.
    • The proposed rule provides:
      • Procedures adopted under IC 24-4.9-3-3.5(c) are presumed reasonable if the procedures comply with this section, including one (1) of the following applicable standards:
        • (1) A covered entity implements and maintains a cybersecurity program that complies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) cybersecurity framework and follows the most recent version of one (1) of the following standards:
          • (A) NIST Special Publication 800-171.
          • (B) NIST SP 800-53.
          • (C) The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) security assessment framework.
          • (D) International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission 27000 family – information security management systems.
        • (2) A covered entity is regulated by the federal or state government and complies with one (1) of the following standards as it applies to the covered entity:
          • (A) The federal USA Patriot Act (P.L. 107-56).
          • (B) Executive Order 13224.
          • (C) The federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. 2721 et seq.).
          • (D) The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.).
          • (E) The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (P.L. 104-191).
        • (3) A covered entity complies with the current version of the payment card industry data security standard in place at the time of the breach of security of data, as published by the Payment Card Industry Security Standard Council.
      • The regulations further provide that if a data base owner can show “its data security plan was reasonably designed, implemented, and executed to prevent the breach of security of data” then it “will not be subject to a civil action from the office of the attorney general arising from the breach of security of data.”
  • The Tech Transparency Project (TTP) is claiming that Apple “has removed apps in China at the government’s request” the majority of which “involve activities like illegal gambling and porn.” However, TTP is asserting that its analysis “suggests Apple is proactively blocking scores of other apps that are politically sensitive for Beijing.”

Coming Events

  • On 19 January, the Senate Intelligence Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Avril Haines to be the Director of National Intelligence.
  • The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Alejandro N. Mayorkas to be Secretary of Homeland Security on 19 January.
  • On 19 January, the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on former General Lloyd Austin III to be Secretary of Defense.
  • On 27 July, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold PrivacyCon 2021.

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2021. 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, Other Developments, and Coming Events (13 and 14 January 2021)

Further Reading

  • YouTube Suspends Trump’s Channel for at Least Seven Days” By Daisuke Wakabayashi — The New York Times. Even Google is getting further into the water. Its YouTube platform flagged a video of President Donald Trump’s for inciting violence and citing the “ongoing potential for violence,” Trump and his team will not be able to upload videos for seven days and the comments section would be permanently disabled. YouTube has been the least inclined of the major platforms to moderate content and has somehow escaped the scrutiny and opprobrium Facebook and Twitter have faced even though those platforms have been more active in policing offensive content.
  • Online misinformation that led to Capitol siege is ‘radicalization,’ say researchers” By Elizabeth Culliford — Reuters. Experts in online disinformation are saying that the different conspiracy movements that impelled followers to attack the United States (U.S.) Capitol are the result of radicalization. Online activities translated into real world violence, they say. The also decried the responsive nature of social media platforms in acting, waiting for an insurrection to take steps experts and others have been begging them to take.
  • Uganda orders all social media to be blocked – letter” — Reuters. In response to Facebook blocking a number of government related accounts for Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour” (CIB), the Ugandan government has blocked all access to social media ahead of its elections. In a letter seen by Reuters, the Uganda Communications Commission directed telecommunications providers “to immediately suspend any access and use, direct or otherwise, of all social media platforms and online messaging applications over your network until further notice.” This may become standard practice for many regimes around the world if social media companies crack down on government propaganda.
  • BlackBerry sells 90 patents to Huawei, covering key smartphone technology advances” By Sean Silcoff — The Globe and Mail. Critics of a deal to assign 90 key BlackBerry patents to Huawei are calling on the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to be more involved in protecting Canadian intellectual property and innovations.
  • ‘Threat to democracy is real’: MPs call for social media code of conduct” By David Crowe and Nick Bonyhady — The Sydney Morning Herald. There has been mixed responses in Australia’s Parliament on social media platforms banning President Donald Trump after his role in inciting the violence at the United States (U.S.) Capitol. Many agree with the platforms, some disagree strenuously in light of other inflammatory content that is not taken down, and many want greater rationality and transparency in how platforms make these decisions. And since Canberra has been among the most active governments in regulating technology, it may inform the process of drafting its “Online Safety Bill,” which may place legal obligations on social media platforms.
  • Poland plans to make censoring of social media accounts illegal” By Shaun Walker — The Guardian. Governments around the world continue to respond to a number of social media companies deciding to deplatform United States (U.S.) President Donald Trump. In Warsaw there is a draft bill that would make deplatforming a person illegal unless the offense is also contrary to Polish law. The spin is that the right wing regime in Warsaw is less interested in protecting free speech and more interested in propagating the same grievances the right wing in the United States is. Therefore, this push in Poland may be more about messaging and trying to cow social media companies and less about protecting free speech, especially speech with which the government disagrees (e.g. advocates for LGBTQI rights have been silenced in Poland.)
  • Facebook, Twitter could face punishing regulation for their role in U.S. Capitol riot, Democrats say” By Tony Romm — The Washington Post. Democrats were already furious with social media companies for what they considered their lacking governance of content that clearly violated terms of service and policies. These companies are bracing for an expected barrage of hearings and legislation with the Democrats controlling the White House, House, and Senate.
  • Georgia results sweep away tech’s regulatory logjam” By Margaret Harding McGill and Ashley Gold — Axios. This is a nice survey of possible policy priorities at the agencies and in the Congress over the next two years with the Democrats in control of both.
  • The Capitol rioters put themselves all over social media. Now they’re getting arrested.” By Sara Morrison — Recode. Will the attack on the United States (U.S.) Capitol be the first time a major crime is solved by the evidence largely provided by the accused? It is sure looking that way as law enforcement continues to use the posts of the rioters to apprehend, arrest, and charge them. Additionally, in the same way people who acted in racist and entitled ways (e.g. Amy Cooper in Central Park threatening an African American gentleman with calling the police even though he had asked her to put her dog on a leash) were caught through crowd-sourced identification pushes, rioters are also being identified.
  • CISA: SolarWinds Hackers Got Into Networks by Guessing Passwords” By Mariam Baksh — Nextgov. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has updated its alert on the SolarWinds hack to reflect its finding. CISA explained:
    • CISA incident response investigations have identified that initial access in some cases was obtained by password guessing [T1101.001], password spraying [T1101.003], and inappropriately secured administrative credentials [T1078] accessible via external remote access services [T1133]. Initial access root cause analysis is still ongoing in a number of response activities and CISA will update this section as additional initial vectors are identified.
  •  “A Facial Recognition Company Says That Viral Washington Times “Antifa” Story Is False” By Craig Silverman — BuzzFeed News. XRVIsion denied the Washington Times’ account that the company had identified antifa protestors among the rioters at the United States (U.S. Capitol) (archived here.) The company said it had identified two Neo-Nazis and a QAnon adherent. Even though the story was retracted and a corrected version issued, some still claimed the original story had merit such as Trump supporter Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL).

Other Developments

  • The United States (U.S.) Trade Representative (USTR) announced that it would not act on the basis of three completed reports on Digital Services Taxes (DST) three nations have put in place and also that it would not proceed with tariffs in retaliation against France, one of the first nations in the world to enact a DST. Last year, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development convened multi-lateral talks to resolve differences on how a global digital services tax will ideally function with most of the nations involved arguing for a 2% tax to be assessed in the nation where the transaction occurs as opposed to where the company is headquartered. European Union (EU) officials claimed an agreement was possible, but the U.S. negotiators walked away from the table. It will fall to the Biden Administration to act on these USTR DST investigations if they choose.
    • In its press release, the USTR stated it would “suspend the tariff action in the Section 301 investigation of France’s Digital Services Tax (DST).”
      • The USTR added:
        • The additional tariffs on certain products of France were announced in July 2020, and were scheduled to go into effect on January 6, 2021.  The U.S. Trade Representative has decided to suspend the tariffs in light of the ongoing investigation of similar DSTs adopted or under consideration in ten other jurisdictions.  Those investigations have significantly progressed, but have not yet reached a determination on possible trade actions.  A suspension of the tariff action in the France DST investigation will promote a coordinated response in all of the ongoing DST investigations.
      • In its December 2019 report, the USTR determined “that France’s DST is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and therefore is actionable under sections 301(b) and 304(a) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2411(b) and 2414(a))” and proposed a range of measures in retaliation.
    • The USTR also “issued findings in Section 301 investigations of Digital Service Taxes (DSTs) adopted by India, Italy, and Turkey, concluding that each of the DSTs discriminates against U.S. companies, is inconsistent with prevailing principles of international taxation, and burden or restricts U.S. commerce.” The USTR stated it “is not taking any specific actions in connection with the findings at this time but will continue to evaluate all available options.” The USTR added:
      • The Section 301 investigations of the DSTs adopted by India, Italy, and Turkey were initiated in June 2020, along with investigations of DSTs adopted or under consideration by Austria, Brazil, the Czech Republic, the European Union, Indonesia, Spain, and the United Kingdom.  USTR expects to announce the progress or completion of additional DST investigations in the near future. 
  • The United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has started investigating Google’s Privacy Sandbox’ project to “assess whether the proposals could cause advertising spend to become even more concentrated on Google’s ecosystem at the expense of its competitors.” The CMA asserted:
    • Third party cookies currently play a fundamental role online and in digital advertising. They help businesses target advertising effectively and fund free online content for consumers, such as newspapers. But there have also been concerns about their legality and use from a privacy perspective, as they allow consumers’ behaviour to be tracked across the web in ways that many consumers may feel uncomfortable with and may find difficult to understand.
    • Google’s announced changes – known collectively as the ‘Privacy Sandbox’ project – would disable third party cookies on the Chrome browser and Chromium browser engine and replace them with a new set of tools for targeting advertising and other functionality that they say will protect consumers’ privacy to a greater extent. The project is already under way, but Google’s final proposals have not yet been decided or implemented. In its recent market study into online platforms digital advertising, the CMA highlighted a number of concerns about their potential impact, including that they could undermine the ability of publishers to generate revenue and undermine competition in digital advertising, entrenching Google’s market power.
  • Facebook took down coordinated inauthentic behavior (CIB) originating from France and Russia, seeking to allegedly influence nations in Africa and the Middle East. Facebook asserted:
    • Each of the networks we removed today targeted people outside of their country of origin, primarily targeting Africa, and also some countries in the Middle East. We found all three of them as a result of our proactive internal investigations and worked with external researchers to assess the full scope of these activities across the internet.
    • While we’ve seen influence operations target the same regions in the past, this was the first time our team found two campaigns — from France and Russia — actively engage with one another, including by befriending, commenting and criticizing the opposing side for being fake. It appears that this Russian network was an attempt to rebuild their operations after our October 2019 takedown, which also coincided with a notable shift in focus of the French campaign to begin to post about Russia’s manipulation campaigns in Africa.
    • Unlike the operation from France, both Russia-linked networks relied on local nationals in the countries they targeted to generate content and manage their activity across internet services. This is consistent with cases we exposed in the past, including in Ghana and the US, where we saw the Russian campaigns co-opt authentic voices to join their influence operations, likely to avoid detection and help appear more authentic. Despite these efforts, our investigation identified some links between these two Russian campaigns and also with our past enforcements.
  • Two of the top Democrats on the House Energy and Committee along with another Democrat wrote nine internet service providers (ISP) “questioning their commitment to consumers amid ISPs raising prices and imposing data caps during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Committee Chair Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle (D-PA), and Representative Jerry McNerney (D-CA) wrote the following ISPs:
    • Pallone, Doyle, and McNerney took issue with the companies raising prices and imposing data caps after having pledged not to do so at the behest of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They asked the companies to answer a series of questions:
      • Did the company participate in the FCC’s “Keep Americans Connected” pledge?
      • Has the company increased prices for fixed or mobile consumer internet and fixed or phone service since the start of the pandemic, or do they plan to raise prices on such plans within the next six months? 
      • Prior to March 2020, did any of the company’s service plans impose a maximum data consumption threshold on its subscribers?
      • Since March 2020, has the company modified or imposed any new maximum data consumption thresholds on service plans, or do they plan to do so within the next six months? 
      • Did the company stop disconnecting customers’ internet or telephone service due to their inability to pay during the pandemic? 
      • Does the company offer a plan designed for low-income households, or a plan established in March or later to help students and families with connectivity during the pandemic?
      • Beyond service offerings for low-income customers, what steps is the company currently taking to assist individuals and families facing financial hardship due to circumstances related to COVID-19? 
  • The United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a “Data Security Business Advisory: Risks and Considerations for Businesses Using Data Services and Equipment from Firms Linked to the People’s Republic of China,” that “describes the data-related risks American businesses face as a result of the actions of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and outlines steps that businesses can take to mitigate these risks.” DHS generally recommended:
    • Businesses and individuals that operate in the PRC or with PRC firms or entities should scrutinize any business relationship that provides access to data—whether business confidential, trade secrets, customer personally identifiable information (PII), or other sensitive information. Businesses should identify the sensitive personal and proprietary information in their possession. To the extent possible, they should minimize the amount of at-risk data being stored and used in the PRC or in places accessible by PRC authorities. Robust due diligence and transaction monitoring are also critical for addressing potential legal exposure, reputation risks, and unfair advantage that data and intellectual property theft would provide competitors. Businesses should seek to acquire a thorough understanding of the ownership of data service providers, location of data infrastructure, and any tangential foreign business relationships and significant foreign investors.
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is asking for comments on the $3.2 billion Emergency Broadband Benefit Program established in the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021” (H.R. 133). Comments are due by 16 February 2021. The FCC noted “eligible households may receive a discount off the cost of broadband service and certain connected devices during an emergency period relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, and participating providers can receive a reimbursement for such discounts.” The FCC explained the program in further detail:
    • Pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program will use available funding from the Emergency Broadband Connectivity Fund to support participating providers’ provision of certain broadband services and connected devices to qualifying households.
    • To participate in the program, a provider must elect to participate and either be designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier or be approved by the Commission. Participating providers will make available to eligible households a monthly discount off the standard rate for an Internet service offering and associated equipment, up to $50.00 per month.
    • On Tribal lands, the monthly discount may be up to $75.00 per month. Participating providers will receive reimbursement from the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program for the discounts provided.
    • Participating providers that also supply an eligible household with a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet (connected device) for use during the emergency period may receive a single reimbursement of up to $100.00 for the connected device, if the charge to the eligible household for that device is more than $10.00 but less than $50.00.  An eligible household may receive only one supported device.  Providers must submit certain certifications to the Commission to receive reimbursement from the program, and the Commission is required to adopt audit requirements to ensure provider compliance and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.
  • The Biden-Harris transition team named National Security Agency’s (NSA) Director of Cybersecurity as the Biden White House’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Cyber and Emerging Technology. Anne Neuberger’s portfolio at the NSA included “lead[ing] NSA’s cybersecurity mission, including emerging technology areas like quantum-resistant cryptography.” At the National Security Council, Neuberger would will work to coordinate cybersecurity and emerging technology policy across agencies and funnel policy options up to the full NSC and ultimately the President. It is not clear how Neuberger’s portfolio will interact with the newly created National Cybersecurity Director, a position that, thus far, has remained without a nominee.
    • The transition noted “[p]rior to this role, she led NSA’s Election Security effort and served as Assistant Deputy Director of NSA’s Operations Directorate, overseeing foreign intelligence and cybersecurity operations…[and] also previously served as NSA’s first Chief Risk Officer, as Director of NSA’s Commercial Solutions Center, as Director of the Enduring Security Framework cybersecurity public-private partnership, as the Navy’s Deputy Chief Management Officer, and as a White House Fellow.” The transition stated that “[p]rior to joining government service, Neuberger was Senior Vice President of Operations at American Stock Transfer & Trust Company (AST), where she directed technology and operations.”
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a final rule in response to the United States (U.S.) Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s decision striking down three aspects of the FCC’s rollback of net neutrality, “Restoring Internet Freedom Order.” The FCC explained the final rule:
    • responds to a remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit directing the Commission to assess the effects of the Commission’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order on public safety, pole attachments, and the statutory basis for broadband internet access service’s inclusion in the universal service Lifeline program. This document also amends the Commission’s rules to remove broadband internet service from the list of services supported by the universal service Lifeline program, while preserving the Commission’s authority to fund broadband internet access service through the Lifeline program.
    • In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down a 2010 FCC net neutrality order in Verizon v. FCC, but the court did suggest a path forward. The court held the FCC “reasonably interpreted section 706 to empower it to promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic, and its justification for the specific rules at issue here—that they will preserve and facilitate the “virtuous circle” of innovation that has driven the explosive growth of the Internet—is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.” The court added that “even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates…[and] [g]iven that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such.” However, in 2016, the same court upheld the 2015 net neutrality regulations in U.S. Telecom Association v. FCC, and then upheld most of the Trump Administration’s FCC’s repeal of the its earlier net neutrality rule.
    • However, the D.C. Circuit declined to accept the FCC’s attempt to preempt all contrary state laws and struck down this part of the FCC’s rulemaking. Consequently, states and local jurisdictions may now be free to enact regulations of internet services along the lines of the FCC’s now repealed Open Internet Order. The D.C. Circuit also sent the case back to the FCC for further consideration on three points.
    • In its request for comments on how to respond to the remand, the FCC summarized the three issues: public safety, pole attachments, and the Lifeline Program:
      • Public Safety.  First, we seek to refresh the record on how the changes adopted in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order might affect public safety. In the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, the Commission predicted, for example, that permitting paid prioritization arrangements would “increase network innovation,” “lead[] to higher investment in broadband capacity as well as greater innovation on the edge provider side of the market,” and “likely . . . be used to deliver enhanced service for applications that need QoS [i.e., quality of service] guarantees.” Could the network improvements made possible by prioritization arrangements benefit public safety applications—for example, by enabling the more rapid, reliable transmission of public safety-related communications during emergencies? 
      • Pole Attachments.  Second, we seek to refresh the record on how the changes adopted in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order might affect the regulation of pole attachments in states subject to federal regulation.  To what extent are ISPs’ pole attachments subject to Commission authority in non-reverse preemption states by virtue of the ISPs’ provision of cable or telecommunications services covered by section 224?  What impact would the inapplicability of section 224 to broadband-only providers have on their access to poles?  Have pole owners, following the Order, “increase[d] pole attachment rates or inhibit[ed] broadband providers from attaching equipment”?  How could we use metrics like increases or decreases in broadband deployment to measure the impact the Order has had on pole attachment practices?  Are there any other impacts on the regulation of pole attachments from the changes adopted in the Order?  Finally, how do any potential considerations about pole attachments bear on the Commission’s underlying decision to classify broadband as a Title I information service?
      • Lifeline Program.  Third, we seek to refresh the record on how the changes adopted in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order might affect the Lifeline program.  In particular, we seek to refresh the record on the Commission’s authority to direct Lifeline support to eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) providing broadband service to qualifying low-income consumers.  In the 2017 Lifeline NPRM, the Commission proposed that it “has authority under Section 254(e) of the Act to provide Lifeline support to ETCs that provide broadband service over facilities-based broadband-capable networks that support voice service,” and that “[t]his legal authority does not depend on the regulatory classification of broadband Internet access service and, thus, ensures the Lifeline program has a role in closing the digital divide regardless of the regulatory classification of broadband service.”  How, if at all, does the Mozilla decision bear on that proposal, and should the Commission proceed to adopt it? 
  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with a photo app company that allegedly did not tell users their photos would be subject to the company’s facial recognition technology. The FTC deemed this a deceptive business practice in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act and negotiated a settlement the Commissioners approved in a 5-0 vote. The consent order includes interesting, perhaps even new language, requiring the company “to delete models and algorithms it developed by using the photos and videos uploaded by its users” according to the FTC’s press release.
    • In the complaint, the FTC asserted:
      • Since 2015, Everalbum has provided Ever, a photo storage and organization application, to consumers.
      • In February 2017, Everalbum launched its “Friends” feature, which operates on both the iOS and Android versions of the Ever app. The Friends feature uses face recognition to group users’ photos by faces of the people who appear in the photos. The user can choose to apply “tags” to identify by name (e.g., “Jane”) or alias (e.g., “Mom”) the individuals who appear in their photos. These tags are not available to other Ever users. When Everalbum launched the Friends feature, it enabled face recognition by default for all users of the Ever mobile app. At that time, Everalbum did not provide users of the Ever mobile app an option to turn off or disable the feature.
      • However, prior to April 2019, Ever mobile app users who were located anywhere other than Texas, Illinois, Washington, and the European Union did not need to, and indeed could not, take any affirmative action to “let[ Everalbum] know” that it should apply face recognition to the users’ photos. In fact, for those users, face recognition was enabled by default and the users lacked the ability to disable it. Thus, the article was misleading for Ever mobile app users located outside of Texas, Illinois, Washington, and the European Union.
      • Between September 2017 and August 2019, Everalbum combined millions of facial images that it extracted from Ever users’ photos with facial images that Everalbum obtained from publicly available datasets in order to create four new datasets to be used in the development of its face recognition technology. In each instance, Everalbum used computer scripts to identify and compile from Ever users’ photos images of faces that met certain criteria (i.e., not associated with a deactivated Ever account, not blurry, not too small, not a duplicate of another image, associated with a specified minimum number of images of the same tagged identity, and, in three of the four instances, not identified by Everalbum’s machines as being an image of someone under the age of thirteen).
      • The FTC summarized its settlement:
        • The proposed settlement requires Everalbum to delete:
          • the photos and videos of Ever app users who deactivated their accounts;
          • all face embeddings—data reflecting facial features that can be used for facial recognition purposes—the company derived from the photos of Ever users who did not give their express consent to their use; and
          • any facial recognition models or algorithms developed with Ever users’ photos or videos.
        • In addition, the proposed settlement prohibits Everalbum from misrepresenting how it collects, uses, discloses, maintains, or deletes personal information, including face embeddings created with the use of facial recognition technology, as well as the extent to which it protects the privacy and security of personal information it collects. Under the proposed settlement, if the company markets software to consumers for personal use, it must obtain a user’s express consent before using biometric information it collected from the user through that software to create face embeddings or develop facial recognition technology.
      • FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra issued a statement, explaining his view on facial recognition technology and he settlement:
        • As outlined in the complaint, Everalbum made promises that users could choose not to have facial recognition technology applied to their images, and that users could delete the images and their account. In addition to those promises, Everalbum had clear evidence that many of the photo app’s users did not want to be roped into facial recognition. The company broke its promises, which constitutes illegal deception according to the FTC’s complaint. This matter and the FTC’s proposed resolution are noteworthy for several reasons.
        • First, the FTC’s proposed order requires Everalbum to forfeit the fruits of its deception. Specifically, the company must delete the facial recognition technologies enhanced by any improperly obtained photos. Commissioners have previously voted to allow data protection law violators to retain algorithms and technologies that derive much of their value from ill-gotten data. This is an important course correction.
        • Second, the settlement does not require the defendant to pay any penalty. This is unfortunate. To avoid this in the future, the FTC needs to take further steps to trigger penalties, damages, and other relief for facial recognition and data protection abuses. Commissioners have voted to enter into scores of settlements that address deceptive practices regarding the collection, use, and sharing of personal data. There does not appear to be any meaningful dispute that these practices are illegal. However, since Commissioners have not restated this precedent into a rule under Section 18 of the FTC Act, we are unable to seek penalties and other relief for even the most egregious offenses when we first discover them.
        • Finally, the Everalbum matter makes it clear why it is important to maintain states’ authority to protect personal data. Because the people of Illinois, Washington, and Texas passed laws related to facial recognition and biometric identifiers, Everalbum took greater care when it came to these individuals in these states. The company’s deception targeted Americans who live in states with no specific state law protections.
  • The Trump Administration issued the “National Maritime Cybersecurity Plan” that “sets forth how the United States government will defend the American economy through enhanced cybersecurity coordination, policies and practices, aimed at mitigating risks to the maritime sub-sector, promoting prosperity through information and intelligence sharing, and preserving and increasing the nation’s cyber workforce” according to the National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien. It will be up to the Biden Administration to implement, revise, or discard this strategy, but strategy documents such as this that complain anodyne recommendations tend to stay in place for the short-term, at least. It bears note that the uneven margins to the columns in the document suggests a rush to issue this document before the end of the Trump Administration. Nevertheless, O’Brien added:
    • President [Donald] Trump designated the cybersecurity of the Maritime Transportation System (MTS) as a top priority for national defense, homeland security, and economic competitiveness in the 2017 National Security Strategy. The MTS contributes to one quarter of all United States gross domestic product, or approximately $5.4 trillion. MTS operators are increasingly reliant on information technology (IT) and operational technology (OT) to maximize the reliability and efficiency of maritime commerce. This plan articulates how the United States government can buy down the potential catastrophic risks to our national security and economic prosperity created by technology innovations to strengthen maritime commerce efficiency and reliability.
    • The strategy lists a number of priority actions for the executive branch, including:
      • The United States will de- conflict government roles and responsibilities.
      • The United States will develop risk modeling to inform maritime cybersecurity standards and best practices.
      • The United States will strengthen cybersecurity requirements in port services contracts and leasing.
      • The United States will develop procedures to identify, prioritize, mitigate, and investigate cybersecurity risks in critical ship and port systems.
      • Exchange United States government information with the maritime industry.
      • Share cybersecurity intelligence with appropriate non- government entities.
      • Prioritize maritime cybersecurity intelligence collection.
  • The National Security Agency’s NSA Cybersecurity Directorate has issued its very annual review, the “2020 NSA Cybersecurity Year in Review” that encapsulates the first year of operation for the newly created part of the NSA.
    • Highlights include:
      • In 2020, NSA focused on modernizing encryption across the Department of Defense (DOD). It began with a push to eliminate cryptography that is at risk from attack due to adversarial computational advances. This applied to several systems commonly used by the Armed Services today to provide command and control, critical communications, and battlefield awareness. It also applied to operational practices concerning the handling of cryptographic keys and the implementation of modern suites of cryptography in network communications devices.
      • 2020 was notable for the number of Cybersecurity Advisories (CSAs) and other products NSA cybersecurity produced and released. These products are intended to alert network owners, specifically National Security System (NSS), Department of Defense (DOD), and Defense Industrial Base (DIB), of cyber threats and enable defenders to take immediate action to secure their systems.
      • 2020 was notable not just because it was the NSA Cybersecurity Directorate’s first year nor because of COVID-19, but also because it was an election year in the United States. Drawing on lessons learned from the 2016 presidential election and the 2018 mid-term elections, NSA was fully engaged in whole-of-government efforts to protect 2020 election from foreign interference and influence. Cybersecurity was a foundational component of NSA’s overall election defense effort.
      • This past year, NSA cybersecurity prioritized public-private collaboration, invested in cybersecurity research, and made a concerted effort to build trusted partnerships with the cybersecurity community.
      • The NSA touted the following achievements:
        • In November 2019, NSA began laying the groundwork to conduct a pilot with the Defense Cyber Crime Center and five DIB companies to monitor and block malicious network traffic based on continuous automated analysis of the domain names these companies’ networks were contacting. The pilot’s operational phase commenced in March 2020. Over six months, the Protective Domain Name Service (PDNS) examined more than 4 billion DNS queries to and from these companies. The PDNS provider identified callouts to 3,519 malicious domains and blocked upwards of 13 million connections to those domains. The pilot proved the value of DoD expanding the PDNS service to all DIB entities at scale
        • How cyber secure is cyber “ready” for combat? In response to legislation that recognized the imperative of protecting key weapons and space systems from adversary cyber intrusions, NSA partnered closely with the DoD CIO, Joint Staff, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment, and the Military Services to structure, design, and execute a new cybersecurity program, focused on the most important weapons and space systems, known as the Strategic Cybersecurity Program (SCP), with the mindset of “stop assessing and start addressing.”The program initially identified 12 key weapons and space systems that must be evaluated for cybersecurity vulnerabilities that need to be mitigated. This is either due to the existence of intelligence indicating they are being targeted by cyber adversaries or because the systems are particularly important to warfighting. These systems cover all warfighting domains (land, sea, air, cyber, and space). Under the auspices of the SCP, NSA and military service partners will conduct cybersecurity evaluations, and, most importantly, maintain cyber risk scoreboards and mitigation plans accountability in reducing cyber risk to acceptable levels
      • The NSA sees the following issue son the horizon:
        • In October 2020, NSA launched an expansive effort across the Executive Branch to understand how we can better inform, drive, and understand the activities of NSS owners to prevent, or respond to, critical cybersecurity events, and cultivate an operationally-aligned community resilient against the most advanced threats. These efforts across the community will come to fruition during the first quarter of 2021 and are expected to unify disparate elements across USG for stronger cybersecurity at scale.
        • NSA Cybersecurity is also focused on combating ransomware, a significant threat to NSS and critical infrastructure. Ransomware activity has become more destructive and impactful in nature and scope. Malicious actors target critical data and propagate ransomware across entire networks, alarmingly focusing recent attacks against U.S. hospitals. In 2020, NSA formed multiple working groups with U.S. Government agencies and other partners to identify ways to make ransomware operations more difficult for our adversaries, less scalable, and less lucrative. While the ransomware threat remains significant, NSA will continue to develop innovative ways to keep the activity at bay.
  • This week, Parler sued Amazon after it rescinded its web hosting services to the social media platform billed as the conservative, unbiased alternative to Twitter. Amazon has responded with an extensive list of the inflammatory, inciting material upon which it based its decision.
    • In its 11 January complaint, Parler asked a federal court “for injunctive relief, including a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief, and damages” because mainly “AWS’s decision to effectively terminate Parler’s account is apparently motivated by political animus…[and] is also apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging services market to the benefit of Twitter” in violation of federal antitrust law.
    • In its 12 January response, Amazon disagreed:
      • This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints. It is not about a conspiracy to restrain trade. Instead, this case is about Parler’s demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens. There is no legal basis in AWS’s customer agreements or otherwise to compel AWS to host content of this nature. AWS notified Parler repeatedly that its content violated the parties’ agreement, requested removal, and reviewed Parler’s plan to address the problem, only to determine that Parler was both unwilling and unable to do so. AWS suspended Parler’s account as a last resort to prevent further access to such content, including plans for violence to disrupt the impending Presidential transition.
    • Amazon offered a sampling of the content on Parler that caused AWS to pull the plug on the platform:
      • “Fry’em up. The whole fkn crew. #pelosi #aoc #thesquad #soros #gates #chuckschumer #hrc #obama #adamschiff #blm #antifa we are coming for you and you will know it.”
      • “#JackDorsey … you will die a bloody death alongside Mark Suckerturd [Zuckerberg]…. It has been decided and plans are being put in place. Remember the photographs inside your home while you slept? Yes, that close. You will die a sudden death!”
      • “We are going to fight in a civil War on Jan.20th, Form MILITIAS now and acquire targets.”
      • “On January 20th we need to start systematicly [sic] assassinating [sic] #liberal leaders, liberal activists, #blm leaders and supporters, members of the #nba #nfl #mlb #nhl #mainstreammedia anchors and correspondents and #antifa. I already have a news worthy event planned.”
      • Shoot the police that protect these shitbag senators right in the head then make the senator grovel a bit before capping they ass.”

Coming Events

  • On 13 January, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold its monthly open meeting, and the agency has placed the following items on its tentative agenda “Bureau, Office, and Task Force leaders will summarize the work their teams have done over the last four years in a series of presentations:
    • Panel One. The Commission will hear presentations from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, International Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and Office of Economics and Analytics.
    • Panel Two. The Commission will hear presentations from the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force.
    • Panel Three. The Commission will hear presentations from the Media Bureau and the Incentive Auction Task Force.
    • Panel Four. The Commission will hear presentations from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Enforcement Bureau, and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
    • Panel Five. The Commission will hear presentations from the Office of Communications Business Opportunities, Office of Managing Director, and Office of General Counsel.
  • On 15 January, the Senate Intelligence Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Avril Haines to be the Director of National Intelligence.
  • The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Alejandro N. Mayorkas to be Secretary of Homeland Security on 19 January.
  • On 19 January, the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on former General Lloyd Austin III to be Secretary of Defense.
  • On 27 July, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold PrivacyCon 2021.

Australia Releases A Pair Of New Technology Laws

The Morrison government continues to take the lead in technology policy with new bill to expand surveillance powers.

With the introduction of last month’s “Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020” last month, the government in Canberra is once again pushing technology policy for the Five Eyes nations and others. However, in doing so, the Liberal–National Coalition is proposing a further incursion into protected and encrypted communications, apps, software, and hardware in the name of law enforcement. This new legislation follows a 2018 law that allows the Australian government to order technology companies to assist in decrypting and handing over communications. Under the new bill, some of Australia‘s law enforcement agencies would be able to use new “data disruption warrants” to stop and interfere with online crimes. Additionally, agencies could use “network activity warrants” to surveil online criminal activity and may obtain “account takeover warrants” to seize online accounts to acquire evidence in the course of an investigation.

Like the new bill, the “Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018” was enacted in December 2018. In mid-2020, Australia’s Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) issued its report on “Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018” (TOLA). The Parliamentary  Joint  Committee on Intelligence and Security had requested that the INSLM review the statute, and so INSLM engaged in a lengthy review, including input from the public. As explained in the report’s preface, the “INSLM independently reviews the operation, effectiveness and implications of national  security  and  counter-terrorism  laws;  and  considers  whether  the  laws  contain  appropriate  protections  for  individual  rights,  remain  proportionate  to  terrorism or national security threats, and remain necessary.”

INSLM claimed

In this report I reject the notion that there is a binary choice that must be made between the effectiveness of agencies’ surveillance powers in the digital age on the one hand and the security of the internet on the other. Rather, I conclude that what is necessary is a law which allows agencies to meet technological challenges, such as those caused by encryption, but in a proportionate way and with proper rights protection. Essentially this can be done by updating traditional safeguards to meet those same technological challenges – notably, those who are trusted to authorise intrusive search and surveillance powers must be able to understand the technological context in which those powers operate, and their consequences. If, but only if, the key recommendations I set out in this report in this regard are adopted, TOLA will be such a law.

INSLM stated “[t]he essential effects of TOLA are as follows:

a. Schedule 1 gives police and intelligence agencies new powers to agree or require significant industry assistance from communications providers.

b. Schedules 2, 3 and 4 update existing powers and, in some cases, extended them to new agencies. c. Schedule 5 gives the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) significant new powers to seek and receive both voluntary and compulsory assistance.

INSLM found

  • In relation to Schedule 1, for the reasons set out in greater detail in the report, Technical Assistance Notice (TANs) and Technical Capability Notice (TCNs) should be authorised by a body which is independent of the issuing agency or government. These are powers designed to compel a Designated Communications Provider (DCP) to reveal private information or data of its customers and therefore the usual practice of independent authorisation should apply.
  • I am satisfied that the computer access warrant and associated powers conferred by Schedule 2 are both necessary and proportionate, subject to some amendments.
  • I am generally satisfied that the powers conferred by Schedules 3 and 4 are both necessary and proportionate, but there are some matters that should be addressed and further monitored.
  • I have concluded that Schedule 5 should be amended to limit its breadth and clarify its scope.

Moreover, as the Office of Australia’s Information Commissioner (OAIC) wrote of TOLA, “[t]he powers permitted under the Act have the potential to significantly weaken important privacy rights and protections under the Privacy Act…[and] [t]he encryption technology that can obscure criminal communications and pose a threat to national security is the same technology used by ordinary citizens to exercise their legitimate rights to privacy.”

The new “Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020” would “introduce new law enforcement powers to enhance the ability of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) to combat online serious crime” according to the Explanatory Memorandum issued along with the legislation.

This policy justification is being offered for the legislation:

  • Cyber-enabled serious and organised crime, often enabled by the dark web and other anonymising technologies, such as bespoke encrypted devices for criminal use, present a direct challenge to community safety and the rule of law. For example, on the dark web criminals carry out their activities with a lower risk of identification and apprehension. Many anonymising technologies and criminal methodologies can be combined for cumulative effect, meaning it is technically difficult, and time and resource intensive, for law enforcement to take effective action. Just as online criminals are constantly changing their operations and reacting to new environments, the law must adapt in order to give law enforcement agencies effective powers of response.
  • Existing electronic surveillance powers, while useful for revealing many aspects of online criminality, are not suitably adapted to identifying and disrupting targets where those targets are actively seeking to obscure their identity and the scope of their activities. Without the critical first step of being able to identify potential offenders, investigations into serious and organised criminality can fall at the first hurdle. Being able to understand the networks that criminals are involved in and how they conduct their crimes is also a crucial step toward prosecution.

The memorandum contains the following high-level summary of the legislation:

  • This Bill addresses gaps in the legislative framework to better enable the AFP and the ACIC to collect intelligence, conduct investigations, disrupt and prosecute the most serious of crimes, including child abuse and exploitation, terrorism, the sale of illicit drugs, human trafficking, identity theft and fraud, assassinations, and the distribution of weapons.
  • The Bill contains the necessary safeguards, including oversight mechanisms and controls on the use of information, to ensure that the AFP and the ACIC use these powers in a targeted and proportionate manner to minimise the potential impact on legitimate users of online platforms.
  • The Bill introduces three new powers for the AFP and the ACIC. They are:
    • Data disruption warrants to enable the AFP and the ACIC to disrupt data by modifying, adding, copying or deleting in order to frustrate the commission of serious offences online
    • Network activity warrants to allow agencies to collect intelligence on serious criminal activity being conducted by criminal networks, and
    • Account takeover warrants to provide the AFP and the ACIC with the ability to take control of a person’s online account for the purposes of gathering evidence to further a criminal investigation.

However, in using the “data disruption warrant,” the activities of the AFP and ACIC would be “covert” and these agencies could conceal their activities. And while these powers would not be used solely for the purpose of collecting evidence, the agencies may collect evidence in the course of altering, disrupting, adding, or deleting information. It seems probable that as with agencies in other nations, there will be a blurring of this line and this sort of warrant will at some point be used predominantly for collecting evidence perhaps with a fig leaf of intending to change some of the information.

In the Explanatory Memorandum, the Coalition uses the hammer of online child sexual material to justify the expansion of the government’s powers:

The purpose of the data disruption warrant is to offer an alternative action to the AFP and the ACIC, where the usual circumstances of investigation leading to prosecution are not necessarily the option guaranteeing the most effective outcome. For example, removing content or altering access to content (such as child exploitation material), could prevent the continuation of criminal activity by participants, and be the safest and most expedient option where those participants are in unknown locations or acting under anonymous or false identities.

Of course, these materials are plaguing the victims, relatives, and investigators of these crimes, but it bears note the data disruption warrant appears not to be limited to those instances. For example, cyber-crime is a massive problem, and so would this warrant be issued for those collecting, amassing, and selling credit card numbers? How about advocacy organizations that may have information on covert Australian government activities Canberra does not want exposed?

Only “eligible” judges or a “nominated Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) member” may issue a data disruption warrant on the basis of an officer’s reasonable grounds that:

  • one or more relevant offences are being, are about to be, or are likely to be, committed, and
  • those offences involve, or are likely to involve, data held in a computer, and
  • disruption of data held in the target computer is likely to substantially assist in frustrating the commission of one or more of the relevant offences previously specified that involve, or are likely to involve, data held in the target computer.

Likewise, for network activity warrants, the specter of online child sexual exploitation material is used to justify the establishment of a new criminal investigation power:

These warrants will be used to target criminal networks about which very little is known, for example where the AFP or the ACIC know that there is a group of persons using a particular online service or other electronic platform to carry out criminal activity but the details of that activity are unknown. Network activity warrants will allow agencies to target the activities of criminal networks to discover the scope of criminal offending and the identities of the people involved. For example, a group of people accessing a website hosting child exploitation material and making that material available for downloading or streaming, will be able to be targeted under a network activity warrant.

Consequently, this warrant is intended to defeat “anonymising technologies” used to mask the commission of crimes:

Network activity warrants will allow the AFP and the ACIC to access data in computers used, or likely to be used, by a criminal network over the life of the warrant. This means that data does not have to be stored on the devices, but can be temporarily linked, stored, or transited through them. This will ensure data that is unknown or unknowable at the time the warrant is issued can be discovered, including data held on devices that have disconnected from the network once the criminal activity has been carried out (for example, a person who disconnected from a website after downloading child exploitation material).

This seems to suggest this type of warrant would allow the AFP and ACIC to chase network activity, or really the data wherever it may go. Hence, if Microsoft is shuttling the data around the world data center to data center, and the AFP is holding such a warrant, it could follow these data legally from Sydney to Singapore to San Francisco.

The Coalition’s initial overview elided an aspect of this warrant that implicates encryption. Deeper in the Explanatory Memorandum, we learn:

The AFP and the ACIC will be authorised to add, copy, delete or alter data if necessary to access the relevant data to overcome security features like encryption. Data that is subject to some form of electronic protection may need to be copied and analysed before its relevancy or irrelevancy can be determined.

As a practical matter, this is how intelligence and law enforcement agencies around the world are taking on, and in most cases, circumventing encryption. But, this pushes the debate over encryption into new territory, for if even more agencies in Australia are working to disable or defeat encryption, it may be foreseeable that commercial, widely used encryption methods will be further weakened. And, as seen with the hack of the Central Intelligence Agency’s hacking tools and exploits, it is often just a matter of time before methods to defeat security in online communications are exposed.

As with data disruption warrants, network activity warrants can only be issued by “eligible” judges or nominated AAT member:

  • a group of individuals are engaging in or facilitating criminal activity constituting the commission of one or more relevant offences, and
  • access to data held in computers will substantially assist in the collection of intelligence about those criminal networks of individuals in respect of a matter that is relevant to the prevention, detection or frustration of one or more kinds of relevant offences.

While this warrant “will not be permitted to be used in evidence in criminal proceedings, other than for a breach of the secrecy provisions of the SD Act,” it “may, however, be the subject of derivative use, allowing it to be cited in an affidavit on application for another investigatory power, such as a computer access warrant or telecommunications interception warrant.” And so, information gathered pursuant to this type of warrant could be used for surveillance by Australia’s security services. And for this reason, the “Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) will have oversight responsibility for network activity warrants given their nature as an intelligence collection tool.”

The third warrant, the account takeover warrant, would “enable the AFP and the ACIC to take control of a person’s online account for the purposes of gathering evidence about serious offences.” Under current law, an account takeover may occur only with a person’s consent, and the unsaid implication is that a significant number of people and suspects are not willing to hand over control of their accounts. The threshold for obtaining this type of warrant seems lower as a “magistrate will need to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that an account takeover is necessary for the purpose of enabling evidence to be obtained of a serious Commonwealth offence or a serious State offence that has a federal aspect.” What’s more, “[t]his power enables the action of taking control of the person’s account and locking the person out of the account.”

In a related development, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, and Communications (Department) has published a draft “Online Safety Bill” for consultation and is accepting input until 14 February 2021. The bill would modify four existing statutes that aim to protect people online and introduce a new regulatory scheme.

The Department claimed in its press statement the legislation:

  • The provisions in the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 (EOSA) that are working well to protect Australians from online harms, such as the image-based abuse scheme;
  • A set of core basic online safety expectations for social media services, relevant electronic services and designated internet services, clearly stating community expectations, with mandatory reporting requirements;
  • An enhanced cyberbullying scheme for Australian children to capture a range of online services, not just social media platforms;
  • A new cyber abuse scheme for Australian adults, to facilitate the removal of serious online abuse and harassment;
  • A modernised online content scheme, to replace the schemes in Schedules 5 and 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA). The Bill will create new classes of harmful online content and will reinvigorate out of date industry codes to address such content;
  • New abhorrent violent material blocking arrangements that allow the eSafety Commissioner to respond rapidly to an online crisis event such as the Christchurch terrorist attacks, by requesting internet service providers block access to sites hosting seriously harmful content; and
  • Consistent take-down requirements for image-based abuse, cyber abuse, cyberbullying and harmful online content, requiring online service providers to remove such material within 24 hours of receiving a notice from the eSafety Commissioner.

In a Reading Guide, the Department asserted “[t]he Bill proposes five schemes to deal with different types of harmful online material. Four already exist in law (but are being appropriately updated)…[and] [o]ne is new – the adult cyber abuse scheme:

  • Cyber-bullying Scheme – Provides for the removal of material that is harmful to Australian children. This scheme reflects the current regime in the Enhancing Online Safety Act (EOSA), however reduces the take-down time for such material from 48 hours to 24 hours and extends the scheme to more services.
  • Adult Cyber-abuse Scheme – Provides for the removal of material that seriously harms Australian adults. This scheme is new. It extends similar protections in the cyber-bullying scheme to adults, however with a higher threshold of ‘harm’ to reflect adults’ higher levels of resilience.
  • Image-based Abuse Scheme – Provides for the removal of intimate images shared without the depicted person’s consent. This scheme reflects the current regime in the EOSA, however reduces the take-down time for such material from 48 hours to 24 hours.
  • Online Content Scheme – Provides for the removal of harmful material in certain circumstances. This scheme reflects and simplifies the current regime in Schedules 5 and 7 of the BSA, with some clarifications of material and providers of services captured by the scheme, and extending the eSafety Commissioner’s take-down powers for some material to international services in some circumstances.
  • Abhorrent Violent Material Blocking Scheme – Provides for the blocking of abhorrent violent material, such as images or video of terrorist attacks. This scheme is new, but mirrors existing legislation in the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code).

Not surprisingly, under the bill, providers of online services and materials will have increased obligations. The Department stated “[t]he Basic Online Safety Expectations (BOSE) framework is an enhancement of the basic online safety requirements, coupled with new powers for the eSafety Commissioner to require service providers to report on compliance with the BOSE.” The Department explained that BOSE “will include, in legislation, core expectations that:

  • End-users are able to access services in a safe manner;
  • The extent of harmful material is minimized;
  • Technological or other measures are in effect to prevent access by children to class 2 materials; and
  • There are clear and readily identifiable mechanisms that enable end-users to report and make complaints about harmful material.

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2021. 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 RobertDychto from Pixabay

Preview of Senate Democratic Chairs

It’s not clear who will end up where, but new Senate chairs will change focus and agenda of committees and debate over the next two years.

With the victories of Senators-elect Rafael Warnock (D-GA) and Jon Ossoff (D-GA), control of the United States Senate will tip to the Democrats once Vice President-elect Kamala Harris (D) is sworn in and can break the 50-50 tie in the chamber in favor of the Democrats. With the shift in control, new chairs will take over committees key to setting the agenda over the next two years in the Senate. However, given the filibuster, and the fact that Senate Republicans will exert maximum leverage through its continued use, Democrats will be hamstrung and forced to work with Republicans on matters such as federal privacy legislation, artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IOT), cybersecurity, data flows, surveillance, etc. just as Republicans have had to work with Democrats over the six years they controlled the chamber. Having said that, Democrats will be in a stronger position than they had been and will have the power to set the agenda in committee hearings, being empowered to call the lion’s share of witnesses and to control the floor agenda. What’s more, Democrats will be poised to confirm President-elect Joe Biden’s nominees at agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and others, giving the Biden Administration a free hand in many areas of technology policy.

All of that being said, this is not meant to be an exhaustive look at all the committees of jurisdiction and possible chairs. Rather, it seeks to survey likely chairs on selected committees and some of their priorities for the next two years. Subcommittee chairs will also be important, but until the cards get shuffled among the chairs, it will not be possible to see where they land at the subcommittee level.

When considering the possible Democratic chairs of committees, one must keep in mind it is often a matter of musical chairs with the most senior members getting first choice. And so, with Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) as the senior-most Democratic Senator, he may well choose to leave the Appropriations Committee and move back to assume the gavel of the Judiciary Committee. Leahy has long been a stakeholder on antitrust, data security, privacy, and surveillance legislation and would be in a position to influence what bills on those and other matters before the Senate look like. If Leahy does not move to the chair on Judiciary, he may still be entitled to chair a subcommittee and exert influence.

If Leahy stays put, then current Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) would be poised to leapfrog Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to chair Judiciary after Feinstein was persuaded to step aside on account of her lackluster performance in a number of high-profile hearings in 2020. Durbin has also been active on privacy, data security, and surveillance issues. The Judiciary Committee will be central to a number of technology policies, including Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorization, privacy legislation, Section 230 reform, antitrust, and others. On the Republican side of the dais, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) leaving the top post because of term limit restrictions imposed by Republicans, and Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) is set to replace him. How this changes the 47 USC 230 (Section 230) debate is not immediately clear. And yet, Grassley and three colleagues recently urged the Trump Administration in a letter to omit language in a trade agreement with the United Kingdom (UK) that mirrors the liability protection Section 230. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH), Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Grassley argued to U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Robert Lighthizer that a “safe harbor” like the one provided to technology companies for hosting or moderating third party content is outdated, not needed in a free trade agreement, contrary to the will of both the Congress and UK Parliament, and likely to be changed legislatively in the near future. It is likely, however, Grassley will fall in with other Republicans propagating the narrative that social media is unfairly biased against conservatives, particularly in light of the recent purge of President Donald Trump for his many, repeated violations of policy.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will be central in any policy discussions of antitrust and anticompetition in the technology realm. But it bears note the filibuster (and the very low chances Senate Democrats would “go nuclear” and remove all vestiges of the functional supermajority requirement to pass legislation) will give Republicans leverage to block some of the more ambitious reforms Democrats might like to enact (e.g. the House Judiciary Committee’s October 2020 final report that calls for nothing less than a complete remaking of United States (U.S.) antitrust policy and law; see here for more analysis.)

It seems Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) will be the next chair of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Development Committee which has jurisdiction over cybersecurity, data security, privacy, and other issues in the financial services sector, making it a player on any legislation designed to encompass the whole of the United States economy. Having said that, it may again be the case that sponsors of, say, privacy legislation decide to cut the Gordian knot of jurisdictional turf battles by cutting out certain committees. For example, many of the privacy bills had provisions making clear they would deem financial services entities in compliance with the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-102) (aka Gramm-Leach-Bliley) to be in compliance with the new privacy regime. I suppose these provisions may have been included on the basis of the very high privacy and data security standards Gramm-Leach-Bliley has brought about (e.g. the Experian hack), or sponsors of federal privacy legislation made the strategic calculation to circumvent the Senate Banking Committee as much as they can. Nonetheless, this committee has sought to insert itself into the policymaking process on privacy last year as Brown and outgoing Chair Mike Crapo (R-ID) requested “feedback” in February 2019 “from interested stakeholders on the collection, use and protection of sensitive information by financial regulators and private companies.” Additionally, Brown released what may be the most expansive privacy bill from the perspective of privacy and civil liberties advocates, the “Data Accountability and Transparency Act of 2020” in June 2020 (see here for my analysis.) Therefore, Brown may continue to push for a role in federal privacy legislation with a gavel in his hands.

In a similar vein, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) will likely take over the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee which has jurisdiction over health information privacy and data security through the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH Act). Again, as with the Senate Banking Committee and Gramm-Leach-Bliley, most of the privacy bills exempt HIPAA-compliant entities. And yet, even if her committee is cut out of a direct role in privacy legislation, Murray will still likely exert influence through oversight of and possible legislation changing HIPAA regulations and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) enforcement and rewriting of these standards for most of the healthcare industry. For example, HHS is rushing a rewrite of the HIPAA regulations at the tail end of the Trump Administration, and Murray could be in a position to inform how the Biden Administration and Secretary of Health and Human Services-designate Xavier Berra handles this rulemaking. Additionally, Murray may push the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), the arm of HHS that writes and enforces these regulations, to prioritize matters differently.

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) appears to be the next chair of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and arguably the largest technology portfolio in the Senate. It is the primary committee of jurisdiction for the FCC, FTC, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Department of Commerce. Cantwell may exert influence on which people are nominated to head and staff those agencies and others. Her committee is also the primary committee of jurisdiction for domestic and international privacy and data protection matters. And so, federal privacy legislation will likely be drafted by this committee, and legislative changes so the U.S. can enter into a new personal data sharing agreement with the European Union (EU) would also likely involve her and her committee.

Cantwell and likely next Ranking Member Roger Wicker (R-MS) agree on many elements of federal privacy law but were at odds last year on federal preemption and whether people could sue companies for privacy violations. Between them, they circulated three privacy bills. In September 2020, Wicker and three Republican colleagues introduced the “Setting an American Framework to Ensure Data Access, Transparency, and Accountability (SAFE DATA) Act” (S.4626) (see here for more analysis). Wicker had put out for comment a discussion draft, the “Consumer Data Privacy Act of 2019” (CDPA) (See here for analysis) in November 2019 shortly after the Ranking Member on the committee, Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and other Democrats had introduced their privacy bill, the “Consumer Online Privacy Rights Act“ (COPRA) (S.2968) (See here for more analysis).

Cantwell could also take a leading role on Section 230, but her focus, of late, seems to be on how technology companies are wreaking havoc to traditional media. released a report that she has mentioned during her opening statement at the 23 September hearing aimed at trying to revive data privacy legislation. She and her staff investigated the decline and financial troubles of local media outlets, which are facing a cumulative loss in advertising revenue of up to 70% since 2000. And since advertising revenue has long been the life blood of print journalism, this has devastated local media with many outlets shutting their doors or radically cutting their staff. This trend has been exacerbated by consolidation in the industry, often in concert with private equity or hedge funds looking to wring the last dollars of value from bargain basement priced newspapers. Cantwell also claimed that the overwhelming online advertising dominance of Google and Facebook has further diminished advertising revenue and other possible sources of funding through a variety of means. She intimates that much of this content may be illegal under U.S. law, and the FTC may well be able to use its Section 5 powers against unfair and deceptive acts and its anti-trust authority to take action. (see here for more analysis and context.) In this vein, Cantwell will want her committee to play in any antitrust policy changes, likely knowing massive changes in U.S. law are not possible in a split Senate with entrenched party positions and discipline.

Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) will take over the Senate Armed Services Committee and its portfolio over national security technology policy that includes the cybersecurity, data protection and supply chain of national security agencies and their contractors, AI, offensive and defensive U.S. cyber operations, and other realms. Much of the changes Reed and his committee will seek to make will be through the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (see here and here for the many technology provisions in the FY 2021 NDAA.) Reed may also prod the Department of Defense (DOD) to implement or enforce the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Framework differently than envisioned and designed by the Trump Administration. In December 2020, a new rule took effect designed to drive better cybersecurity among U.S. defense contractors. This rule brings together two different lines of effort to require the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) to employ better cybersecurity given the risks they face by holding and using classified information, Federal Contract Information (FCI) and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). The Executive Branch has long wrestled with how to best push contractors to secure their systems, and Congress and the White House have opted for using federal contract requirements in that contractors must certify compliance. However, the most recent initiative, the CMMC Framework will require contractors to be certified by third party assessors. And yet, it is not clear the DOD has wrestled with the often-misaligned incentives present in third party certification schemes.

Reed’s committee will undoubtedly delve deep into the recent SolarWinds hack and implement policy changes to avoid a reoccurrence. Doing so may lead the Senate Armed Services Committee back to reconsidering the Cyberspace Solarium Commission’s (CSC) March 2020 final report and follow up white papers, especially their views embodied in “Building a Trusted ICT Supply Chain.”

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) will likely take over the Senate Intelligence Committee. Warner has long been a stakeholder on a number of technology issues and would be able to exert influence on the national security components of such issues. He and his committee will almost certainly play a role in the Congressional oversight of and response to the SolarWinds hack. Likewise, his committee shares jurisdiction over FISA with the Senate Judiciary Committee and over national security technology policy with the Armed Services Committee.

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) would be the Senate Democratic point person on election security from her perch at the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which may enable her to more forcefully push for the legislative changes she has long advocated for. In May 2019, Klobuchar and other Senate Democrats introduced the “Election Security Act” (S. 1540), the Senate version of the stand-alone measure introduced in the House that was taken from the larger package, the “For the People Act” (H.R. 1) passed by the House.

In August 2018, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee postponed indefinitely a markup on a compromise bill to provide states additional assistance in securing elections from interference, the “The Secure Elections Act” (S.2593). Reportedly, there was concern among state officials that a provision requiring audits of election results would be in effect an unfunded mandate even though this provision was softened at the insistence of Senate Republican leadership. However, a Trump White House spokesperson indicated in a statement that the Administration opposed the bill, which may have posed an additional obstacle to Committee action. However, even if the Senate had passed its bill, it was unlikely that the Republican controlled House would have considered companion legislation (H.R. 6663).

Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) may be the next chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and if so, he will continue to face the rock on which many the bark of cybersecurity legislation has been dashed: Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI). So significant has Johnson’s opposition been to bipartisan cybersecurity legislation from the House, some House Republican stakeholders have said so in media accounts not bothering to hide in anonymity. And so whatever Peters’ ambitions may be to shore up the cybersecurity of the federal government as his committee will play a role in investigating and responding to the Russian hack of SolarWinds and many federal agencies, he will be limited by whatever Johnson and other Republicans will allow to move through the committee and through the Senate. Of course, Peters’ purview would include the Department of Homeland Security and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and its remit to police the cybersecurity practices of the federal government. Peters would also have in his portfolio the information technology (IT) practices of the federal government, some $90 billion annually across all agencies.

Finally, whether it be Leahy or Durbin at the Senate Appropriations Committee, this post allows for immense influence in funding and programmatic changes in all federal programs through the power of the purse Congress holds.

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (12 January 2021)

Further Reading

  • Biden’s NSC to focus on global health, climate, cyber and human rights, as well as China and Russia” By Karen DeYoung — The Washington Post. Like almost every incoming White House, the Biden team has announced a restructuring of the National Security Council (NSC) to better effectuate the President-elect’s policy priorities. To not surprise, the volume on cybersecurity policy will be turned up. Other notable change is plans to take “cross-cutting” approaches to issues that will likely meld foreign and domestic and national security and civil issues, meaning there could be a new look on offensive cyber operations, for example. It is possible President Biden decides to put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak, by re-imposing an interagency decision-making process as opposed to the Trump Administration’s approach of delegating discretion to the National Security Agency/Cyber Command head. Also, the NSC will focus on emerging technology, a likely response to the technology arms race the United States finds itself in against the People’s Republic of China.
  • Exclusive: Pandemic relief aid went to media that promoted COVID misinformation” By Caitlin Dickson — yahoo! news. The consulting firm Alethea Group and the nonprofit Global Disinformation Index are claiming the COVID stimulus Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) provided loans and assistance to five firms that “were publishing false or misleading information about the pandemic, thus profiting off the infodemic” according to an Alethea Group vice president. This report follows an NBC News article claiming that 14 white supremacist and racist organizations have also received PPP loans. The Alethea Group and Global Disinformation Index named five entities who took PPP funds and kept spreading pandemic misinformation: Epoch Media Group, Newsmax Media, The Federalist, Liftable Media, and Prager University.
  • Facebook shuts Uganda accounts ahead of vote” — France24. The social media company shuttered a number of Facebook and Instagram accounts related to government officials in Uganda ahead of an election on account of “Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour” (CIB). This follows the platform shutting down accounts related to the French Army and Russia seeking to influence events in Africa. These and other actions may indicate the platform is starting to pay the same attention to the non-western world as at least one former employee has argued the platform was negligent at best and reckless at worst in not properly resourcing efforts to police CIB throughout the Third World.
  • China tried to punish European states for Huawei bans by adding eleventh-hour rule to EU investment deal” By Finbarr Bermingham — South China Morning Post. At nearly the end of talks on a People’s Republic of China (PRC)-European Union (EU) trade deal, PRC negotiators tried slipping in language that would have barred entry to the PRC’s cloud computing market to any country or company from a country that restricts Huawei’s services and products. This is alternately being seen as either standard Chinese negotiating tactics or an attempt to avenge the thwarting of the crown jewel in its telecommunications ambitions.
  • Chinese regulators to push tech giants to share consumer credit data – sources” By Julie Zhu — Reuters. Ostensibly in a move to better manage the risks of too much unsafe lending, tech giants in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) will soon need to share data on consumer loans. It seems inevitable that such data will be used by Beijing to further crack down on undesirable people and elements within the PRC.
  • The mafia turns social media influencer to reinforce its brand” By Miles Johnson — The Financial Times. Even Italy’s feared ’Ndrangheta is creating and curating a social media presence.

Other Developments

  • President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) that bans eight applications from the People’s Republic of China on much the same grounds as the EOs prohibiting TikTok and WeChat. If this EO is not rescinded by the Biden Administration, federal courts may block its implementation as has happened with the TikTok and WeChat EOs to date. Notably, courts have found that the Trump Administration exceeded its authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which may also be an issue in the proposed prohibition on Alipay, CamScanner, QQ Wallet, SHAREit, Tencent QQ, VMate, WeChat Pay, and WPS Office. Trump found:
    • that additional steps must be taken to deal with the national emergency with respect to the information and communications technology and services supply chain declared in Executive Order 13873 of May 15, 2019 (Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain).  Specifically, the pace and pervasiveness of the spread in the United States of certain connected mobile and desktop applications and other software developed or controlled by persons in the People’s Republic of China, to include Hong Kong and Macau (China), continue to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.  At this time, action must be taken to address the threat posed by these Chinese connected software applications.
    • Trump directed that within 45 days of issuance of the EO, there shall be a prohibition on “any transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with persons that develop or control the following Chinese connected software applications, or with their subsidiaries, as those transactions and persons are identified by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) under subsection (e) of this section: Alipay, CamScanner, QQ Wallet, SHAREit, Tencent QQ, VMate, WeChat Pay, and WPS Office.”
  • The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued its first statutorily required annual assessment of how well the United States Department of Defense (DOD) is managing its major information technology (IT) procurements. The DOD spent more than $36 billion of the $90 billion the federal government was provided for IT in FY 2020. The GAO was tasked with assessing how well the DOD did in using iterative development, managing costs and schedules, and implementing cybersecurity measures. The GAO found progress in the first two realms but a continued lag in deploying long recommended best practices to ensure the security of the IT the DOD buys or builds. Nonetheless, the GAO focused on 15 major IT acquisitions that qualify as administrative (i.e. “business”) and communications and information security (i.e. “non-business.”) While there were no explicit recommendations made, the GAO found:
    • Ten of the 15 selected major IT programs exceeded their planned schedules, with delays ranging from 1 month for the Marine Corps’ CAC2S Inc 1 to 5 years for the Air Force’s Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System-Increment 1.
    • …eight of the 10 selected major IT programs that had tested their then-current technical performance targets reported having met all of their targets…. As of December 2019, four programs had not yet conducted testing activities—Army’s ACWS, Air Force’s AFIPPS Inc 1, Air Force’s MROi, and Navy ePS. Testing data for one program, Air Force’s ISPAN Inc 4, were classified.
    • …officials from the 15 selected major IT programs we reviewed reported using software development approaches that may help to limit risks to cost and schedule outcomes. For example, major business IT programs reported using COTS software. In addition, most programs reported using an iterative software development approach and using a minimum deployable product. With respect to cybersecurity practices, all the programs reported developing cybersecurity strategies, but programs reported mixed experiences with respect to conducting cybersecurity testing. Most programs reported using operational cybersecurity testing, but less than half reported conducting developmental cybersecurity testing. In addition, programs that reported conducting cybersecurity vulnerability assessments experienced fewer increases in planned program costs and fewer schedule delays. Programs also reported a variety of challenges associated with their software development and cybersecurity staff.
    • 14 of the 15 programs reported using an iterative software development approach which, according to leading practices, may help reduce cost growth and deliver better results to the customer. However, programs also reported using an older approach to software development, known as waterfall, which could introduce risk for program cost growth because of its linear and sequential phases of development that may be implemented over a longer period of time. Specifically, two programs reported using a waterfall approach in conjunction with an iterative approach, while one was solely using a waterfall approach.
    • With respect to cybersecurity, programs reported mixed implementation of specific practices, contributing to program risks that might impact cost and schedule outcomes. For example, all 15 programs reported developing cybersecurity strategies, which are intended to help ensure that programs are planning for and documenting cybersecurity risk management efforts.
    • In contrast, only eight of the 15 programs reported conducting cybersecurity vulnerability assessments—systematic examinations of an information system or product intended to, among other things, determine the adequacy of security measures and identify security deficiencies. These eight programs experienced fewer increases in planned program costs and fewer schedule delays relative to the programs that did not report using cybersecurity vulnerability assessments.
  • The United States (U.S.) Department of Energy gave notice of a “Prohibition Order prohibiting the acquisition, importation, transfer, or installation of specified bulk-power system (BPS) electric equipment that directly serves Critical Defense Facilities (CDFs), pursuant to Executive Order 13920.” (See here for analysis of the executive order.) The Department explained:
    • Executive Order No. 13920 of May 1, 2020, Securing the United States Bulk-Power System (85 FR 26595 (May 4, 2020)) (E.O. 13920) declares that threats by foreign adversaries to the security of the BPS constitute a national emergency. A current list of such adversaries is provided in a Request for Information (RFI), issued by the Department of Energy (Department or DOE) on July 8, 2020 seeking public input to aid in its implementation of E.O. 13920. The Department has reason to believe, as detailed below, that the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC or China), one of the listed adversaries, is equipped and actively planning to undermine the BPS. The Department has thus determined that certain BPS electric equipment or programmable components subject to China’s ownership, control, or influence, constitute undue risk to the security of the BPS and to U.S. national security. The purpose of this Order is to prohibit the acquisition, importation, transfer, or subsequent installation of such BPS electric equipment or programmable components in certain sections of the BPS.
  • The United States’ (U.S.) Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) added the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) to its Entity List in a move intended to starve the company of key U.S. technology needed to manufacture high end semiconductors. Therefore, any U.S. entity wishing to do business with SMIC will need a license which the Trump Administration may not be likely to grant. The Department of Commerce explained in its press release:
    • The Entity List designation limits SMIC’s ability to acquire certain U.S. technology by requiring U.S. exporters to apply for a license to sell to the company.  Items uniquely required to produce semiconductors at advanced technology nodes—10 nanometers or below—will be subject to a presumption of denial to prevent such key enabling technology from supporting China’s military-civil fusion efforts.
    • BIS also added more than sixty other entities to the Entity List for actions deemed contrary to the national security or foreign policy interest of the United States.  These include entities in China that enable human rights abuses, entities that supported the militarization and unlawful maritime claims in the South China Sea, entities that acquired U.S.-origin items in support of the People’s Liberation Army’s programs, and entities and persons that engaged in the theft of U.S. trade secrets.
    • As explained in the Federal Register notice:
      • SMIC is added to the Entity List as a result of China’s military-civil fusion (MCF) doctrine and evidence of activities between SMIC and entities of concern in the Chinese military industrial complex. The Entity List designation limits SMIC’s ability to acquire certain U.S. technology by requiring exporters, reexporters, and in-country transferors of such technology to apply for a license to sell to the company. Items uniquely required to produce semiconductors at advanced technology nodes 10 nanometers or below will be subject to a presumption of denial to prevent such key enabling technology from supporting China’s military modernization efforts. This rule adds SMIC and the following ten entities related to SMIC: Semiconductor Manufacturing International (Beijing) Corporation; Semiconductor Manufacturing International (Tianjin) Corporation; Semiconductor Manufacturing International (Shenzhen) Corporation; SMIC Semiconductor Manufacturing (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.; SMIC Holdings Limited; Semiconductor Manufacturing South China Corporation; SMIC Northern Integrated Circuit Manufacturing (Beijing) Co., Ltd.; SMIC Hong Kong International Company Limited; SJ Semiconductor; and Ningbo Semiconductor International Corporation (NSI).
  • The United States’ (U.S.) Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amended its Export Administration Regulations “by adding a new ‘Military End User’ (MEU) List, as well as the first tranche of 103 entities, which includes 58 Chinese and 45 Russian companies” per its press release. The Department asserted:
    • The U.S. Government has determined that these companies are ‘military end users’ for purposes of the ‘military end user’ control in the EAR that applies to specified items for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the China, Russia, and Venezuela when such items are destined for a prohibited ‘military end user.’
  • The Australia Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) rolled out another piece of the Consumer Data Right (CDR) scheme under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, specifically accreditation guidelines “to provide information and guidance to assist applicants with lodging a valid application to become an accredited person” to whom Australians may direct data holders share their data. The ACCC explained:
    • The CDR aims to give consumers more access to and control over their personal data.
    • Being able to easily and efficiently share data will improve consumers’ ability to compare and switch between products and services and encourage competition between service providers, leading to more innovative products and services for consumers and the potential for lower prices.
    • Banking is the first sector to be brought into the CDR.
    • Accredited persons may receive a CDR consumer’s data from a data holder at the request and consent of the consumer. Any person, in Australia or overseas, who wishes to receive CDR data to provide products or services to consumers under the CDR regime, must be accredited
  • Australia’s government has released its “Data Availability and Transparency Bill 2020” that “establishes a new data sharing scheme for federal government data, underpinned by strong safeguards to mitigate risks and simplified processes to make it easier to manage data sharing requests” according to the summary provided in Parliament by the government’s point person. In the accompanying “Explanatory Memorandum,” the following summary was provided:
    • The Bill establishes a new data sharing scheme which will serve as a pathway and regulatory framework for sharing public sector data. ‘Sharing’ involves providing controlled access to data, as distinct from open release to the public.
    • To oversee the scheme and support best practice, the Bill creates a new independent regulator, the National Data Commissioner (the Commissioner). The Commissioner’s role is modelled on other regulators such as the Australian Information Commissioner, with whom the Commissioner will cooperate.
    • The data sharing scheme comprises the Bill and disallowable legislative instruments (regulations, Minister-made rules, and any data codes issued by the Commissioner). The Commissioner may also issue non-legislative guidelines that participating entities must have regard to, and may release other guidance as necessary.
    • Participants in the scheme are known as data scheme entities:
      • Data custodians are Commonwealth bodies that control public sector data, and have the right to deal with that data.
      • Accredited users are entities accredited by the Commissioner to access to public sector data. To become accredited, entities must satisfy the security, privacy, infrastructure and governance requirements set out in the accreditation framework.
      • Accredited data service providers (ADSPs) are entities accredited by the Commissioner to perform data services such as data integration. Government agencies and users will be able to draw upon ADSPs’ expertise to help them to share and use data safely.
    • The Bill does not compel sharing. Data custodians are responsible for assessing each sharing request, and deciding whether to share their data if satisfied the risks can be managed.
    • The data sharing scheme contains robust safeguards to ensure sharing occurs in a consistent and transparent manner, in accordance with community expectations. The Bill authorises data custodians to share public sector data with accredited users, directly or through an ADSP, where:
      • Sharing is for a permitted purpose – government service delivery, informing government policy and programs, or research and development;
      • The data sharing principles have been applied to manage the risks of sharing; and
      • The terms of the arrangement are recorded in a data sharing agreement.
    • Where the above requirements are met, the Bill provides limited statutory authority to share public sector data, despite other Commonwealth, State and Territory laws that prevent sharing. This override of non-disclosure laws is ‘limited’ because it occurs only when the Bill’s requirements are met, and only to the extent necessary to facilitate sharing.
  • The United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) is asking interested parties to provide input on the proposed acquisition of British semiconductor company by a United States (U.S.) company before it launches a formal investigation later this year. However, CMA is limited to competition considerations, and any national security aspects of the proposed deal would need to be investigated by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government. CMA stated:
    • US-based chip designer and producer NVIDIA Corporation (NVIDIA) plans to purchase the Intellectual Property Group business of UK-based Arm Limited (Arm) in a deal worth $40 billion. Arm develops and licenses intellectual property (IP) and software tools for chip designs. The products and services supplied by the companies support a wide range of applications used by businesses and consumers across the UK, including desktop computers and mobile devices, game consoles and vehicle computer systems.
    • CMA added:
      • The CMA will look at the deal’s possible effect on competition in the UK. The CMA is likely to consider whether, following the takeover, Arm has an incentive to withdraw, raise prices or reduce the quality of its IP licensing services to NVIDIA’s rivals.
  • The Israeli firm, NSO Group, has been accused by an entity associated with a British university of using real-time cell phone data to sell its COVID-19 contact tracing app, Fleming, in ways that may have broken the laws of a handful of nations. Forensic Architecture,  a research agency, based at Goldsmiths, University of London, argued:
    • In March 2020, with the rise of COVID-19, Israeli cyber-weapons manufacturer NSO Group launched a contact-tracing technology named ‘Fleming’. Two months later, a database belonging to NSO’s Fleming program was found unprotected online. It contained more than five hundred thousand datapoints for more than thirty thousand distinct mobile phones. NSO Group denied there was a security breach. Forensic Architecture received and analysed a sample of the exposed database, which suggested that the data was based on ‘real’ personal data belonging to unsuspecting civilians, putting their private information in risk
    • Forensic Architecture added:
      • Leaving a database with genuine location data unprotected is a serious violation of the applicable data protection laws. That a surveillance company with access to personal data could have overseen this breach is all the more concerning.
      • This could constitute a violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) based on where the database was discovered as well as the laws of the nations where NSO Group allegedly collected personal data
    • The NSO Group denied the claims and was quoted by Tech Crunch:
      • “We have not seen the supposed examination and have to question how these conclusions were reached. Nevertheless, we stand by our previous response of May 6, 2020. The demo material was not based on real and genuine data related to infected COVID-19 individuals,” said an unnamed spokesperson. (NSO’s earlier statement made no reference to individuals with COVID-19.)
      • “As our last statement details, the data used for the demonstrations did not contain any personally identifiable information (PII). And, also as previously stated, this demo was a simulation based on obfuscated data. The Fleming system is a tool that analyzes data provided by end users to help healthcare decision-makers during this global pandemic. NSO does not collect any data for the system, nor does NSO have any access to collected data.”

Coming Events

  • On 13 January, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold its monthly open meeting, and the agency has placed the following items on its tentative agenda “Bureau, Office, and Task Force leaders will summarize the work their teams have done over the last four years in a series of presentations:
    • Panel One. The Commission will hear presentations from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, International Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and Office of Economics and Analytics.
    • Panel Two. The Commission will hear presentations from the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force.
    • Panel Three. The Commission will hear presentations from the Media Bureau and the Incentive Auction Task Force.
    • Panel Four. The Commission will hear presentations from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Enforcement Bureau, and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
    • Panel Five. The Commission will hear presentations from the Office of Communications Business Opportunities, Office of Managing Director, and Office of General Counsel.
  • On 27 July, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold PrivacyCon 2021.

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2021. 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 Judith Scharnowski from Pixabay

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (11 January 2021)

Further Reading

  • Why the Russian hack is so significant, and why it’s close to a worst-case scenario” By Kevin Collier — NBC News. This article quotes experts who paint a very ugly picture for the United States (U.S.) in trying to recover from the Russian Federation’s hack. Firstly, the Russians are very good at what they do and likely built multiple backdoors in systems they would want to ensure they have access to after using SolarWinds’ update system to gain initial entry. Secondly, broadly speaking, at present, U.S. agencies and companies have two very unpalatable options: spend months hunting through their systems for any such backdoors or other issues or rebuild their systems from scratch. The ramifications of this hack will continue to be felt well into the Biden Administration.
  • The storming of Capitol Hill was organized on social media.” By Sheera Frenkel — The New York Times. As the repercussions of the riot and apparently attempted insurrection continue to be felt, one aspect that has received attention and will continue to receive attention is the role social media platforms played. Platforms used predominantly by right wing and extremist groups like Gab and Parler were used extensively to plan and execute the attack. This fact and the ongoing content moderation issues at larger platforms will surely inform the Section 230 and privacy legislation debates expected to occur this year and into the future.
  • Comcast data cap blasted by lawmakers as it expands into 12 more states” By Jon Brodkin — Ars Technica. Comcast has extended to other states its 1.2TB cap on household broadband usage, and lawmakers in Massachusetts have written the company, claiming this will hurt low-income families working and schooling children at home. Comcast claims this affects only a small class of subscribers, so-called “super users.” Such a move always seemed in retrospect as data is now the most valuable commodity.
  • Finnish lawmakers’ emails hacked in suspected espionage incident” By Shannon Vavra — cyberscoop. Another legislature of a democratic nation has been hacked, and given the recent hacks of Norway’s Parliament and Germany’s Bundestag by the Russians, it may well turn out they were behind this hack that “obtain[ed] information either to benefit a foreign state or to harm Finland” according to Finland’s National Bureau of Investigation.
  • Facebook Forced Its Employees To Stop Discussing Trump’s Coup Attempt” By Ryan Mac — BuzzFeed News. Reportedly, Facebook shut down internal dialogue about the misgivings voiced by employees about its response to the lies in President Donald Trump’s video and the platform’s role in creating the conditions that caused Trump supporters to storm the United States (U.S.) Capitol. Internally and externally, Facebook equivocated on whether it would go so far as Twitter in taking down Trump’s video and content.
  • WhatsApp gives users an ultimatum: Share data with Facebook or stop using the app” By Dan Goodin — Ars Technica. Very likely in response to coming changes to the Apple iOS that will allow for greater control of privacy, Facebook is giving WhatsApp users a choice: accept our new terms of service that allows personal data to be shared with and used by Facebook or have your account permanently deleted.
  • Insecure wheels: Police turn to car data to destroy suspects’ alibis” By Olivia Solon — NBC News. Like any other computerized, connected device, cars are increasingly a source law enforcement (and likely intelligence agencies) are using to investigate crimes. If you sync your phone via USB or Bluetooth, most modern cars will access your phone and store all sorts of personal data that can later be accessed. But, other systems in cars can tell investigators where the car was, how heavy it was (i.e. how many people), when doors opened, etc. And, there are not specific federal or state laws in the United States to mandate protection of these data.

Other Developments

  • The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and the National Security Agency (NSA) issued a joint statement, finally naming the Russian Federation as the likely perpetrator of the massive SolarWinds hack. However, the agencies qualified the language, claiming:
    • This work indicates that an Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) actor, likely Russian in origin, is responsible for most or all of the recently discovered, ongoing cyber compromises of both government and non-governmental networks. At this time, we believe this was, and continues to be, an intelligence gathering effort.
      • Why the language is not more definitive is not clear. Perhaps the agencies are merely exercising caution about whom is blamed for the attack. Perhaps the agencies do not want to anger a White House and President averse to reports of Russian hacking for fear it will be associated with the hacking during the 2016 election that aided the Trump Campaign.
      • However, it is noteworthy the agencies are stating their belief the hacking was related to “intelligence gathering,” suggesting the purpose of the incursions was not to destroy data or launch an attack. Presumably, such an assertion is meant to allays concerns that the Russian Federation intends to attack the United States (U.S.) like it did in Ukraine and Georgia in the last decade.
    • The Cyber Unified Coordination Group (UCG) convened per Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 41 (which technically is the FBI, CISA, and the ODNI but not the NSA) asserted its belief that
      • of the approximately 18,000 affected public and private sector customers of SolarWinds’ Orion products, a much smaller number has been compromised by follow-on activity on their systems. We have so far identified fewer than 10 U.S. government agencies that fall into this category, and are working to identify the nongovernment entities who also may be impacted.
      • These findings are, of course, preliminary, and there may be incentives for the agencies to be less than forthcoming about what they know of the scope and impact of the hacking.
  • Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Ajit Pai has said he will not proceed with a rulemaking to curtail 47 USC 230 (Section 230) in response to a petition the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) filed at the direction of President Donald Trump. Pai remarked “I do not intend to move forward with the notice of proposed rule-making at the FCC” because “in part, because given the results of the election, there’s simply not sufficient time to complete the administrative steps necessary in order to resolve the rule-making.” Pai cautioned Congress and the Biden Administration “to study and deliberate on [reforming Section 230] very seriously,” especially “the immunity provision.”  
    • In October, Pai had announced the FCC would proceed with a notice and comment rulemaking based on the NTIA’s petition asking the agency to start a rulemaking to clarify alleged ambiguities in 47 USC 230 regarding the limits of the liability shield for the content others post online versus the liability protection for “good faith” moderation by the platform itself. The NTIA was acting per direction in an executive order allegedly aiming to correct online censorship. Executive Order 13925, “Preventing Online Censorship” was issued in late May after Twitter factchecked two of President Donald Trump’s Tweets regarding false claims made about mail voting in California in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • A House committee released its most recent assessment of federal cybersecurity and information technology (IT) assessment. The House Oversight Committee’s Government Operations Subcommittee released its 11th biannual scorecard under the “Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA). The subcommittee stressed this “marks the first time in the Scorecard’s history that all 24 agencies included in the law have received A’s in a single category” and noted it is “the first time that a category will be retired.” Even though this assessment is labeled the FITARA Scorecard, it is actually a compilation of different metrics borne of other pieces of legislation and executive branch programs.
    • Additionally, 19 of the 24 agencies reviewed received A’s on the Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI)
    • However, four agencies received F’s on Agency Chief Information Officer (CIO) authority enhancements, measures aiming to fulfill one of the main purposes of FITARA: empowering agency CIOs as a means of controlling and managing better IT acquisition and usage. It has been an ongoing struggle to get agency compliance with the letter and spirit of federal law and directives to do just this.
    • Five agencies got F’s and two agencies got D’s for failing to hit the schedule for transitioning off of the “the expiring Networx, Washington Interagency Telecommunications System (WITS) 3, and Regional Local Service Agreement (LSA) contracts” to the General Services Administration’s $50 billion Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions (EIS). The GSA explained this program in a recent letter:
      • After March 31, 2020, GSA will disconnect agencies, in phases, to meet the September 30, 2022 milestone for 100% completion of transition. The first phase will include agencies that have been “non-responsive” to transition outreach from GSA. Future phases will be based on each agency’s status at that time and the individual circumstances impacting that agency’s transition progress, such as protests or pending contract modifications. The Agency Transition Sponsor will receive a notification before any services are disconnected, and there will be an opportunity for appeal.
  • A bipartisan quartet of United States Senators urged the Trump Administration in a letter to omit language in a trade agreement with the United Kingdom (UK) that mirrors the liability protection in 47 U.S.C. 230 (Section 230). Senators Rob Portman (R-OH), Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) argued to U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Robert Lighthizer that a “safe harbor” like the one provided to technology companies for hosting or moderating third party content is outdated, not needed in a free trade agreement, contrary to the will of both the Congress and UK Parliament, and likely to be changed legislatively in the near future. However, left unsaid in the letter, is the fact that Democrats and Republicans generally do not agree on how precisely to change Section 230. There may be consensus that change is needed, but what that change looks like is still a matter much in dispute.
    • Stakeholders in Congress were upset that the Trump Administration included language modeled on Section 230 in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the modification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). For example, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Frank Pallone Jr (D-NJ) and then Ranking Member Greg Walden (R-OR) wrote Lighthizer, calling it “inappropriate for the United States to export language mirroring Section 230 while such serious policy discussions are ongoing” in Congress.
  • The Trump White House issued a new United States (U.S.) government strategy for advanced computing to replace the 2019 strategy. The “PIONEERING THE FUTURE ADVANCED COMPUTING ECOSYSTEM: A STRATEGIC PLAN” “envisions a future advanced computing ecosystem that provides the foundation for continuing American leadership in science and engineering, economic competitiveness, and national security.” The Administration asserted:
    • It develops a whole-of-nation approach based on input from government, academia, nonprofits, and industry sectors, and builds on the objectives and recommendations of the 2019 National Strategic Computing Initiative Update: Pioneering the Future of Computing. This strategic plan also identifies agency roles and responsibilities and describes essential operational and coordination structures necessary to support and implement its objectives. The plan outlines the following strategic objectives:
      • Utilize the future advanced computing ecosystem as a strategic resource spanning government, academia, nonprofits, and industry.
      • Establish an innovative, trusted, verified, usable, and sustainable software and data ecosystem.
      • Support foundational, applied, and translational research and development to drive the future of advanced computing and its applications.
      • Expand the diverse, capable, and flexible workforce that is critically needed to build and sustain the advanced computing ecosystem.
  • A federal court threw out a significant portion of a suit Apple brought against a security company, Corellium, that offers technology allowing security researchers to virtualize the iOS in order to undertake research. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida summarized the case:
    • On August 15, 2019, Apple filed this lawsuit alleging that Corellium infringed Apple’s copyrights in iOS and circumvented its security measures in violation of the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). Corellium denies that it has violated the DMCA or Apple’s copyrights. Corellium further argues that even if it used Apple’s copyrighted work, such use constitutes “fair use” and, therefore, is legally permissible.
    • The court found “that Corellium’s use of iOS constitutes fair use” but did not for the DMCA claim, thus allowing Apple to proceed with that portion of the suit.
  • The Trump Administration issued a plan on how cloud computing could be marshalled to help federally funded artificial intelligence (AI) research and development (R&D). A select committee made four key recommendations that “should accelerate the use of cloud resources for AI R&D: 1)launch and support pilot projects to identify and explore the advantages and challenges associated with the use of commercial clouds in conducting federally funded AI research; (2) improve education and training opportunities to help researchers better leverage cloud resources for AI R&D; (3) catalog best practices in identity management and single-sign-on strategies to enable more effective use of the variety of commercial cloud resources for AI R&D; and (4) establish and publish best practices for the seamless use of different cloud platforms for AI R&D. Each recommendation, if adopted, should accelerate the use of cloud resources for AI R&D.”

Coming Events

  • On 13 January, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold its monthly open meeting, and the agency has placed the following items on its tentative agenda “Bureau, Office, and Task Force leaders will summarize the work their teams have done over the last four years in a series of presentations:
    • Panel One. The Commission will hear presentations from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, International Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and Office of Economics and Analytics.
    • Panel Two. The Commission will hear presentations from the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force.
    • Panel Three. The Commission will hear presentations from the Media Bureau and the Incentive Auction Task Force.
    • Panel Four. The Commission will hear presentations from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Enforcement Bureau, and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
    • Panel Five. The Commission will hear presentations from the Office of Communications Business Opportunities, Office of Managing Director, and Office of General Counsel.
  • On 27 July, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold PrivacyCon 2021.

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2021. 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 Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

UK and EU Defer Decision On Data Flows

Whether there will be an adequacy decision allowing the free flow of personal data under the GDPR from the EU to the recently departed UK has been punted. And, its recent status as a member of the EU notwithstanding, the UK might not get an adequacy decision.

In reaching agreement on many aspects of the United Kingdom’s (UK) exit from the European Union (EU), negotiators did not reach agreement on whether the EU would permit the personal data of EU persons to continue flowing to the UK under the easiest means possible. Instead, the EU and UK agreed to let the status quo continue until an adequacy decision is made or six months lapse. The value of data flowing between the UK and EU was valued at more than £100 billion in 2017 according to British estimates, with the majority of this trade being from the UK to the EU.

Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the personal data of EU people can be transferred to other nations for most purposes once the European Commission (EC) has found the other nation has adequate protection equal to those granted in the EU. Of course, this has been an ongoing issue with data flows to the United States (U.S.) as two agreements (Safe Harbor and Privacy Shield) and their EC adequacy decisions were ruled illegal, in large part, because, according to the EU’s highest court, U.S. law does not provide EU persons with the same rights they have in the EU. Most recently, this occurred in 2020 when the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) struck down the adequacy decision underpinning the EU-United States Privacy Shield (aka Schrems II). It bears note that transfers of personal data may occur through other means under the GDPR that may prove more resource intensive: standard data protection clauses (SCC), binding corporate rules (BCR), and others.

Nevertheless, an adequacy decision is seen as the most desirable means of transfer and the question of whether the UK’s laws are sufficient has lingered over the Brexit discussions, with some claiming that the nation’s membership in the Five Eyes surveillance alliance with the U.S. and others possibly disqualifying the UK. Given the range of thorny issues the UK and EU punted (e.g. how to handle the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland), it is not surprising that the GDPR and data flows was also punted.

The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) explained the terms of the data flow agreement and, as noted, in the short term, the status quo will continue with data flows to the UK being treated as if it were still part of the EU. This state will persist until the EC reaches an adequacy decision or for four months with another two months of the status quo being possible in the absence of an adequacy decision so long as neither the UK nor EU object. Moreover, these provisions are operative only so long as the UK has its GDPR compliant data protection law (i.e. UK Data Protection Act 2018) in place and does exercise specified “designated powers.” The UK has also deemed EU and European Economic Area (EEA) and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) nations to be adequate for purposes of data transfers from the UK on a transitional basis.

Specifically, the TCA provides

For the duration of the specified period, transmission of personal data from the Union to the United Kingdom shall not be considered as transfer to a third country under Union law, provided that the data protection legislation of the United Kingdom on 31 December 2020, as it is saved and incorporated into United Kingdom law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and as modified by the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (“the applicable data protection regime”), applies and provided that the United Kingdom does not exercise the designated powers without the agreement of the Union within the Partnership Council.

The UK also agreed to notify the EU if it “enters into a new instrument which can be relied on to transfer personal data to a third country under Article 46(2)(a) of the UK GDPR or section 75(1)(a) of the UK Data Protection Act 2018 during the specified period.” However, if the EU were to object, it appears from the terms of the TCA, all the EU could do is force the UK “to discuss the relevant object.” And yet, should the UK sign a treaty allowing personal data to flow to a nation the EU deems inadequate, this could obviously adversely affect the UK’s prospects of getting an adequacy decision.

Not surprisingly, the agreement also pertains to the continued flow of personal data as part of criminal investigations and law enforcement matters but not national security matters. Moreover, these matters fall outside the scope of the GDPR and would not be affected in many ways by an adequacy decision or a lack of one. In a British government summary, it is stated that the TCA

provide[s] for law enforcement and judicial cooperation between the UK, the EU and its Member States in relation to the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences and the prevention of and fight against money laundering and financing of terrorism.

The text of the TCA makes clear national security matters visa vis data flows and information sharing are not covered:

This Part only applies to law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters taking place exclusively between the United Kingdom, on the one side, and the Union and the Member States, on the other side. It does not apply to situations arising between the Member States, or between Member States and Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, nor does it apply to the activities of authorities with responsibilities for safeguarding national security when acting in that field.

The TCA also affirms:

  • The cooperation provided for in this Part is based on the Parties’ long-standing commitment to ensuring a high level of protection of personal data.
  • To reflect that high level of protection, the Parties shall ensure that personal data processed under this Part is subject to effective safeguards in the Parties’ respective data protection regimes…

The United Kingdom’s data protection authority (DPA), the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), issued an explanation of how British law enforcement entities should act in light of the TCA. The ICO explained to British entities on law enforcement-related data transfers to the UK:

  • We are now a ‘third country’ for EU data protection purposes. If you receive personal data from a law enforcement partner in the EU, this means the sender will need to comply with the transfer provisions under their national data protection law (which are likely to be similar to those in Part 3 of the DPA 2018).
  • This means the EU sender needs to make sure other appropriate safeguards are in place – probably through a contract or other binding legal instrument, or by making their own assessment of appropriate safeguards. The sender can take into account the protection provided by the DPA 2018 itself when making this assessment.
  • If you receive personal data from other types of organisations in the EU or EEA who are subject to the GDPR, the sender will need to comply with the transfer provisions of the UK GDPR. You may want to consider putting standard contractual clauses (SCCs) in place to ensure adequate safeguards in these cases. We have produced an interactive tool to help you use the SCCs.

The ICO explained for transfers from the UK to the EU (but not the EEA):

  • There is a transitional adequacy decision in place to cover transfers to EU member states and Gibraltar. This will not extend to EEA countries outside the EU, where you should continue to consider other safeguards.
  • This means you can continue to send personal data from the UK to your law enforcement partners in the EU, as long as you can show the transfer is necessary for law enforcement purposes. You can also transfer personal data to non-law enforcement bodies in the EU if you can meet some additional conditions, but you will need to notify the ICO.

Turning back to an adequacy decision and commercial transfers of personal data from the EU to the UK, in what may well be a preview of a world in which there is no adequacy decision between the UK and EU, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) issued an “information note” in mid-December that spells out how the GDPR would be applied:

  • In the absence of an adequacy decision applicable to the UK as per Article 45 GDPR, such transfers will require appropriate safeguards(e.g., standard data protection clauses, binding corporate rules, codes of conduct…), as well as enforceable data subject rights and effective legal remedies for data subjects, in accordance with Article 46 GDPR.
  • Subject to specific conditions, it may still be possible to transfer personal data to the UK based on a derogation listed in Article 49 GDPR. However, Article 49 GDPR has an exceptional nature and the derogations it contains must be interpreted restrictively and mainly relate to processing activities that are occasional and non-repetitive.
  • Moreover, where personal data are transferred to the UK on the basis of Article 46 GDPR safeguards, supplementary measures might be necessary to bring the level of protection of the data transferred up to the EU standard of essential equivalence, in accordance with the Recommendations 01/2020 on measures that supplement transfer tools to ensure compliance with the EU level of protection of personal data.

Regarding commercial data transfers, the ICO issued a statement urging British entities to start setting up “alternative transfer mechanisms” to ensure data continues to flow from the EU to UK:

  • The Government has announced that the Treaty agreed with the EU will allow personal data to flow freely from the EU (and EEA) to the UK, until adequacy decisions have been adopted, for no more than six months.
  • This will enable businesses and public bodies across all sectors to continue to freely receive data from the EU (and EEA), including law enforcement agencies.
  • As a sensible precaution, before and during this period, the ICO recommends that businesses work with EU and EEA organisations who transfer personal data to them, to put in place alternative transfer mechanisms, to safeguard against any interruption to the free flow of EU to UK personal data.

However, even with these more restrictive means of transferring personal data to the UK exist, there will likely be legal challenges. It bears note that in light of Schrems II, EU DPAs are likely to apply a much higher level of scrutiny to SCCs, and challenges to the legality of using SCCs to transfer personal data to the U.S. have already been commenced. It also seems certain the legality of using SCCs to transfer data to the UK would be challenged, as well.

However, returning to the preliminary issue of whether the EC will give the UK an adequacy decision, there may a number of obstacles to a finding that the UK’s data protection and surveillance laws are indeed adequate under EU law[1]. Firstly, the UK’s surveillance practices in light of a recent set of CJEU rulings may prove difficult for the EC to stomach. In 2020, the CJEU handed down a pair of rulings (here and here) on the extent to which European Union (EU) nations may engage in bulk, indiscriminate collection of two types of data related to electronic communications. The CJEU found that while EU member nations may conduct these activities to combat crime or national security threats during periods limited by necessity and subject to oversight, nations may not generally require the providers of electronic communications to store and provide indiscriminate location data and traffic data in response to an actual national security danger or a prospective one. The CJEU combined three cases into two rulings that came from the UK, France, and Belgium to elucidate the reach of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive in relation to foundational EU laws.

The UK is, of course, one of the U.S.’s staunchest allies and partners when it comes to government surveillance of electronic communications. On this point, the CJEU summarized the beginning of the case out of the UK:

  • At the beginning of 2015, the existence of practices for the acquisition and use of bulk communications data by the various security and intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom, namely GCHQ, MI5 and MI6, was made public, including in a report by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (United Kingdom). On 5 June 2015, Privacy International, a non-governmental organisation, brought an action before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (United Kingdom) against the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Secretary of State for the Home Department and those security and intelligence agencies, challenging the lawfulness of those practices.

Secondly, the government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson may aspire to change data laws in ways the EU does not. In media accounts, unnamed EC officials were critical of the UK’s 2020 “National Data Strategy,” particularly references to “legal barriers (real and perceived)” to accessing data that “must be addressed.”

Thirdly, it may become a matter of politics. The EU has incentives to make the UK’s exit from the EU difficult to dissuade other nations from following the same path. Moreover, having previously been the second largest economy in the EU as measured by GDP, the UK may prove a formidable economy competitor, lending more weight to the view that the EU may not want to help the UK’s  businesses compete with the EU’s.

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2021. 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 succo from Pixabay


[1] European Union Parliament, “The EU-UK relationship beyond Brexit: options for Police Cooperation and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters,” Page 8: Although the UK legal framework is currently broadly in line with the EU legal framework and the UK is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), there are substantial questions over whether the Data Protection Act fully incorporates the data protection elements required by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, concerning the use of the national security exemption from the GDPR used by the UK, the retention of data and bulk powers granted to its security services, and over its onward transfer of this data to third country security partners such as the ‘Five Eyes’ partners (Britain, the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada).

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (5 January 2021)

Further Reading

  • China Used Stolen Data To Expose CIA Operatives In Africa And Europe;” “Beijing Ransacked Data as U.S. Sources Went Dark in China;” “Tech Giants Are Giving China A Vital Edge In Espionage” By Zach Dorfman — Foreign Policy. This terrifying trio of articles lays bare the 180 degree change in espionage advantage the People’s Republic of China (PRC) seems to hold over the United States (U.S.). Hacking, big data, processing, algorithms, and other technological issues play prominent roles in the PRC’s seeming advantage. It remains to be seen how the U.S. responds to the new status quo.
  • Singapore police can access COVID-19 contact tracing data for criminal investigations” By Eileen Yu — ZDNet. During questioning in Singapore’s Parliament, it was revealed the police can use existing authority to access the data on a person’s smartphone collected by the nation’s TraceTogether app. Technically, this would entail a person being asked by the police to upload their data, which is stored on devices and encrypted. Nonetheless, this is the very scenario privacy advocates have been saying is all but inevitable with COVID-19 tracing apps on phones.
  • As Understanding of Russian Hacking Grows, So Does Alarm” By David Sanger, Nicole Perlroth, and Julian Barnes — The New York Times. Like a detonated bomb, the Russian hack of United States (U.S.) public and private systems keeps getting worse in terms of damage and fallout. The scope continues to widen as it may come to pass that thousands of U.S. entities have been compromised in ways that leave them vulnerable to future attacks. Incidentally, the massive hack has tarnished somewhat the triumph of the U.S. intelligence agencies in fending off interference with the 2020 election.
  • Google workers launch unconventional union with help of Communications Workers of America” By Nitasha Tiku — The Washington Post. A new union formed in Google stopped short of seeking certification by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which will block it from collective bargaining. Nonetheless, the new union will collect dues and have a board of directors. This may lead to additional unionizing efforts in union-averse Silicon Valley and throughout the tech world.
  • ‘Break up the groupthink’: Democrats press Biden to diversify his tech picks” By Cristiano Lima — Politico. Key Democratic groups in the House are pushing the Biden team to appoint people of color for key technology positions at agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

Other Developments

  • The Congress overrode President Donald Trump’s veto of the FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), thus enacting the annual defense and national security policy bill, which includes a number of technology provisions that will have effects in the public and private sectors. (See here and here for analysis of these provisions in the “William M. “Mac” Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021” (H.R.6395).
  • A federal court dismissed a lawsuit brought by a civil liberties and privacy advocacy group to stop implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at social media companies and their liability protection under 47 USC 230 (aka Section 230). In June, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), filed suit in federal court to block enforcement of the “Executive Order (EO) on Preventing Online Censorship.” However, the United States District Court of the District of Columbia ruled that CDT is not injured by the executive order (EO) and any such lawsuit is premature. The court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction.
    • In its complaint, CDT argued the EO “violates the First Amendment in two fundamental respects:
      • First, the Order is plainly retaliatory: it attacks a private company, Twitter, for exercising its First Amendment right to comment on the President’s statements.
      • Second, and more fundamentally, the Order seeks to curtail and chill the constitutionally protected speech of all online platforms and individuals— by demonstrating the willingness to use government authority to retaliate against those who criticize the government.”
  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with a company that sells emergency travel and medical services for failing “to take reasonable steps to secure sensitive consumer information such as health records,” including having a unsecured cloud database a security researcher stumbled upon with the sensitive data of more than 130,000 people. Moreover, the company claimed a certification of compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which turned out to be untrue. In the complaint, the FTC alleged that these and other practices “constitute unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices, in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.” The FTC and the company reached agreement on a consent order that will require the company’s compliance for at least 20 years.
    • In the complaint, the FTC stated that SkyMed “advertises, offers for sale, and sells nationwide a wide array of emergency travel membership plans that cover up to eighteen different emergency travel and medical evacuation services for members who sustain serious illnesses or injuries during travel in certain geographic areas.”
    • The FTC asserted a security researcher discovered SkyMed’s “database, which could be located and accessed by anyone on the internet, contained approximately 130,000 membership records with consumers’ personal information stored in plain text, including information populated in certain fields for names, dates of birth, gender, home addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, membership information and account numbers, and health information.”
    • The FTC noted the company told affected customers that it had investigated and “[t]here was no medical or payment-related information visible and no indication that the information has been misused.” This turns out to be completely false, and the company’s “investigation did not determine that consumers’ health information was neither stored on the cloud database, nor improperly accessed by an unauthorized third party.”
    • The FTC summarized the terms of the consent order and SkyMed’s obligations:
      • Under the proposed settlement, SkyMed is prohibited from misrepresenting how it secures personal data, the circumstances of and response to a data breach, and whether the company has been endorsed by or participates in any government-sponsored privacy or security program. The company also will be required to send a notice to affected consumers detailing the data that was exposed by the data breach.
      • As part of the mandated information security program, the company must identify and document potential internal and external risks and design, implement, and maintain safeguards to protect personal information it collects from those risks. In addition, SkyMed must obtain biennial assessments of its information security program by a third party, which the FTC has authority to approve, to examine the effectiveness of SkyMed’s information security program, identify any gaps or weaknesses, and monitor efforts to address these problems. The settlement also requires a senior SkyMed executive to certify annually that the company is complying with the requirements of the settlement.
  • The European Commission (EC) has communicated its vision for a new cybersecurity strategy to the European Parliament and European Council “to ensure a global and open Internet with strong guardrails to address the risks to the security and fundamental rights and freedoms of people in Europe.” The EC spelled out its dramatic plan to remake how the bloc regulates, invests in, and structures policies around cybersecurity. The EC claimed “[a]s a key component of Shaping Europe’s Digital Future, the Recovery Plan for Europe  and the EU Security Union Strategy, the Strategy will bolster Europe’s collective resilience against cyber threats and help to ensure that all citizens and businesses can fully benefit from trustworthy and reliable services and digital tools.” If the European Union (EU) follows through, this strategy may have significant effects in the EU and around the world. The EC further explained:
    • Following the progress achieved under the previous strategies, it contains concrete proposals for deploying three principal instruments –regulatory, investment and policy instruments – to address three areas of EU action – (1) resilience, technological sovereignty and leadership, (2) building operational capacity to prevent, deter and respond, and (3) advancing a global and open cyberspace. The EU is committed to supporting this strategy through an unprecedented level of investment in the EU’s digital transition over the next seven years – potentially quadrupling previous levels – as part of new technological and industrial policies and the recovery agenda
    • Cybersecurity must be integrated into all these digital investments, particularly key technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI), encryption and quantum computing, using incentives, obligations and benchmarks. This can stimulate the growth of the European cybersecurity industry and provide the certainty needed to ease the phasing out of legacy systems. The European Defence Fund (EDF) will support European cyber defence solutions, as part of the European defence technological and industrial base. Cybersecurity is included in external financial instruments to support our partners, notably the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument. Preventing the misuse of technologies, protecting critical infrastructure and ensuring the integrity of supply chains also enables the EU’s adherence to the UN norms, rules and principles of responsible state behavior.
    • With respect to actions that might be taken, the EC stated that “[t]he EU should ensure:
      • Adoption of revised NIS Directive;
      • Regulatory measures for an Internet of Secure Things
      • Through the CCCN investment in cybersecurity (notably through the Digital Europe Programme, Horizon Europe and recovery facility) to reach up to €4.5 billion in public and private investments over 2021-2027;
      • An EU network of AI-enabled Security Operation Centres and an ultra-secure communication infrastructure harnessing quantum technologies;
      • Widespread adoption of cybersecurity technologies through dedicated support to SMEs under the Digital Innovation Hubs;
      • Development of an EU DNS resolver service as a safe and open alternative for EU citizens, businesses and public administration to access the Internet; and
      • Completion of the implementation of the 5G Toolbox by the second quarter of 2021
      • Complete the European cybersecurity crisis management framework and determine the process, milestones and timeline for establishing the Joint Cyber Unit;
      •  Continue implementation of cybercrime agenda under the Security Union Strategy;
      • Encourage and facilitate the establishment of a Member States’ cyber intelligence working group residing within the EU INTCEN;
      • Advance the EU’s cyber deterrence posture to prevent, discourage, deter and respond to malicious cyber activities;
      • Review the Cyber Defence Policy Framework;
      • Facilitate the development of an EU “Military Vision and Strategy on Cyberspace as a Domain of Operations” for CSDP military missions and operations;
      • Support synergies between civil, defence and space industries; and
      • Reinforce cybersecurity of critical space infrastructures under the Space Programme.
      • Define a set of objectives in international standardisation processes, and promote these at international level;
      • Advance international security and stability in cyberspace, notably through the proposal by the EU and its Member States for a Programme of Action to Advance Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace (PoA) in the United Nations;
      • Offer practical guidance on the application of human rights and fundamental freedoms in cyberspace;
      • Better protect children against child sexual abuse and exploitation, as well as a Strategy on the Rights of the Child;
      • Strengthen and promote the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, including through the work on the Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention;
      • Expand EU cyber dialogue with third countries, regional and international organisations, including through an informal EU Cyber Diplomacy Network;
      • Reinforce the exchanges with the multi-stakeholder community, notably by regular and structured exchanges with the private sector, academia and civil society; and
      • Propose an EU External Cyber Capacity Building Agenda and an EU Cyber Capacity Building Board.
  • The U.S.-China  Economic  and  Security  Review  Commission released its annual report on the People’s Republic of China (PRC) per its “mandate “to monitor, investigate, and report to Congress on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.” The Commission argued:
    • Left unchecked, the PRC will continue building a new global order anathema to the interests and values that have underpinned unprecedented economic growth and stability among nations in the post-Cold War era. The past 20 years are littered with the Chinese  Communist  Party’s (CCP) broken promises. In China’s intended new order, there is little reason to believe CCP promises of “win-win” solutions, mutual respect, and peaceful coexistence. A clear understanding of the CCP’s adversarial national security and economic ambitions is essential as U.S. and allied leaders develop the policies and programs that will define the conditions of global freedom and shape our future.
    • The Commission made ten “Key Recommendations:”
      • Congress adopt the principle of reciprocity as foundational in all legislation bearing on U.S.-China relations.
      • Congress expand the authority of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to monitor and take foreign government subsidies into account in premerger notification processes.
      • Congress direct the U.S. Department of State to produce an annual report detailing China’s actions in the United Nations and its subordinate agencies that subvert the principles and purposes of the United Nations
      • Congress hold hearings to consider the creation of an interagency executive Committee on Technical Standards that would be responsible for coordinating U.S. government policy and priorities on international standards.
      • Congress consider establishing a “Manhattan Project”-like effort to ensure that the American public has access to safe and secure supplies of critical lifesaving and life-sustaining drugs and medical equipment, and to ensure that these supplies are available from domestic sources or, where necessary, trusted allies.
      • Congress enact legislation establishing a China Economic Data Coordination Center (CEDCC) at the Bureau of Economic Analysis at the U.S. Department of Commerce.
      • Congress direct the Administration, when sanctioning an entity in the People’s Republic of China for actions contrary to the economic and national security interests of the United States or for violations of human rights, to also sanction the parent entity.
      • Congress consider enacting legislation to make the Director of the American Institute in Taiwan a presidential nomination subject to the advice and consent of the United States Senate.
      • Congress amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that association with a foreign government’s technology transfer programs may be considered grounds to deny a nonimmigrant visa if the foreign government in question is deemed a strategic competitor of the United States, or if the applicant has engaged in violations of U.S. laws relating to espionage, sabotage, or export controls.
      • Congress direct the Administration to identify and remove barriers to receiving United States visas for Hong Kong residents attempting to exit Hong Kong for fear of political persecution.
  • The Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Center for Digital Democracy, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, and Consumer Federation of America asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) “to recommend specific changes to the proposed Consent Order to safeguard the privacy interests of Zoom users” in their comments submitted regarding the FTC’s settlement with Zoom. In November, the FTC split along party lines to approve a settlement with Zoom to resolve allegations that the video messaging platform violated the FTC Act’s ban on unfair and deceptive practices in commerce. Zoom agreed to a consent order mandating a new information security program, third party assessment, prompt reporting of covered incidents and other requirements over a period of 20 years. The two Democratic Commissioners voted against the settlement and dissented because they argued it did not punish the abundant wrongdoing and will not dissuade future offenders. Commissioners Rohit Chopra and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter dissented for a variety of reasons that may be summed up: the FTC let Zoom off with a slap on the wrist. Kelly Slaughter focused on the majority’s choice to ignore the privacy implications of Zoom’s misdeeds, especially by not including any requirements that Zoom improve its faulty privacy practices.
    • The groups “recommend that the FTC modify the proposed Consent Order and require Zoom to(1) implement a comprehensive privacy program; (2) obtain regular independent privacy assessments and make those assessments available to the public; (3) provide meaningful redress for victims of Zoom’s unfair and deceptive trade practices; and (4) ensure the adequate protection and limits on the collection of children’s data.”

Coming Events

  • On 13 January, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold its monthly open meeting, and the agency has placed the following items on its tentative agenda “Bureau, Office, and Task Force leaders will summarize the work their teams have done over the last four years in a series of presentations:
    • Panel One. The Commission will hear presentations from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, International Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and Office of Economics and Analytics.
    • Panel Two. The Commission will hear presentations from the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force.
    • Panel Three. The Commission will hear presentations from the Media Bureau and the Incentive Auction Task Force.
    • Panel Four. The Commission will hear presentations from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Enforcement Bureau, and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
    • Panel Five. The Commission will hear presentations from the Office of Communications Business Opportunities, Office of Managing Director, and Office of General Counsel.
  • On 27 July, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold PrivacyCon 2021.

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2021. 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 Free-Photos from Pixabay

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (14 December)

Further Reading

  • Russian Hackers Broke Into Federal Agencies, U.S. Officials Suspect” By David Sanger — The New York Times.; “Russian government hackers are behind a broad espionage campaign that has compromised U.S. agencies, including Treasury and Commerce” By Ellen Nakashima and Craig Timberg — The Washington Post; “Suspected Russian hackers spied on U.S. Treasury emails – sources” By Chris Bing — Reuters. Apparently, Sluzhba vneshney razvedki Rossiyskoy Federatsii (SVR), the Russian Federation’s Foreign Intelligence Service, has exploited a vulnerability in SolarWinds’ update system used by many United States (U.S.) government systems, Fortune 500 companies, and the U.S.’ top ten largest telecommunications companies. Reportedly, APT29 (aka Cozy Bear) has had free reign in the email systems of the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce among other possible victims. The hackers may have also accessed a range of other entities around the world using the same SolarWind system. Moreover, these penetrations may be related to the recently announced theft of hacking tools a private firm, FireEye, used to test clients’ systems.
  • Hackers steal Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine data in Europe, companies say” By Jack Stubbs — Reuters. The European Union’s (EU) agency that oversees and approve medications has been hacked, and documents related to one of the new COVID-19 vaccines may have been stolen. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) was apparently penetrated, and materials related to Pfizer and BioNTech’s vaccine were exfiltrated. The scope of the theft is not yet known, but this is the latest in many attempts to hack into the entities conducting research on the virus and potential vaccines.
  • The AI Girlfriend Seducing China’s Lonely Men” By Zhang Wanqing — Sixth Tone. A chat bot powered by artificial intelligence that some men in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) are using extensively raises all sorts of ethical and privacy issues. Lonely people have turned to this AI technology and have confided their deepest feelings, which are stored by the company. It seems like a matter of time until these data are mined for commercial value or hacked. Also, the chatbot has run afoul of PRC’s censorship policies. Finally, is this a preview of the world to come, much like the 2013 film, Her, in which humans have relationships with AI beings?
  • YouTube will now remove videos disputing Joe Biden’s election victory” By Makena Kelly — The Verge. The Google subsidiary announced that because the safe harbor deadline has been reached and a sufficient number of states have certified President-elect Joe Biden, the platform will begin taking down misleading election videos. This change in policy may have come about, in part, because of pressure from Democrats in Congress about what they see as Google’s lackluster efforts to find and remove lies, misinformation, and disinformation about the 2020 election.
  • Lots of people are gunning for Google. Meet the man who might have the best shot.” By Emily Birnbaum — Protocol. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser may be uniquely qualified to lead state attorneys general on a second antitrust and anti-competition action against Google given his background as a law professor steeped in antitrust and his background in the Department of Justice and White House during the Obama Administration.

Other Developments

  • Cybersecurity firm, FireEye, revealed it was “attacked by a highly sophisticated threat actor, one whose discipline, operational security, and techniques lead us to believe it was a state-sponsored attack” according to CEO Kevin Mandia. This hacking may be related to vast penetration of United States (U.S.) government systems revealed over the weekend. Mandia stated FireEye has “found that the attacker targeted and accessed certain Red Team assessment tools that we use to test our customers’ security…[that] mimic the behavior of many cyber threat actors and enable FireEye to provide essential diagnostic security services to our customers.” Mandia claimed none of these tools were zero-day exploits. FireEye is “proactively releasing methods and means to detect the use of our stolen Red Team tools…[and] out of an abundance of caution, we have developed more than 300 countermeasures for our customers, and the community at large, to use in order to minimize the potential impact of the theft of these tools.
    • Mandia added:
      • Consistent with a nation-state cyber-espionage effort, the attacker primarily sought information related to certain government customers. While the attacker was able to access some of our internal systems, at this point in our investigation, we have seen no evidence that the attacker exfiltrated data from our primary systems that store customer information from our incident response or consulting engagements, or the metadata collected by our products in our dynamic threat intelligence systems. If we discover that customer information was taken, we will contact them directly.
      • Based on my 25 years in cyber security and responding to incidents, I’ve concluded we are witnessing an attack by a nation with top-tier offensive capabilities. This attack is different from the tens of thousands of incidents we have responded to throughout the years. The attackers tailored their world-class capabilities specifically to target and attack FireEye. They are highly trained in operational security and executed with discipline and focus. They operated clandestinely, using methods that counter security tools and forensic examination. They used a novel combination of techniques not witnessed by us or our partners in the past.
      • We are actively investigating in coordination with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other key partners, including Microsoft. Their initial analysis supports our conclusion that this was the work of a highly sophisticated state-sponsored attacker utilizing novel techniques.    
  • The United States’ (U.S.) Department of Justice filed suit against Facebook for “tactics that discriminated against U.S. workers and routinely preferred temporary visa holders (including H-1B visa holders) for jobs in connection with the permanent labor certification (PERM) process.” The DOJ is asking for injunction to stop Facebook from engaging in the alleged conduct, civil penalties, and damages for workers harmed by this conduct.
    • The DOJ contended:
      • The department’s lawsuit alleges that beginning no later than Jan. 1, 2018 and lasting until at least Sept. 18, 2019, Facebook employed tactics that discriminated against U.S. workers and routinely preferred temporary visa holders (including H-1B visa holders) for jobs in connection with the PERM process. Rather than conducting a genuine search for qualified and available U.S. workers for permanent positions sought by these temporary visa holders, Facebook reserved the positions for temporary visa holders because of their immigration status, according to the complaint. The complaint also alleges that Facebook sought to channel jobs to temporary visa holders at the expense of U.S. workers by failing to advertise those vacancies on its careers website, requiring applicants to apply by physical mail only, and refusing to consider any U.S. workers who applied for those positions. In contrast, Facebook’s usual hiring process relies on recruitment methods designed to encourage applications by advertising positions on its careers website, accepting electronic applications, and not pre-selecting candidates to be hired based on a candidate’s immigration status, according to the lawsuit.
      • In its investigation, the department determined that Facebook’s ineffective recruitment methods dissuaded U.S. workers from applying to its PERM positions. The department concluded that, during the relevant period, Facebook received zero or one U.S. worker applicants for 99.7 percent of its PERM positions, while comparable positions at Facebook that were advertised on its careers website during a similar time period typically attracted 100 or more applicants each. These U.S. workers were denied an opportunity to be considered for the jobs Facebook sought to channel to temporary visa holders, according to the lawsuit. 
      • Not only do Facebook’s alleged practices discriminate against U.S. workers, they have adverse consequences on temporary visa holders by creating an employment relationship that is not on equal terms. An employer that engages in the practices alleged in the lawsuit against Facebook can expect more temporary visa holders to apply for positions and increased retention post-hire. Such temporary visa holders often have limited job mobility and thus are likely to remain with their company until they can adjust status, which for some can be decades.
      • The United States’ complaint seeks civil penalties, back pay on behalf of U.S. workers denied employment at Facebook due to the alleged discrimination in favor of temporary visa holders, and other relief to ensure Facebook stops the alleged violations in the future. According to the lawsuit, and based on the department’s nearly two-year investigation, Facebook’s discrimination against U.S. workers was intentional, widespread, and in violation of a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(1), that the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division enforces. 
  • A trio of consumer authority regulators took the lead in coming into agreement with Apple to add “a new section to each app’s product page in its App Store, containing key information about the data the app collects and an accessible summary of the most important information from the privacy policy.” The United Kingdom’s UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets and the Norwegian Consumer Authority led the effort that “ongoing work from the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network (ICPEN), involving 27 of its consumer authority members across the world.” The three agencies explained:
    • Consumer protection authorities, including the CMA, became concerned that people were not being given clear information on how their personal data would be used before choosing an app, including on whether the app developer would share their personal data with a third party. Without this information, consumers are unable to compare and choose apps based on how they use personal data.
  • Australia’s Council of Financial Regulators (CFR) has released a Cyber Operational Resilience Intelligence-led Exercises (CORIE) framework “to test and demonstrate the cyber maturity and resilience of institutions within the Australian financial services industry.”

Coming Events

  • On 15 December, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Intellectual Property Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled “The Role of Private Agreements and Existing Technology in Curbing Online Piracy” with these witnesses:
    • Panel I
      • Ms. Ruth Vitale, Chief Executive Officer, CreativeFuture
      • Mr. Probir Mehta, Head of Global Intellectual Property and Trade Policy, Facebook, Inc.
      • Mr. Mitch Glazier, Chairman and CEO, Recording Industry Association of America
      • Mr. Joshua Lamel, Executive Director, Re:Create
    • Panel II
      • Ms. Katherine Oyama, Global Director of Business Public Policy, YouTube
      • Mr. Keith Kupferschmid, Chief Executive Officer, Copyright Alliance
      • Mr. Noah Becker, President and Co-Founder, AdRev
      • Mr. Dean S. Marks, Executive Director and Legal Counsel, Coalition for Online Accountability
  • The Senate Armed Services Committee’s Cybersecurity Subcommittee will hold a closed briefing on Department of Defense Cyber Operations on 15 December with these witnesses:
    • Mr. Thomas C. Wingfield, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
    • Mr. Jeffrey R. Jones, Vice Director, Command, Control, Communications and Computers/Cyber, Joint Staff, J-6
    • Ms. Katherine E. Arrington, Chief Information Security Officer for the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment
    • Rear Admiral Jeffrey Czerewko, United States Navy, Deputy Director, Global Operations, J39, J3, Joint Staff
  • The Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee’s Economic Policy Subcommittee will conduct a hearing titled “US-China: Winning the Economic Competition, Part II” on 16 December with these witnesses:
    • The Honorable Will Hurd, Member, United States House of Representatives;
    • Derek Scissors, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute;
    • Melanie M. Hart, Ph.D., Senior Fellow and Director for China Policy, Center for American Progress; and
    • Roy Houseman, Legislative Director, United Steelworkers (USW).
  • On 17 December the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Task Force will convene for a virtual event, “Partnership in Action: Driving Supply Chain Security.”

© 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 stein egil liland from Pexels

Privacy Shield Hearing

The focus was on how the U.S. and EU can reach agreement on an arrangement that will not be struck down by the EU’s highest court.

Last week, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held a hearing on the now invalidated European Union (EU)-United States (U.S.) Privacy Shield, a mechanism that allowed companies to transfer the personal data of EU residents to the U.S. The EU’s highest court struck down the adequacy decision that underpinned the system on the basis of U.S. surveillance activities and lack of redress that violated EU law. This is the second time in the decade the EU’s top court has invalidated a transfer arrangement, the first being the Safe Harbor system. Given the estimated billions, or even trillions, of dollars in value realized from data flows between the EU and U.S. there is keen interest on both sides of the Atlantic in finding a legal path forward. However, absent significant curtailment of U.S. surveillance and/or a significant expansion of the means by which EU nationals could have violations of their rights rectified, it would appear a third agreement may not withstand the inevitable legal challenges. Moreover, there are questions as to the legality of other transfer tools in light of the Court of Justice for the European Union’s decision in the case known as Schrems II, and the legality of some Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC) and Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) may be soon be found in violation, too.

Consequently, a legislative fix, or some portion thereof, could be attached to federal privacy legislation. Hence, the striking down of Privacy Shield may provide additional impetus to Congress and the next Administration to reach a deal on privacy. Moreover, the lapsed reauthorization of some Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authorities may be another legislative opportunity for the U.S. to craft an approach amendable to the EU in order to either obtain an adequacy decision or a successor agreement to the Privacy Shield.

Chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) approached the issue from the perspective of international trade and the economic benefit accruing to businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. His opening remarks pertained less to the privacy and surveillance aspects of the CJEU’s ruling. Wicker appears to be making the case that the EU seems to misunderstand that redress rights in the U.S. are more than adequate, and the U.S.’ surveillance regime is similar to those of some EU nations. One wonders if the CJEU is inclined to agree with this position. Nonetheless, Wicker expressed hope that the EU and U.S. can reach “a durable and lasting data transfer framework…that provides meaningful data protections to consumers, sustains the free flow of information across the Atlantic, and encourages continued economic and strategic partnership with our European allies – a tall order but an essential order.” He worried about the effect of the CJEU’s ruling on SCCs. Wicker made the case that the EU and U.S. share democratic values and hinted that the ongoing talks in the committee to reach a federal data privacy law might include augmented redress rights that might satisfy the CJEU.

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell (D-WA) spoke very broadly about a range of issues related to data transfers and privacy. She stressed the importance of data flows in the context of larger trade relations. Cantwell also stressed the shared values between the U.S. and the EU and her hope that the two entities work “together on these very important national concerns, trade and technology, so that we can continue to improve economic opportunities and avoid moves towards protectionism.” She also called for federal privacy legislation but hinted that states should still be able to regulate privacy, suggesting her commitment to having a federal law be a floor for state laws. Cantwell also asserted that bulk surveillance, the likes of which the National security Agency has engaged in, may simply not be legal under EU law.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Services James Sullivan blurred the issues presented by Schrems II much like Cantwell did. The CJEU’s decision that focused on U.S. surveillance practices and the lack of meaningful recourse in the U.S. if an EU resident’s rights were violated was merged into a call for like-minded nations to unite against authoritarian nations. Sullivan distinguished between U.S. surveillance and the surveillance conducted by the People’s Republic of China (without naming the nation) and other regimes as if this should satisfy the EU as to the legality and propriety of U.S. treatment of EU personal data. Sullivan stated:

  • The Schrems II decision has created enormous uncertainties for U.S. companies and the transatlantic economy at a particularly precarious time. Immediately upon issuance of the ruling, the 5,400 Privacy Shield participants and their business partners in the EU could no longer rely on the Framework as a lawful basis for transferring personal data from Europe to the United States. Because neither the Court nor European data protection authorities provided for any enforcement grace period, Privacy Shield companies were left with three choices: (1) risk facing potentially huge fines (of up to 4 percent of total global turnover in the preceding year) for violating GDPR, (2) withdraw from the European market, or (3) switch right away to another more expensive data transfer mechanism.
  • Unfortunately, because of the Court’s ruling in the Privacy Shield context that U.S. laws relating to government access to data do not confer adequate protections for EU personal data, the use of other mechanisms like SCCs and BCRs to transfer EU personal data to the United States is now in question as well.
  • The objective of any potential agreement between the United States and the European Commission to address Schrems II is to restore the continuity of transatlantic data flows and the Framework’s privacy protections by negotiating targeted enhancements to Privacy Shield that address the Court’s concerns in Schrems II. Any such enhancements must respect the U.S. Government’s security responsibilities to our citizens and allies.
  • To be clear, we expect that any enhancements to the Privacy Shield Framework would also cover transfers under all other EU-approved data transfer mechanisms like SCCs and BCRs as well.
  • The Schrems II decision has underscored the need for a broader discussion among likeminded democracies on the issue of government access to data. Especially as a result of the extensive U.S. surveillance reforms since 2015, the United States affords privacy protections relating to national security data access that are equivalent to or greater than those provided by many other democracies in Europe and elsewhere.
  • To minimize future disruptions to data transfers, we have engaged with the European Union and other democratic nations in a multilateral discussion to develop principles based on common practices for addressing how best to reconcile law enforcement and national security needs for data with protection of individual rights.
  • It is our view that democracies should come together to articulate shared principles regarding government access to personal data—to help make clear the distinction between democratic societies that respect civil liberties and the rule of law and authoritarian governments that engage in the unbridled collection of personal data to surveil, manipulate, and control their citizens and other individuals without regard to personal privacy and human rights. Such principles would allow us to work with like-minded partners in preserving and promoting a free and open Internet enabled by the seamless flow of data.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips stressed he was speaking in a personal capacity and not for the FTC. He extolled the virtues of the “free and open” internet model in the U.S. with the double implication that it is superior both to nations like the PRC and Russia but also the EU model. Phillips seemed to be advocating for talking the EU into accepting that the U.S.’s privacy regime and civil liberties are stronger than any other nation. Her also made the case, like other witnesses, that the U.S. data privacy and protection regulation is more similar to the EU than the PRC, Russia, and others. Phillips also sought to blur the issues and recast Privacy Shield in the context of the global struggle between democracies and authoritarian regimes. Phillips asserted:

  • First, we need to find a path forward after Schrems II, to permit transfers between the U.S. and EU. I want to recognize the efforts of U.S. and EU negotiators to find a replacement for Privacy Shield. While no doubt challenging, I have confidence in the good faith and commitment of public servants like Jim Sullivan, with whom I have the honor of appearing today, and our partners across the Atlantic. I have every hope and expectation that protecting cross-border data flows will be a priority for the incoming Administration, and I ask for your help in ensuring it is.
  • Second, we must actively engage with nations evaluating their approach to digital governance, something we at the FTC have done, to share and promote the benefits of a free and open Internet. There is an active conversation ongoing internationally, and at every opportunity—whether in public forums or via private assistance—we must ensure our voice and view is heard.
  • Third, we should be vocal in our defense of American values and policies. While we as Americans always look to improve our laws—and I commend the members of this committee on their important work on privacy legislation and other critical matters—we do not need to apologize to the world. When it comes to civil liberties or the enforcement of privacy laws, we are second to none. Indeed, in my view, the overall U.S. privacy framework—especially with the additional protections built into Privacy Shield—should certainly qualify as adequate under EU standards.
  • Fourth, as European leaders call to strengthen ties with the U.S., we should prioritize making our regimes compatible for the free flow of data. This extends to the data governance regimes of like-minded countries outside of Europe as well. Different nations will have different rules, but relatively minor differences need not impede mutually-beneficial commerce. We need not and should not purport to aim for a single, identical system of data governance. And we should remind our allies, and remind ourselves, that far more unites liberal democracies than divides us.
  • Fifth and finally, if we must draw lines, those lines should be drawn between allies with shared values—the U.S., Europe, Japan, Australia, and others—and those, like China and Russia, that offer a starkly different vision. I am certainly encouraged when I hear recognition of this distinction from Europe. European Data Protection Supervisor Wojciech Wiewiórowski recently noted that the U.S. is much closer to Europe than is China and that he has a preference for data being processed by countries that share values with Europe. Some here in the U.S. are even proposing agreements to solidify the relationships among technologically advanced democracies, an idea worth exploring in more detail

Washington University Professor of Law Neil Richards stressed that the Schrems II decision spells out how the U.S. would achieve adequacy: reforming surveillance and providing meaningful redress for alleged privacy violations. Consequently, FISA would need to be rewritten and narrowed and a means for EU residents to seek relief beyond the current Ombudsman system is needed, possibly a statutory right to sue. Moreover, he asserted strong data protection and privacy laws are needed and some of the bills introduced in this Congress could fit the bill. Richards asserted:

In sum, the Schrems litigation is a creature of distrust, and while it has created problems for American law and commerce, it has also created a great opportunity. That opportunity lies before this Committee –the chance to regain American leadership in global privacy and data protection by passing a comprehensive law that provides appropriate safeguards, enforceable rights, and effective legal remedies for consumers. I believe that the way forward can not only safeguard the ability to share personal data across the Atlantic, but it can do so in a way that builds trust between the United States and our European trading partners and between American companies and their American and European customers. I believe that there is a way forward, but it requires us to recognize that strong, clear, trust-building rules are not hostile to business interest, that we need to push past the failed system of “notice and choice,” that we need to preserve effective consumer remedies and state-level regulatory innovation, and seriously consider a duty of loyalty. In that direction, I believe, lies not just consumer protection, but international cooperation and economic prosperity.

Georgia Tech University Professor Peter Swire explained that the current circumstances make the next Congress the best possibility in memory to enact privacy legislation because of the need for a Privacy Shield replacement, passage of the new California Privacy Rights Act (Proposition 24), and the Biden Administration’s likely support for such legislation. Swire made the following points:

  1. The European Data Protection Board in November issued draft guidance with an extremely strict interpretation of how to implement the Schrems II case.
  2. The decision in Schrems II is based on EU constitutional law. There are varying current interpretations in Europe of what is required by Schrems II, but constitutional requirements may restrict the range of options available to EU and U.S. policymakers.
  3. Strict EU rules about data transfers, such as the draft EDPB guidance, would appear to result in strict data localization, creating numerous major issues for EU- and U.S.-based businesses, as well as affecting many online activities of EU individuals.
  4. Along with concerns about lack of individual redress, the CJEU found that the EU Commission had not established that U.S. surveillance was “proportionate” in its scope and operation. Appendix 2 to this testimony seeks to contribute to an informed judgment on proportionality, by cataloguing developments in U.S. surveillance safeguards since the Commission’s issuance of its Privacy Shield decision in 2016.
  5. Negotiating an EU/U.S. adequacy agreement is important in the short term.
  6. A short-run agreement would assist in creating a better overall long-run agreement or agreements.
  7. As the U.S. considers its own possible legal reforms in the aftermath of Schrems II, it is prudent and a normal part of negotiations to seek to understand where the other party – the EU – may have flexibility to reform its own laws.
  8. Issues related to Schrems II have largely been bipartisan in the U.S., with substantial continuity across the Obama and Trump administrations, and expected as well for a Biden administration.
  9. Passing comprehensive privacy legislation would help considerably in EU/U.S. negotiations.
  10. This Congress may have a unique opportunity to enact comprehensive commercial privacy legislation for the United States.

© 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 Dooffy Design from Pixabay