Further Reading, Other Development, and Coming Events (20 and 21 January 2021)

Further Reading

  • Amazon’s Ring Neighbors app exposed users’ precise locations and home addresses” By Zack Whittaker — Tech Crunch. Again Amazon’s home security platform suffers problems by way of users data being exposed or less than protected.
  • Harassment of Chinese dissidents was warning signal on disinformation” By Shawna Chen and Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian — Axios. In an example of how malicious online activities can spill into the real world as a number of Chinese dissidents were set upon by protestors.
  • How Social Media’s Obsession with Scale Supercharged Disinformation” By Joan Donovan — Harvard Business Review. Companies like Facebook and Twitter emphasized scale over safety in trying to grow as quickly as possible. This lead to a proliferation of fake accounts and proved welcome ground for the seeds of misinformation.
  • The Moderation War Is Coming to Spotify, Substack, and Clubhouse” By Alex Kantrowitz — OneZero. The same issues with objectionable and abusive content plaguing Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others will almost certainly become an issue for the newer platforms, and in fact already are.
  • Mexican president mounts campaign against social media bans” By Mark Stevenson — The Associated Press. The leftist President of Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is vowing to lead international efforts to stop social media companies from censoring what he considers free speech. Whether this materializes into something substantial is not clear.
  • As Trump Clashes With Big Tech, China’s Censored Internet Takes His Side” By Li Yuan — The New York Times. The government in Beijing is framing the ban of former President Donald Trump after the attempted insurrection by social media platforms as proof there is no untrammeled freedom of speech. This position helps bolster the oppressive policing of online content the People’s Republic of China (PRC) wages against its citizens. And quite separately many Chinese people (or what appear to be actual people) are questioning what is often deemed the censoring of Trump in the United States (U.S.), a nation ostensibly committed to free speech. There is also widespread misunderstanding about the First Amendment rights of social media platforms not to host content with which they disagree and the power of platforms to make such determinations without fear that the U.S. government will punish them as is often the case in the PRC.
  • Trump admin slams China’s Huawei, halting shipments from Intel, others – sources” By Karen Freifeld and Alexandra Alper — Reuters. On its way out of the proverbial door, the Trump Administration delivered parting shots to Huawei and the People’s Republic of China by revoking one license and denying others to sell the PRC tech giant semiconductors. Whether the Biden Administration will reverse or stand by these actions remains to be seen. The companies, including Intel, could appeal. Additionally, there are an estimated $400 million worth of applications for similar licenses pending at the Department of Commerce that are now the domain of the new regime in Washington. It is too early to discern how the Biden Administration will maintain or modify Trump Administration policy towards the PRC.
  • Behind a Secret Deal Between Google and Facebook” By Daisuke Wakabayashi and Tiffany Hsu — The New York Times. The newspaper got its hands on an unredacted copy of the antitrust suit Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other attorneys general filed against Google, and it has details on the deal Facebook and Google allegedly struck to divide the online advertising world. Not only did Facebook ditch an effort launched by publishers to defeat Google’s overwhelming advantages in online advertising bidding, it joined Google’s rival effort with a guarantee that it would win a specified number of bids and more time to bid on ads. Google and Facebook naturally deny any wrongdoing.
  • Biden and Trump Voters Were Exposed to Radically Different Coverage of the Capitol Riot on Facebook” By Colin Lecher and Jon Keegan — The Markup. Using a tool on browsers the organization pays Facebook users to have, the Markup can track the type of material they see in their feed. Facebook’s algorithm fed people material about the 6 January 2021 attempted insurrection based on their political views. Many have pointed out that this very dynamic creates filter bubbles that poison democracy and public discourse.
  • Banning Trump won’t fix social media: 10 ideas to rebuild our broken internet – by experts” By Julia Carrie Wong — The Guardian. There are some fascinating proposals in this piece that could help address the problems of social media.
  • Misinformation dropped dramatically the week after Twitter banned Trump and some allies” By Elizabeth Dwoskin and Craig Timberg — The Washington Post. Research showed that lies, misinformation, and disinformation about election fraud dropped by three-quarters after former President Donald Trump was banned from Twitter and other platforms. Other research showed that a small group of conservatives were responsible for up to 20% of misinformation on this and other conspiracies.
  • This Was WhatsApp’s Plan All Along” By Shoshana Wodinsky — Gizmodo. This piece does a great job of breaking down into plain English the proposed changes to terms of service on WhatsApp that so enraged users that competitors Signal and Telegram have seen record-breaking downloads. Basically, it is all about reaping advertising dollars for Facebook through businesses and third-party partners using user data from business-related communications. Incidentally, WhatsApp has delayed changes until March because of the pushback.
  • Brussels eclipsed as EU countries roll out their own tech rules” By By Laura Kayali and Mark Scott — Politico EU. The European Union (EU) had a hard-enough task in trying to reach final language on a Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act without nations like France, Germany, Poland, and others picking and choosing text from draft bills and enacting them into law. Brussels is not happy with this trend.

Other Developments

  • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Joseph J. Simons announced his resignation from the FTC effective on 29 January 2021 in keeping with tradition and past practice. This resignation clears the way for President Joe Biden to name the chair of the FTC, and along with FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra’s nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the incoming President will get to nominate two Democratic FTC Commissioners, tipping the political balance of the FTC and likely ushering in a period of more regulation of the technology sector.
    • Simons also announced the resignation of senior staff: General Counsel Alden F. Abbott; Bureau of Competition Director Ian Conner; Bureau of Competition Deputy Directors Gail Levine and Daniel Francis; Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Andrew Smith; Bureau of Economics Director Andrew Sweeting; Office of Public Affairs Director Cathy MacFarlane; and Office of Policy Planning Director Bilal Sayyed.
  • In a speech last week before he sworn in, President Joe Biden announced his $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, and according to a summary, Biden will ask Congress to provide $10 billion for a handful of government facing programs to improve technology. Notably, Biden “is calling on Congress to launch the most ambitious effort ever to modernize and secure federal IT and networks.” Biden is proposing to dramatically increase funding for a fund that would allow agencies to borrow and then pay back funds to update their technology. Moreover, Biden is looking to push more money to a program to aid officials at agencies who oversee technology development and procurement.
    • Biden stated “[t]o remediate the SolarWinds breach and boost U.S. defenses, including of the COVID-19 vaccine process, President-elect Biden is calling on Congress to:
      • Expand and improve the Technology Modernization Fund. ​A $9 billion investment will help the U.S. launch major new IT and cybersecurity shared services at the Cyber Security and Information Security Agency (CISA) and the General Services Administration and complete modernization projects at federal agencies. ​In addition, the president-elect is calling on Congress to change the fund’s reimbursement structure in order to fund more innovative and impactful projects.
      • Surge cybersecurity technology and engineering expert hiring​. Providing the Information Technology Oversight and Reform fund with $200 million will allow for the rapid hiring of hundreds of experts to support the federal Chief Information Security Officer and U.S. Digital Service.
      • Build shared, secure services to drive transformational projects. ​Investing$300 million in no-year funding for Technology Transformation Services in the General Services Administration will drive secure IT projects forward without the need of reimbursement from agencies.
      • Improving security monitoring and incident response activities. ​An additional $690M for CISA will bolster cybersecurity across federal civilian networks, and support the piloting of new shared security and cloud computing services.
  • The United States (U.S.) Department of Commerce issued an interim final rule pursuant to an executive order (EO) issued by former President Donald Trump to secure the United States (U.S.) information and communications supply chain. This rule will undoubtedly be reviewed by the Biden Administration and may be withdrawn or modified depending on the fate on the EO on which the rule relies.
    • In the interim final rule, Commerce explained:
      • These regulations create the processes and procedures that the Secretary of Commerce will use to identify, assess, and address certain transactions, including classes of transactions, between U.S. persons and foreign persons that involve information and communications technology or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied, by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary; and pose an undue or unacceptable risk. While this interim final rule will become effective on March 22, 2021, the Department of Commerce continues to welcome public input and is thus seeking additional public comment. Once any additional comments have been evaluated, the Department is committed to issuing a final rule.
      • On November 27, 2019, the Department of Commerce (Department) published a proposed rule to implement the terms of the Executive Order. (84 FR 65316). The proposed rule set forth processes for (1) how the Secretary would evaluate and assess transactions involving ICTS to determine whether they pose an undue risk of sabotage to or subversion of the ICTS supply chain, or an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of U.S. persons; (2) how the Secretary would notify parties to transactions under review of the Secretary’s decision regarding the ICTS Transaction, including whether the Secretary would prohibit or mitigate the transaction; and (3) how parties to transactions reviewed by the Secretary could comment on the Secretary’s preliminary decisions. The proposed rule also provided that the Secretary could act without complying with the proposed procedures where required by national security. Finally, the Secretary would establish penalties for violations of mitigation agreements, the regulations, or the Executive Order.
      • In addition to seeking general public comment, the Department requested comments from the public on five specific questions: (1) Whether the Secretary should consider categorical exclusions or whether there are classes of persons whose use of ICTS cannot violate the Executive Order; (2) whether there are categories of uses or of risks that are always capable of being reliably and adequately mitigated; (3) how the Secretary should monitor and enforce any mitigation agreements applied to a transaction; (4) how the terms, “transaction,” “dealing in,” and “use of” should be clarified in the rule; and (5) whether the Department should add record-keeping requirements for information related to transactions.
      • The list of “foreign adversaries” consists of the following foreign governments and non-government persons: The People’s Republic of China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (China); the Republic of Cuba (Cuba); the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran); the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea); the Russian Federation (Russia); and Venezuelan politician Nicolás Maduro (Maduro Regime).
  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) adjusted its penalty amounts for inflation, including a boost to the per violation penalty virtually all the privacy bills introduced in the last Congress would allow the agency to wield against first-time violators. The penalty for certain unfair and deceptive acts or practices was increased from $43,280 to $43,792.
  • The United States (U.S.) Department of State stood up its new Bureau of Cyberspace Security and Emerging Technologies (CSET) as it has long planned. At the beginning of the Trump Administration, the Department of State dismantled the Cyber Coordinator Office and gave its cybersecurity portfolio to the Bureau of Economic Affairs, which displeased Congressional stakeholders. In 2019, the department notified Congress of its plan to establish CSET. The department asserted:
    • The need to reorganize and resource America’s cyberspace and emerging technology security diplomacy through the creation of CSET is critical, as the challenges to U.S. national security presented by China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other cyber and emerging technology competitors and adversaries have only increased since the Department notified Congress in June 2019 of its intent to create CSET.
    • The CSET bureau will lead U.S. government diplomatic efforts on a wide range of international cyberspace security and emerging technology policy issues that affect U.S. foreign policy and national security, including securing cyberspace and critical technologies, reducing the likelihood of cyber conflict, and prevailing in strategic cyber competition.  The Secretary’s decision to establish CSET will permit the Department to posture itself appropriately and engage as effectively as possible with partners and allies on these pressing national security concerns.
    • The Congressional Members of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission made clear their disapproval of the decision. Senators Angus King (I-ME) and Ben Sasse, (R-NE) and Representatives Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Jim Langevin (D-RI) said:
      • In our report, we emphasize the need for a greater emphasis on international cyber policy at State. However, unlike the bipartisan Cyber Diplomacy Act, the State Department’s proposed Bureau will reinforce existing silos and […] hinder the development of a holistic strategy to promote cyberspace stability on the international stage. We urge President-elect Biden to pause this reorganization when he takes office in two weeks and work with Congress to enact meaningful reform to protect our country in cyberspace.
  • The Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) the Risk Identification Guidance “developed to assist organisations in identifying risks associated with their use of suppliers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers (i.e. businesses that constitute their cyber supply chain)” and the Risk Management Guidance because “[c]yber supply chain risk management can be achieved by identifying the cyber supply chain, understanding cyber supply chain risk, setting cyber security expectations, auditing for compliance, and monitoring and improving cyber supply chain security practices.”
  • The United Kingdom’s Surveillance Camera Commissioner (SCC), issued “best practice guidance, ‘Facing the Camera’, to all police forces in England and Wales” The SCC explained that “The provisions of this document only apply to the use of facial recognition technology and the inherent processing of images by the police where such use is integral to a surveillance camera system being operated in ‘live time’ or ‘near real time’ operational scenarios.” Last summer, a British appeals court overturned a decision that found that a police force’s use of facial recognition technology in a pilot program that utilized live footage to be legal. The appeals court found the use of this technology by the South Wales Police Force a violation of “the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European  Convention  on  Human  Rights,  data  protection  legislation,  and  the  Public  Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”) under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.” The SCC stated:
    • The SCC considers surveillance to be an intrusive investigatory power where it is conducted by the police which impacts upon those fundamental rights and freedoms of people, as set out by the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act 1998. In the context of surveillance camera systems which make use of facial recognition technology, the extent of state intrusion in such matters is significantly increased by the capabilities of algorithms which are in essence, integral to the surveillance conduct seeking to harvest information, private information, metadata, data, personal data, intelligence and evidence. Each of the aforementioned are bound by laws and rules which ought to be separately and jointly considered and applied in a manner which is demonstrably lawful and ethical and engenders public trust and confidence.
    • Whenever the police seek to use technology in pursuit of a legitimate aim, the key question arises as to whether the degree of intrusion which is caused to the fundamental freedoms of citizens by the police surveillance conduct using surveillance algorithms (biometric or otherwise) is necessary in a democratic society when considered alongside the legality and proportionality of their endeavours and intent. The type of equipment/technology/modality which they choose to use to that end (e.g. LFR, ANPR, thermal imaging, gait analysis, movement sensors etc), the manner in which such technological means are deployed, (such as using static cameras at various locations, used with body worn cameras or other mobile means), and whether such technology is used overtly alongside or networked with other surveillance technologies, are all factors which may significantly influence the depth of intrusion caused by police conduct upon citizen’s rights.
  • The Senate confirmed the nomination of Avril Haines to be the new Director of National Intelligence by an 89-10 vote after Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK) removed his hold on her nomination. However, Josh Hawley (R-MO) placed a hold on the nomination of Alejandro Mayorkas to be the next Secretary of Homeland Security and explained his action this way:
    • On Day 1 of his administration, President-elect Biden has said he plans to unveil an amnesty plan for 11 million immigrants in this nation illegally. This comes at a time when millions of American citizens remain out of work and a new migrant caravan has been attempting to reach the United States. Mr. Mayorkas has not adequately explained how he will enforce federal law and secure the southern border given President-elect Biden’s promise to roll back major enforcement and security measures. Just today, he declined to say he would enforce the laws Congress has already passed to secure the border wall system. Given this, I cannot consent to skip the standard vetting process and fast-track this nomination when so many questions remain unanswered.
  • Former Trump White House Cyber Coordinator Rob Joyce will replace the National Security Agency’s (NSA) Director of Cybersecurity Anne Neuberger who has been named 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.” Joyce was purged when former National Security Advisor John Bolton restructured the NSC in 2018, forcing out Joyce and his boss, former Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert. Presumably Joyce would have the same responsibilities. 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. This work would include Joyce.
  • The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard oral arguments on whether the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act gives the agency the power to seek monetary damages and restitution alongside permanent injunctions under Section 13(b). In AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, the parties opposing the FTC argue the plain language of the statute does not allow for the seeking of restitution and monetary damages under this specific section of the FTC Act while the agency argues long accepted past practice and Congressional intent do, in fact, allow this relief to be sought when the FTC is seeking to punish violators of Section 5. The FTC is working a separate track to get a fix from Congress which could rewrite the FTC Act to make clear this sort of relief is legal. However, some stakeholders in the debate over privacy legislation may be using the case as leverage.
    • In October 2020, the FTC wrote the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over the agency, asking for language to resolve the litigation over the power to seek and obtain restitution for victims of those who have violated Section 5 of the FTC Act and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. The FTC is also asking that Congress clarify that the agency may act against violators even if their conduct has stopped as it has for more than four decades. Two federal appeals courts have ruled in ways that have limited the FTC’s long used powers, and now the Supreme Court of the United States is set to rule on these issues sometime next year. The FTC is claiming, however, that defendants are playing for time in the hopes that the FTC’s authority to seek and receive monetary penalties will ultimately be limited by the United States (U.S.) highest court. Judging by language tucked into a privacy bill introduced by the former chair of one of the committees, Congress may be willing to act soon.
    • The FTC asked the House Energy and Commerce and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committees “to take quick action to amend Section 13(b) [of the FTC Act i.e. 15 U.S.C. § 53(b)] to make clear that the Commission can bring actions in federal court under Section 13(b) even if conduct is no longer ongoing or impending when the suit is filed and can obtain monetary relief, including restitution and disgorgement, if successful.” The agency asserted “[w]ithout congressional action, the Commission’s ability to use Section 13(b) to provide refunds to consumer victims and to enjoin illegal activity is severely threatened.” All five FTC Commissioners signed the letter.
    • The FTC explained that adverse rulings by two federal appeals courts are constraining the agency from seeking relief for victims and punishment for violators of the FTC Act in federal courts below those two specific courts, but elsewhere defendants are either asking courts for a similar ruling or using delaying tactics in the hopes the Supreme Court upholds the two federal appeals courts:
      • …[C]ourts of appeals in the Third and Seventh Circuits have recently ruled that the agency cannot obtain any monetary relief under Section 13(b). Although review in the Supreme Court is pending, these lower court decisions are already inhibiting our ability to obtain monetary relief under 13(b). Not only do these decisions already prevent us from obtaining redress for consumers in the circuits where they issued, prospective defendants are routinely invoking them in refusing to settle cases with agreed-upon redress payments.
      • Moreover, defendants in our law enforcement actions pending in other circuits are seeking to expand the rulings to those circuits and taking steps to delay litigation in anticipation of a potential Supreme Court ruling that would allow them to escape liability for any monetary relief caused by their unlawful conduct. This is a significant impediment to the agency’s effectiveness, its ability to provide redress to consumer victims, and its ability to prevent entities who violate the law from profiting from their wrongdoing.
  • The United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) issued guidance for British entities that may be affected by the massive SolarWinds hack that has compromised many key systems in the United States. The ICO advised:
    • Organisations should immediately check whether they are using a version of the software that has been compromised. These are versions 2019.4 HF 5, 2020.2 with no hotfix installed, and 2020.2 HF 1.
    • Organisations must also determine if the personal data they hold has been affected by the cyber-attack. If a reportable personal data breach is found, UK data controllers are required to inform the ICO within 72 hours of discovering the breach. Reports can be submitted online or organisations can call the ICO’s personal data breach helpline for advice on 0303 123 1113, option 2.
    • Organisations subject to the NIS Regulation will also need to determine if this incident has led to a “substantial impact on the provision’ of its digital services and report to the ICO.
  • Europol announced the takedown of “the world’s largest illegal marketplace on the dark web” in an operation coordinated by the following nations: “Germany, Australia, Denmark, Moldova, Ukraine, the United Kingdom (the National Crime Agency), and the USA (DEA, FBI, and IRS).” Europol added:
    • The Central Criminal Investigation Department in the German city of Oldenburg arrested an Australian citizen who is the alleged operator of DarkMarket near the German-Danish border over the weekend. The investigation, which was led by the cybercrime unit of the Koblenz Public Prosecutor’s Office, allowed officers to locate and close the marketplace, switch off the servers and seize the criminal infrastructure – more than 20 servers in Moldova and Ukraine supported by the German Federal Criminal Police office (BKA). The stored data will give investigators new leads to further investigate moderators, sellers, and buyers. 
  • The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an enforcement advisory intended to remind people that use of amateur and personal radios to commit crimes is itself a criminal offense that could warrant prosecution. The notice was issued because the FCC is claiming it is aware of discussion by some of how these means of communications may be superior to social media, which has been cracking down on extremist material since the attempted insurrection at the United States Capitol on 6 January. The Bureau stated:
    • The Bureau has become aware of discussions on social media platforms suggesting that certain radio services regulated by the Commission may be an alternative to social media platforms for groups to communicate and coordinate future activities.  The Bureau recognizes that these services can be used for a wide range of permitted purposes, including speech that is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Amateur and Personal Radio Services, however, may not be used to commit or facilitate crimes. 
    • Specifically, the Bureau reminds amateur licensees that they are prohibited from transmitting “communications intended to facilitate a criminal act” or “messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning.” Likewise, individuals operating radios in the Personal Radio Services, a category that includes Citizens Band radios, Family Radio Service walkie-talkies, and General Mobile Radio Service, are prohibited from using those radios “in connection with any activity which is against Federal, State or local law.” Individuals using radios in the Amateur or Personal Radio Services in this manner may be subject to severe penalties, including significant fines, seizure of the offending equipment, and, in some cases, criminal prosecution.
  • The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) issued its “Strategy for 2021-2023” in order “[t]o be effective in confronting the main challenges ahead.” The EDPB cautioned:
    • This Strategy does not provide an exhaustive overview of the work of the EDPB in the years to come. Rather it sets out the four main pillars of our strategic objectives, as well as set of key actions to help achieve those objectives. The EDPB will implement this Strategy within its Work Program, and will report on the progress achieved in relation to each Pillar as part of its annual reports.
    • The EDPB listed and explained the four pillars of its strategy:
      • PILLAR 1: ADVANCING HARMONISATION AND FACILITATING COMPLIANCE. The EDPB will continue to strive for a maximum degree of consistency in the application of data protection rules and limit fragmentation among Member States. In addition to providing practical, easily understandable and accessible guidance, the EDPB will develop and promote tools that help to implement data protection into practice, taking into account practical experiences of different stakeholders on the ground.
      • PILLAR 2: SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND EFFICIENT COOPERATION BETWEEN NATIONAL SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES. The EDPB is fully committed to support cooperation between all national supervisory authorities that work together to enforce European data protection law. We will streamline internal processes, combine expertise and promote enhanced coordination. We intend not only to ensure a more efficient functioning of the cooperation and consistency mechanisms, but also to strive for the development of a genuine EU-wide enforcement culture among supervisory authorities.
      • PILLAR 3: A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS APPROACH TO NEW TECHNOLOGIES. The protection of personal data helps to ensure that technology, new business models and society develop in accordance with our values, such as human dignity, autonomy and liberty. The EDPB will continuously monitor new and emerging technologies and their potential impact on the fundamental rights and daily lives of individuals. Data protection should work for all people, particularly in the face of processing activities presenting the greatest risks to individuals’ rights and freedoms (e.g. to prevent discrimination). We will help to shape Europe’s digital future in line with our common values and rules. We will continue to work with other regulators and policymakers to promote regulatory coherence and enhanced protection for individuals.
      • PILLAR 4: THE GLOBAL DIMENSION. The EDPB is determined to set and promote high EU and global standards for international data transfers to third countries in the private and the public sector, including in the law enforcement sector. We will reinforce our engagement with the international community to promote EU data protection as a global model and to ensure effective protection of personal data beyond EU borders.
  • The United Kingdom’s (UK) Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) revealed that all but one of the videoconferencing platforms it and other data protection authorities’ (DPA) July 2020 letter urging them to “adopt principles to guide them in addressing some key privacy risks.” The ICO explained:
    • Microsoft, Cisco, Zoom and Google replied to the open letter. The joint signatories thank these companies for engaging on this important matter and for acknowledging and responding to the concerns raised. In their responses the companies highlighted various privacy and security best practices, measures, and tools that they advise are implemented or built-in to their video teleconferencing services.
    • The information provided by these companies is encouraging. It is a constructive foundation for further discussion on elements of the responses that the joint signatories feel would benefit from more clarity and additional supporting information.
    • The ICO stated:
      • The joint signatories have not received a response to the open letter from Houseparty. They strongly encourage Houseparty to engage with them and respond to the open letter to address the concerns raised.
  • The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) “launched a public consultation, which runs until 7 February 2021, on its draft of the candidate European Union Cybersecurity Certification Scheme on Cloud Services (EUCS)…[that] aims to further improve the Union’s internal market conditions for cloud services by enhancing and streamlining the services’ cybersecurity guarantees.” ENISA stated:
    • There are challenges to the certification of cloud services, such as a diverse set of market players, complex systems and a constantly evolving landscape of cloud services, as well as the existence of different schemes in Member States. The draft EUCS candidate scheme tackles these challenges by calling for cybersecurity best practices across three levels of assurance and by allowing for a transition from current national schemes in the EU. The draft EUCS candidate scheme is a horizontal and technological scheme that intends to provide cybersecurity assurance throughout the cloud supply chain, and form a sound basis for sectoral schemes.
    • More specifically, the draft EUCS candidate scheme:
      • Is a voluntary scheme;
      • The scheme’s certificates will be applicable across the EU Member States;
      • Is applicable for all kinds of cloud services – from infrastructure to applications;
      • Boosts trust in cloud services by defining a reference set of security requirements;
      • Covers three assurance levels: ‘Basic’, ‘Substantial’ and ‘High’;
      • Proposes a new approach inspired by existing national schemes and international standards;
      • Defines a transition path from national schemes in the EU;
      • Grants a three-year certification that can be renewed;
      • Includes transparency requirements such as the location of data processing and storage.

Coming Events

  • The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Gina Raimondo to be the Secretary of Commerce on 26 January.
  • 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 Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke 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.

FY 2021 Omnibus and COVID Stimulus Become Law

The end-of-the-year funding package for FY 2021 is stuffed with technology policy changes.

At the tail end of the calendar year 2020, Congress and the White House finally agreed on FY 2021 appropriations and further COVID-19 relief funding and policies, much of which implicated or involved technology policy. As is often the practice, Congressional stakeholders used the opportunity of must-pass legislation as the vehicle for other legislation that perhaps could not get through a chamber of Congress or surmount the now customary filibuster in the Senate.

Congress cleared the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021” (H.R.133) on 21 December 2020, but President Donald Trump equivocated on whether to sign the package, in part, because it did not provide for $2,000 in aid to every American, a new demand at odds with the one his negotiators worked out with House Democrats and Senate Republicans. Given this disparity, it seems more likely Trump made an issue of the $2,000 assistance to draw attention from a spate of controversial pardons issued to Trump allies and friends. Nonetheless, Trump ultimately signed the package on 27 December.

As one of the only bills or set of bills to annually pass Congress, appropriations acts are often the means by which policy and programmatic changes are made at federal agencies through the ability of the legislative branch to condition the use of such funds as are provided. This year’s package is different only in that it contains much more in the way of ride-along legislation than the average omnibus. In fact, there are hundreds, perhaps even more than 1,000 pages of non-appropriations legislation, some that pertains to technology policy. Moreover, with an additional supplemental bill attached to the FY 2021 omnibus also carries significant technology funding and programming.

First, we will review FY 2021 funding and policy for key U.S. agencies, then discuss COVID-19 related legislation, and then finally all the additional legislation Congress packed into the omnibus.

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) would receive $2.025 billion, a bare $9 million increase above FY 2020 with significant reordering of how the agency may spend its funds:

  • The agreement includes a net increase of $224,178,000 above the budget request. This includes $226,256,000 above the request to maintain current services, and $54,516,000 in enhancements that are described in more detail below. Assumed in the current services level of funding are several rejections of proposed reductions to prior year initiatives and the inclusion of necessary annualizations to sustain them, such as: $35,606,000 for threat analysis and response; $5,507,000 for soft targets and crowded places security, including school safety and best practices; $6,852,000 for bombing prevention activities, including the train-the-trainer programs; and $67,371,000 to fully fund the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program. The agreement includes the following reductions below the budget request: $6,937,000 for personnel cost adjustments; $2,500,000 of proposed increases to the CyberSentry program; $11,354,000 of proposed increases for the Vulnerability Management program; $2,000,000 of proposed increases to the Cybersecurity Quality Service Management Office (QSMO); $6,500,000 of proposed increases for cybersecurity advisors; and $27,303,000 for the requested increase for protective security advisors. Of the total amount provided for this account, $22,793,000 is available until September 30, 2022, for the National Infrastructure Simulation Analysis Center.

The FY 2021 omnibus requires of CISA the following:

  • Financial Transparency and Accountability.-The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is directed to submit the fiscal year 2022 budget request at the same level of PP A detail provided in the table at the end of this report with no further adjustments to the PP A structure. Further, CISA shall brief the Committees not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act and quarterly thereafter on: a spend plan; detailed hiring plans with a delineation of each mission critical occupation (MCO); procurement plans for all major investments to include projected spending and program schedules and milestones; and an execution strategy for each major initiative. The hiring plan shall include an update on CISA’s hiring strategy efforts and shall include the following for each MCO: the number of funded positions and FTE within each PP A; the projected and obligated funding; the number of actual onboard personnel as of the date of the plan; and the hiring and attrition projections for the fiscal year.
  • Cyber Defense Education and Training (CDET).-The agreement includes $29,457,000 for CISA’s CDET programs, an increase of$20,607,000 above the request that is described in further detail below. Efforts are underway to address the shortage of qualified national cybersecurity professionals in the current and future cybersecurity workforce. In order to move forward with a comprehensive plan for a cybersecurity workforce development effort, the agreement includes $10,000,000 above the request to enhance cybersecurity education and training and programs to address the national shortfall of cybersecurity professionals, including activities funded through the use of grants or cooperative agreements as needed in order to fully comply with congressional intent. CISA should consider building a higher education consortium of colleges and universities, led by at least one academic institution with an extensive history of education, research, policy, and outreach in computer science and engineering disciplines; existing designations as a land-grant institution with an extension role; a center of academic excellence in cyber security operations; a proven track record in hosting cyber corps programs; a record of distinction in research cybersecurity; and extensive experience in offering distance education programs and outreach with K-12 programs. The agreement also includes $4,300,000 above the request for the Cybersecurity Education and Training Assistance Program (CETAP), which was proposed for elimination, and $2,500,000 above the request to further expand and initiate cybersecurity education programs, including CETAP, which improve education delivery methods for K-12 students, teachers, counselors and post-secondary institutions and encourage students to pursue cybersecurity careers.
  • Further, the agreement includes $2,500,000 above the request to support CISA’s role with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education Challenge project or for similar efforts to address shortages in the cybersecurity workforce through the development of content and curriculum for colleges, universities, and other higher education institutions.
  • Lastly, the agreement includes $800,000 above the request for a review of CISA’s program to build a national cybersecurity workforce. CISA is directed to enter into a contract for this review with the National Academy of Public Administration, or a similar non-profit organization, within 45 days of the date of enactment of this Act. The review shall assess: whether the partnership models under development by CISA are positioned to be effective and scalable to address current and anticipated needs for a highly capable cybersecurity workforce; whether other existing partnership models, including those used by other agencies and private industry, could usefully augment CISA’s strategy; and the extent to which CISA’s strategy has made progress on workforce development objectives, including excellence, scale, and diversity. A report with the findings of the review shall be provided to the Committees not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
  • Cyber QSMO.-To help improve efforts to make strategic cybersecurity services available to federal agencies, the agreement provides $1,514,000 above the request to sustain and enhance prior year investments. As directed in the House report and within the funds provided, CISA is directed to work with the Management Directorate to conduct a crowd-sourced security testing program that uses technology platforms and ethical security researchers to test for vulnerabilities on departmental systems. In addition, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, CISA is directed to brief the Committees on opportunities for state and local governments to leverage shared services provided through the Cyber QSMO or a similar capability and to explore the feasibility of executing a pilot program focused on this goal.
  • Cyber Threats to Critical Election Infrastructure.-The briefing required in House Report 116–458 regarding CISA’s efforts related to the 2020 elections shall be delivered not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act. CISA is directed to continue working with SL TT stakeholders to implement election security measures.
  • Cybersecurity Worliforce.-By not later than September 30, 2021, CISA shall provide a joint briefing, in conjunction with the Department of Commerce and other appropriate federal departments and agencies, on progress made to date on each recommendation put forth in Executive Order 13800 and the subsequent “Supporting the Growth and Sustainment of the Nation’s Cybersecurity Workforce” report.
  • Hunt and Incident Response Teams.-The agreement includes an increase of $3,000,000 above fiscal year 2020 funding levels to expand CISA’s threat hunting capabilities.
  • Joint Cyber Planning Office (JCPO).-The agreement provides an increase of $10,568,000 above the request to establish a JCPO to bring together federal and SLTT governments, industry, and international partners to strategically and operationally counter nation-state cyber threats. CISA is directed to brief the Committees not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act on a plan for establishing the JCPO, including a budget and hiring plan; a description of how JCPO will complement and leverage other CISA capabilities; and a strategy for partnering with the aforementioned stakeholders.
  • Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC).-The agreement provides $5,148,000 above the request for the MS-ISAC to continue enhancements to SLTT election security support, and furthers ransomware detection and response capabilities, including endpoint detection and response, threat intelligence platform integration, and malicious domain activity blocking.
  • Software Assurance Tools.-Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, CISA, in conjunction with the Science and Technology Directorate, is directed to brief the Committees on their collaborative efforts to transition cyber-related research and development initiatives into operational tools that can be used to provide continuous software assurance. The briefing should include an explanation for any completed projects and activities that were not considered viable for practice or were considered operationally self-sufficient. Such briefing shall include software assurance projects, such as the Software Assurance Marketplace.
  • Updated Lifecycle Cost Estimates.–CISA is directed to provide a briefing, not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, regarding the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (COM) and National Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS) program lifecycles. The briefing shall clearly describe the projected evolution of both programs by detailing the assumptions that have changed since the last approved program cost and schedule baseline, and by describing the plans to address such changes. In addition, the briefing shall include an analysis of alternatives for aligning vulnerability management, incident response, and NCPS capabilities. Finally, CISA is directed to provide a report not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act with updated five-year program costs and schedules which is congruent with projected capability gaps across federal civilian systems and networks.
  • Vulnerability Management.-The agreement provides $9,452,000 above fiscal year 2020 levels to continue reducing the 12-month backlog in vulnerability assessments. The agreement also provides an increase of $8,000,000 above the request to address the increasing number of identified and reported vulnerabilities in the software and hardware that operates critical infrastructure. This investment will improve capabilities to identify, analyze, and share information about known vulnerabilities and common attack patterns, including through the National Vulnerability Database, and to expand the coordinated responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities.

There are a pair of provisions aimed at the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in Division B (i.e. the FY 2021 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Act):

  • Section 514 prohibits funds for acquisition of certain information systems unless the acquiring department or agency has reviewed and assessed certain risks. Any acquisition of such an information system is contingent upon the development of a risk mitigation strategy and a determination that the acquisition is in the national interest. Each department or agency covered under section 514 shall submit a quarterly report to the Committees on Appropriations describing reviews and assessments of risk made pursuant to this section and any associated findings or determinations.
  • Section 526 prohibits the use of funds by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), or the National Space Council (NSC) to engage in bilateral activities with China or a Chinese-owned company or effectuate the hosting of official Chinese visitors at certain facilities unless the activities are authorized by subsequent legislation or NASA, OSTP, or NSC have made a certification…

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is asked with a number of duties, most of which relate to current or ongoing efforts in artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and the Internet of Things:

  • Artificial Intelligence (Al). -The agreement includes no less than $6,500,000 above the fiscal year 2020 level to continue NIST’s research efforts related to AI and adopts House language on Data Characterization Standards in Al. House language on Framework for Managing AI Risks is modified to direct NIST to establish a multi-stakeholder process for the development of an Al Risk Management Framework regarding the reliability, robustness, and trustworthiness of Al systems. Further, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, NIST shall establish the process by which it will engage with stakeholders throughout the multi-year framework development process.
  • Cybersecurity.-The agreement includes no less than the fiscal year 2020 enacted level for cybersecurity research, outreach, industry partnerships, and other activities at NIST, including the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) and the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE). Within the funds provided, the agreement encourages NIST to establish additional NICE cooperative agreements with regional alliances and multi-stakeholder partnerships for cybersecurity workforce and education.
  • Cybersecurity of Genomic Data.-The agreement includes no less than $1,250,000 for NIST and NCCoE to initiate a use case, in collaboration with industry and academia, to research the cybersecurity of personally identifiable genomic data, with a particular focus on better securing deoxyribonucleic acid sequencing techniques, including clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) technologies, and genomic data storage architectures from cyber threats. NIST and NCCoE should look to partner with entities who have existing capability to research and develop state-of-the-art cybersecurity technologies for the unique needs of genomic and biomedical-based systems.
  • Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT).-The agreement includes no less than the fiscal year 2020 enacted amount for the continued development of an IloT cybersecurity research initiative and to partner, as appropriate, with academic entities and industry to improve the sustainable security of IloT devices in industrial settings.

NIST would receive a modest increase in funding from $1.034 billion to $1.0345 billion from the last fiscal year to the next.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) would be provided $45.5 million and “the agreement provides (1) up to $7,500,000 for broadband mapping in coordination with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); (2) no less than the fiscal year 2020 enacted amount for Broadband Programs; (3) $308,000 for Public Safety Communications; and (4) no less than $3,000,000 above the fiscal year 2020 enacted level for Advanced Communications Research.” The agency’s funding for FY 2021 is higher than the last fiscal year at a bit more than $40 million but far less than the Trump Administration’s request of more than $70 million.

Regarding NTIA programmatic language, the bill provides:

  • Further, the agreement directs the additional funds for Advanced Communications Research be used to procure and maintain cutting-edge equipment for research and testing of the next generation of communications technologies, including 5G, as well as to hire staff as needed. The agreement further encourages NTIA to improve the deployment of 5G and spectrum sharing through academic partnerships to accelerate the development of low-cost sensors. For fiscal year 2021, NTIA is directed to follow prior year report language, included in Senate Report 116-127 and adopted in Public Law 116-93, on the following topics: Federal Spectrum Management, Spectrum Management for Science, and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
  • Spectrum Management System.-The agreement encourages NTIA and the Department to consider alternative proposals to fully fund the needed upgrades to its spectrum management system, including options outside of direct appropriations, and is directed to brief the Committees regarding possible alternative options no later than 90 days after enactment of this Act.
  • Next Generation Broadband in Rural Areas.-NTIA is encouraged to ensure that deployment of last-mile broadband infrastructure is targeted to areas that are currently unserved or underserved, and to utilize public-private partnerships and projects where Federal funding will not exceed 50 percent of a project’s total cost where practicable.
  • National Broadband Map Augmentation.-NTIA is directed to engage with rural and Tribal communities to further enhance the accuracy of the national broadband availability map. NTIA should include in its fiscal year 2022 budget request an update on rural-and Tribal-related broadband availability and access trends, challenges, and Federal actions to achieve equitable access to broadband services in currently underserved communities throughout the Nation. Furthermore, NTIA is encouraged, in coordination with the FCC, to develop and promulgate a standardized process for collecting data from State and local partners.
  • Domain Name Registration.-NTIA is directed, through its position within the Governmental Advisory Committee to work with ICANN to expedite the establishment of a global access model that provides law enforcement, intellectual property rights holders, and third parties with timely access to accurate domain name registration information for legitimate purposes. NTIA is encouraged, as appropriate, to require registrars and registries based in the United States to collect and make public accurate domain name registration information.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would receive $351 million, an increase of $20 million over FY 2020. The final bill includes this policy provision for the FTC to heed:

  • Resources for Data Privacy and Security. -The agreement urges the FTC to conduct a comprehensive internal assessment measuring the agency’s current efforts related to data privacy and security while separately identifying all resource-based needs of the FTC to improve in these areas. The agreement also urges the FTC to provide a report describing the assessment’s findings to the Committees within 180 days of enactment of this Act.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would see a larger increase in funding for agency operations than the FTC, going from $339 million in FY 2020 to $374 million in FY 2021. However, $33 million of the increase is earmarked for implementing the “Broadband DATA Act” (P.L.116-130) along with the $65 million in COVID-19 supplemental funding for the same purpose. The FY 2021 omnibus directs the FCC on a range of policy issues:

  • Broadband Maps.-In addition to adopting the House report language on Broadband Maps, the agreement provides substantial dedicated resources for the FCC to implement the Broadband DATA Act. The FCC is directed to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment of this Act providing a detailed spending plan for these resources. In addition, the FCC, in coordination with the NTIA, shall outline the specific roles and responsibilities of each agency as it relates to the National Broadband Map and implementation of the Broadband DATA Act. The FCC is directed to report in writing to the Committees every 30 days on the date, amount, and purpose of any new obligation made for broadband mapping and any updates to the broadband mapping spending plan.
  • Lifeline Service. In lieu of the House report language on Lifeline Service, the agreement notes recent action by the FCC to partially waive its rules updating the Lifeline program’s minimum service standard for mobile broadband usage in light of the large increase to the standard that would have gone into effect on Dec. I, 2020, and the increased reliance by Americans on mobile broadband as a result of the pandemic. The FCC is urged to continue to balance the Lifeline program’s goals of accessibility and affordability.
  • 5G Fund and Rural America.-The agreement remains concerned about the feasible deployment of 5G in rural America. Rural locations will likely run into geographic barriers and infrastructure issues preventing the robust deployment of 5G technology, just as they have faced with 4G. The FCC’s proposed 5G Fund fails to provide adequate details or a targeted spend plan on creating seamless coverage in the most rural parts of the Nation. Given these concerns, the FCC is directed to report in writing on: (1) its current and future plans fix prioritizing deployment of 4G coverage in rural areas, (2) its plans for 5G deployment in rural areas, and (3) its plan for improving the mapping and long-term tracking of coverage in rural areas.
  • 6 Gigahertz. -As the FCC has authorized unlicensed use of the 6 gigahertz band, the agreement expects the Commission to ensure its plan does not result in harmful interference to incumbent users or impact critical infrastructure communications systems. The agreement is particularly concerned about the potential effects on the reliability of the electric transmission and distribution system. The agreement expects the FCC to ensure any mitigation technologies are rigorously tested and found to be effective in order to protect the electric transmission system. The FCC is directed to provide a report to the Committees within 90 days of enactment of this Act on its progress in ensuring rigorous testing related to unlicensed use of the 6 gigahertz band. Rural Broadband-The agreement remains concerned that far too many Americans living in rural and economically disadvantaged areas lack access to broadband at speeds necessary to fully participate in the Internet age. The agreement encourages the agency to prioritize projects in underserved areas, where the infrastructure to be installed provides access at download and upload speeds comparable to those available to Americans in urban areas. The agreement encourages the FCC to avoid efforts that could duplicate existing networks and to support deployment of last-mile broadband infrastructure to underserved areas. Further, the agreement encourages the agency to prioritize projects financed through public-private partnerships.
  • Contraband Cell Phones. -The agreement notes continued concern regarding the exploitation of contraband cell phones in prisons and jails nationwide. The agreement urges the FCC to act on the March 24, 2017 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding combating contraband wireless devices. The FCC should consider all legally permissible options, including the creation, or use, of “quiet or no service zones,” geolocation-based denial, and beacon technologies to geographically appropriate correctional facilities. In addition, the agreement encourages the FCC to adopt a rules-based approach to cellphone disabling that would require immediate disabling by a wireless carrier upon proper identification of a contraband device. The agreement recommends that the FCC move forward with its suggestion in the Fiscal Year 2019 report to this Committee, noting that “additional field testing of jamming technology will provide a better understanding of the challenges and costs associated with the proper deployment of jamming system.” The agreement urges the FCC to use available funds to coordinate rigorous Federal testing of jamming technology and coordinate with all relevant stakeholders to effectively address this urgent problem.
  • Next-Generation Broadband Networks/or Rural America-Deployment of broadband and telecommunications services in rural areas is imperative to support economic growth and public safety. However, due to geographical challenges facing mobile connectivity and fiber providers, connectivity in certain areas remains challenging. Next generation satellite-based technology is being developed to deliver direct satellite to cellular capability. The FCC is encouraged to address potential regulatory hurdles, to promote private sector development and implementation of innovative, next generation networks such as this, and to accelerate broadband and telecommunications access to all Americans.

$635 million is provided for a Department of Agriculture rural development pilot program, and he Secretary will need to explain how he or she will use authority provided in the last farm bill to expand broadband:

  • The agreement provides $635,000,000 to support the ReConnect pilot program to increase access to broadband connectivity in unserved rural communities and directs the Department to target grants and loans to areas of the country with the largest broadband coverage gaps. These projects should utilize technology that will maximize coverage of broadband with the most benefit to taxpayers and the rural communities served. The agreement notes stakeholder concerns that the ReConnect pilot does not effectively recognize the unique challenges and opportunities that different technologies, including satellite, provide to delivering broadband in noncontiguous States or mountainous terrain and is concerned that providing preference to 100 mbps symmetrical service unfairly disadvantages these communities by limiting the deployment of other technologies capable of providing service to these areas.
  • The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-334) included new authorities for rural broadband programs that garnered broad stakeholder support as well as bipartisan, bicameral agreement in Congress. Therefore, the Secretary is directed to provide a report on how the Department plans to utilize these authorities to deploy broadband connectivity to rural communities.

In Division M of the package, the “Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021,” there are provisions related to broadband policy and funding. The bill created a $3.2 billion program to help low-income Americans with internet service and buying devices for telework or distance education. The “Emergency Broadband Benefit Program” is established at the FCC, “under which eligible households may receive a discount of up to $50, or up to $75 on Tribal lands, off the cost of internet service and a subsidy for low-cost devices such as computers and tablets” according to a House Appropriations Committee summary. This funding is far short of what House Democrats wanted. And yet, this program aims to help those on the wrong side of the digital divide during the pandemic.

Moreover, this legislation also establishes two grant programs at the NTIA, designed to help provide broadband on tribal lands and in rural areas. $1 billion is provided for the former and $300 million for the latter with the funds going to tribal and state and local governments to obtain services from private sector providers. The $1 billion for tribal lands allows for greater flexibility in what the funds are ultimately spent on with the $320 million for underserved rural areas being restricted to broadband deployment. Again, these funds are aimed at bridging the disparity in broadband service exposed and exacerbated during the pandemic.

Congress also provided funds for the FCC to reimburse smaller telecommunications providers in removing and replacing risky telecommunications equipment from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Following the enactment of the “Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019” (P.L.116-124) that codified and added to a FCC regulatory effort to address the risks posed by Huawei and ZTE equipment in United States (U.S.) telecommunications networks, there was pressure in Congress to provide the funds necessary to help carriers meet the requirements of the program. The FY 2021 omnibus appropriates $1.9 billion for this program. In another but largely unrelated tranche of funding, the aforementioned $65 million given to the FCC to undertake the “Broadband DATA Act.”

Division Q contains text similar to the “Cybersecurity and Financial System Resilience Act of 2019” (H.R.4458) that would require “the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and National Credit Union Administration to annually report on efforts to strengthen cybersecurity by the agencies, financial institutions they regulate, and third-party service providers.”

Division U contains two bills pertaining to technology policy:

  • Title I. The AI in Government Act of 2020. This title codifies the AI Center of Excellence within the General Services Administration to advise and promote the efforts of the federal government in developing innovative uses of artificial intelligence (AI) and competency in the use of AI in the federal government. The section also requires that the Office of Personnel Management identify key skills and competencies needed for federal positions related to AI and establish an occupational series for positions related to AI.
  • Title IX. The DOTGOV Act. This title transfers the authority to manage the .gov internet domain from the General Services Administration to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) of the Department of Homeland Security. The .gov internet domain shall be available to any Federal, State, local, or territorial government entity, or other publicly controlled entity, subject to registration requirements established by the Director of CISA and approved by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Division W is the FY 2021 Intelligence Authorization Act with the following salient provisions:

  • Section 323. Report on signals intelligence priorities and requirements. Section 323 requires the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to submit a report detailing signals intelligence priorities and requirements subject to Presidential Policy Directive-28 (PPD-28) that stipulates “why, whether, when, and how the United States conducts signals intelligence activities.” PPD-28 reformed how the National Security Agency (NSA) and other Intelligence Community (IC) agencies conducted signals intelligence, specifically collection of cellphone and internet data, after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposed the scope of the agency’s programs.
  • Section 501. Requirements and authorities to improve education in science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics. Section 501 ensures that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has the legal authorities required to improve the skills in science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (known as STEAM) necessary to meet long-term national security needs. Section 502. Seedling investment in next-generation microelectronics in support of artificial intelligence. Section 502 requires the DNI, acting through the Director of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity, to award contracts or grants, or enter into other transactions, to encourage microelectronics research.
  • Section 601. Report on attempts by foreign adversaries to build telecommunications and cybersecurity equipment and services for, or to provide them to, certain U.S. Section 601 requires the CIA, NSA, and DIA to submit a joint report that describes the United States intelligence sharing and military posture in Five Eyes countries that currently have or intend to use adversary telecommunications or cybersecurity equipment, especially as provided by China or Russia, with a description of potential vulnerabilities of that information and assessment of mitigation options.
  • Section 602. Report on foreign use of cyber intrusion and surveillance technology. Section 602 requires the DNI to submit a report on the threats posed by foreign governments and foreign entities using and appropriating commercially available cyber intrusion and other surveillance technology.
  • Section 603. Reports on recommendations of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission. Section 603 requires the ODNI and representatives of other agencies to report to Congress their assessment of the recommendations submitted by the Cyberspace Solarium Commission pursuant to Section 1652(j) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019, and to describe actions that each agency expects to take to implement these recommendations.
  • Section 604. Assessment of critical technology trends relating to artificial intelligence, microchips, and semiconductors and related matters. Section 604 requires the DNI to complete an assessment of export controls related to artificial intelligence (AI), microchips, advanced manufacturing equipment, and other AI-enabled technologies, including the identification of opportunities for further cooperation with international partners.
  • Section 605. Combating Chinese influence operations in the United States and strengthening civil liberties protections. Section 605 provides additional requirements to annual reports on Influence Operations and Campaigns in the United States by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) by mandating an identification of influence operations by the CCP against the science and technology sector in the United States. Section 605 also requires the FBI to create a plan to increase public awareness of influence activities by the CCP. Finally, section 605 requires the FBI, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights and the Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Justice, to develop recommendations to strengthen relationships with communities targeted by the CCP and to build trust with such communities through local and regional grassroots outreach.
  • Section 606. Annual report on corrupt activities of senior officials of the CCP. Section 606 requires the CIA, in coordination with the Department of Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the FBI, to submit to designated congressional committees annually through 2025 a report that describes and assesses the wealth and corruption of senior officials of the CCP, as well as targeted financial measures, including potential targets for sanctions designation. Section 606 further expresses the Sense of Congress that the United States should undertake every effort and pursue every opportunity to expose the corruption and illicit practices of senior officials of the CCP, including President Xi Jinping.
  • Section 607. Report on corrupt activities of Russian and other Eastern European oligarchs. Section 607 requires the CIA, in coordination with the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and the FBI, to submit to designated congressional committees and the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, a report that describes the corruption and corrupt or illegal activities among Russian and other Eastern European oligarchs who support the Russian government and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the impact of those activities on the economy and citizens of Russia. Section 607 further requires the CIA, in coordination with the Department of Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, to describe potential sanctions that could be imposed for such activities. Section 608. Report on biosecurity risk and disinformation by the CCP and the PRC. Section 608 requires the DNI to submit to the designated congressional committees a report identifying whether and how CCP officials and the Government of the People’s Republic of China may have sought to suppress or exploit for national advantage information regarding the novel coronavirus pandemic, including specific related assessments. Section 608 further provides that the report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may have a classified annex.
  • Section 612. Research partnership on activities of People’s Republic of China. Section 612 requires the Director of the NGA to seek to enter into a partnership with an academic or non-profit research institution to carry out joint unclassified geospatial intelligence analyses of the activities of the People’s Republic of China that pose national security risks to the United States, and to make publicly available unclassified products relating to such analyses.

Division Z would tweak a data center energy efficiency and energy savings program overseen by the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency that could impact the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) government-wide program. Specifically, “Section 1003 requires the development of a metric for data center energy efficiency, and requires the Secretary of Energy, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to maintain a data center energy practitioner program and open data initiative for federally owned and operated data center energy usage.” There is also language that would require the U.S. government to buy and use more energy-efficient information technology (IT): “each Federal agency shall coordinate with the Director [of OMB], the Secretary, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop an implementation strategy (including best-practices and measurement and verification techniques) for the maintenance, purchase, and use by the Federal agency of energy-efficient and energy-saving information technologies at or for facilities owned and operated by the Federal agency, taking into consideration the performance goals.”

Division FF contains telecommunications provisions:

  • Section 902. Don’t Break Up the T-Band Act of 2020. Section 902 repeals the requirement for the FCC to reallocate and auction the 470 to 512megahertz band, commonly referred to as the T-band. In certain urban areas, the T-band is utilized by public-safety entities. It also directs the FCC to implement rules to clarify acceptable expenditures on which 9-1- 1 fees can be spent, and creates a strike force to consider how the Federal Government can end 9-1-1 fee diversion.
  • Section 903. Advancing Critical Connectivity Expands Service, Small Business Resources, Opportunities, Access, and Data Based on Assessed Need and Demand (ACCESS BROADBAND) Act. Section 903 establishes the Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth (Office) at the NTIA. This Office would be tasked with performing certain responsibilities related to broadband access, adoption, and deployment, such as performing public outreach to promote access and adoption of high-speed broadband service, and streamlining and standardizing the process for applying for Federal broadband support. The Office would also track Federal broadband support funds, and coordinate Federal broadband support programs within the Executive Branch and with the FCC to ensure unserved Americans have access to connectivity and to prevent duplication of broadband deployment programs.
  • Section 904. Broadband Interagency Coordination Act. Section 904 requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and the Department of Agriculture to enter into an interagency agreement to coordinate the distribution of federal funds for broadband programs, to prevent duplication of support and ensure stewardship of taxpayer dollars. The agreement must cover, among other things, the exchange of information about project areas funded under the programs and the confidentiality of such information. The FCC is required to publish and collect public comments about the agreement, including regarding its efficacy and suggested modifications.
  • Section 905. Beat CHINA for 5G Act of 2020. Section 905 directs the President, acting through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, to withdraw or modify federal spectrum assignments in the 3450 to 3550 megahertz band, and directs the FCC to begin a system of competitive bidding to permit non-Federal, flexible-use services in a portion or all of such band no later than December 31, 2021.

Section 905 would countermand the White House’s efforts to auction off an ideal part of spectrum for 5G (see here for analysis of the August 2020 announcement). Congressional and a number of Trump Administration stakeholders were alarmed by what they saw as a push to bestow a windfall on a private sector company in the rollout of 5G.

Title XIV of Division FF would allow the FTC to seek civil fines of more than $43,000 per violation during the duration of the public health emergency arising from the pandemic “for unfair and deceptive practices associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of COVID–19 or a government benefit related to COVID-19.”

Finally, Division FF is the vehicle for the “American COMPETES Act” that:

directs the Department of Commerce and the FTC to conduct studies and submit reports on technologies including artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, quantum computing, blockchain, advanced materials, unmanned delivery services, and 3-D printing. The studies include requirements to survey each industry and report recommendations to help grow the economy and safely implement the technology.

© 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 forcal35 from Pixabay

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (15 December)

Further Reading

  • DHS, State and NIH join list of federal agencies — now five — hacked in major Russian cyberespionage campaign” By Ellen Nakashima and Craig Timberg — The Washington Post; “Scope of Russian Hack Becomes Clear: Multiple U.S. Agencies Were Hit” By David E. Sanger, Nicole Perlroth and Eric Schmitt — The New York Times; The list of United States (U.S.) government agencies breached by Sluzhba vneshney razvedki Rossiyskoy Federatsii (SVR), the Russian Federation’s Foreign Intelligence Service, has grown. Now the Department of Homeland Security, Defense, and State and the National Institutes of Health are reporting they have been breached. It is unclear if Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. and elsewhere and U.S. nuclear laboratories were also breached in this huge, sophisticated espionage exploit. It appears the Russians were selective and careful, and these hackers may have only accessed information held on U.S. government systems. And yet, the Trump Administration continues to issue equivocal statements neither denying nor acknowledging the hack, leaving the public to depend on quotes from anonymous officials. Perhaps admitting the Russians hacked U.S. government systems would throw light on Russian interference four years ago, and the President is loath to even contemplate that attack. In contrast, President Donald Trump has made all sorts of wild, untrue claims about vote totals being hacked despite no evidence supporting his assertions. It appears that the declaration of mission accomplished by some agencies of the Trump Administration over no Russian hacking of or interference with the 2020 election will be overshadowed by what may prove the most damaging hack of U.S. government systems ever.
  • Revealed: China suspected of spying on Americans via Caribbean phone networks” By Stephanie Kirchgaessner — The Guardian. This story depends on one source, so take it for what it is worth, but allegedly the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is using vulnerabilities in mobile communications networks to hack into the phones of Americans travelling in the Caribbean. If so, the PRC may be exploiting the same Signaling System 7 (SS7) weaknesses an Israeli firm, Circles, is using to sell access to phones, at least according to a report published recently by the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab.
  • The Cartel Project | Revealed: The Israelis Making Millions Selling Cyberweapons to Latin America” By Amitai Ziv — Haaretz. Speaking of Israeli companies, the NSO Group among others are actively selling offensive cyber and surveillance capabilities to Central American nations often through practices that may be corrupt.
  • U.S. Schools Are Buying Phone-Hacking Tech That the FBI Uses to Investigate Terrorists” By Tom McKay and Dhruv Mehrotra — Gizmodo. Israeli firm Cellebrite and competitors are being used in school systems across the United States (U.S.) to access communications on students’ phones. The U.S. Supreme Court caselaw gives schools very wide discretion for searches, and the Fourth Amendment is largely null and void on school grounds.
  • ‘It’s Hard to Prove’: Why Antitrust Suits Against Facebook Face Hurdles” By Mike Issac and Cecilia Kang — The New York Times. The development of antitrust law over the last few decades may have laid an uphill path for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general in securing a breakup of Facebook, something that has not happened on a large scale since the historic splintering of AT&T in the early 1980’s.
  • Exclusive: Israeli Surveillance Companies Are Siphoning Masses Of Location Data From Smartphone Apps” By Thomas Brewster — Forbes. Turns out Israeli firms are using a feature (or what many would call a bug) in the online advertising system that allows those looking to buy ads to get close to real-time location data from application developers looking to sell advertising space. By putting out a shingle as a Demand Side Platform, it is possible to access reaps of location data, and two Israeli companies are doing just that and offering the service of locating and tracking people using this quirk in online advertising. And this is not just companies in Israel. There is a company under scrutiny in the United States (U.S.) that may have used these practices and then provided location data to federal agencies.

Other Developments

  • The Government Accountability Office (GAO) evaluated the United States’ (U.S.) Department of Defense’s electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) operations found that the DOD’s efforts to maintain EMS superiority over the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The GAO concluded:
    • Studies have shown that adversaries of the United States, such as China and Russia, are developing capabilities and strategies that could affect DOD superiority in the information environment, including the EMS. DOD has also reported that loss of EMS superiority could result in the department losing control of the battlefield, as its Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations (EMSO) supports many warfighting functions across all domains. DOD recognizes the importance of EMSO to military operations in actual conflicts and in operations short of open conflict that involve the broad information environment. However, gaps we identified in DOD’s ability to develop and implement EMS-related strategies have impeded progress in meeting DOD’s goals. By addressing gaps we found in five areas—(1) the processes and procedures to integrate EMSO throughout the department, (2) governance reforms to correct diffuse organization, (3) responsibility by an official with appropriate authority, (4) a strategy implementation plan, and (5) activities that monitor and assess the department’s progress in implementing the strategy—DOD can capitalize on progress that it has already made and better support ensuring EMS superiority.
    • The GAO recommended:
      • The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as Senior Designated Official of the Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations Cross-Functional Team (CFT), identifies the procedures and processes necessary to provide for integrated defense-wide strategy, planning, and budgeting with respect to joint electromagnetic spectrum operations, as required by the FY19 NDAA. (Recommendation 1)
      • The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as Senior Designated Official of the CFT proposes EMS governance, management, organizational, and operational reforms to the Secretary. (Recommendation 2)
      • The Secretary of Defense should assign clear responsibility to a senior official with authority and resources necessary to compel action for the long-term implementation of the 2020 strategy in time to oversee the execution of the 2020 strategy implementation plan. (Recommendation 3)
      • The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the designated senior official for long-term strategy implementation issues an actionable implementation plan within 180 days following issuance of the 2020 strategy. (Recommendation 4)
      • The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the designated senior official for long-term strategy implementation creates oversight processes that would facilitate the department’s implementation of the 2020 strategy. (Recommendation 5)
  • A forerunner to Apple’s App Store has sued the company, claiming it has monopolized applications on its operating system to the detriment of other parties and done the same with respect to its payment system. The company behind Cydia is arguing that it conceived of and created the first application store for the iPhone, offering a range of programs Apple did not. Cydia is claiming that once Apple understood how lucrative an app store would be, it blocked Cydia and established its own store, the exclusive means through which programs can be installed and used on the iOS. Furthermore, this has enabled Apple to levy 30% of all in-application purchases made, which is allegedly a $50 billion market annually. This is the second high-profile suit this year against Apple. Epic Games, the maker of the popular game, Fortnite, sued Apple earlier this year on many of the same grounds because the company started allowing users to buy directly from it for a 30% discount. Apple responded by removing the game from the App Store, which has blocked players from downloading updated versions. That litigation has just begun. In its complaint, Cydia asserts:
    • Historically, distribution of apps for a specific operating system (“OS”) occurred in a separate and robustly competitive market. Apple, however, began coercing users to utilize no other iOS app distribution service but the App Store, coupling it closer and closer to the iPhone itself in order to crowd out all competition. But Apple did not come up with this idea initially—it only saw the economic promise that iOS app distribution represented after others, like [Cydia], demonstrated that value with their own iOS app distribution products/services. Faced with this realization, Apple then decided to take that separate market (as well as the additional iOS app payment processing market described herein) for itself.
    • Cydia became hugely popular by offering a marketplace to find and obtain third party iOS applications that greatly expanded the capabilities of the stock iPhone, including games, productivity applications, and audio/visual applications such as a video recorder (whereas the original iPhone only allowed still cameraphotos). Apple subsequently took many of these early third party applications’ innovations, incorporating them into the iPhone directly or through apps.
    • But far worse than simply copying others’ innovations, Apple also recognized that it could reap enormous profits if it cornered this fledgling market for iOS app distribution, because that would give Apple complete power over iOS apps, regardless of the developer. Apple therefore initiated a campaign to eliminate competition for iOS app distribution altogether. That campaign has been successful and continues to this day. Apple did (and continues to do) so by, inter alia, tying the App Store app to iPhone purchases by preinstalling it on all iOS devices and then requiring it as the default method to obtain iOS apps, regardless of user preference for other alternatives; technologically locking down the iPhone to prevent App Store competitors like Cydia from even operating on the device; and imposing contractual terms on users that coerce and prevent them from using App Store competitors. Apple has also mandated that iOS app developers use it as their sole option for app payment processing (such as in-app purchases), thus preventing other competitors, such as Cydia, from offering the same service to those developers.
    • Through these and other anticompetitive acts, Apple has wrongfully acquired and maintained monopoly power in the market (or aftermarket) for iOS app distribution, and in the market (or aftermarket) for iOS app payment processing. Apple has frozen Cydia and all other competitors out of both markets, depriving them of the ability to compete with the App Store and to offer developers and consumers better prices, better service, and more choice. This anticompetitive conduct has unsurprisingly generated massive profits and unprecedented market capitalization for Apple, as well as incredible market power.
  • California is asking to join antitrust suit against Google filed by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and eleven state attorneys general. This antitrust action centers on Google’s practices of making Google the default search engine on Android devices and paying browsers and other technology entities to make Google the default search engine. However, a number of states that had initially joined the joint state investigation of Google have opted not to join this action and will instead be continuing to investigate, signaling a much broader case than the one filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In any event, if the suit does proceed, and a change in Administration could result in a swift change in course, it may take years to be resolved. Of course, given the legion leaks from the DOJ and state attorneys general offices about the pressure U.S. Attorney General William Barr placed on staff and attorneys to bring a case before the election, there is criticism that rushing the case may result in a weaker, less comprehensive action that Google may ultimately fend off.
    • And, there is likely to be another lawsuit against Google filed by other state attorneys general. A number of attorneys general who had orginally joined the effort led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in investigating Google released a statement at the time the DOJ suit was filed, indicating their investigation would continue, presaging a different, possibly broader lawsuit that might also address Google’s role in other markets. The attorneys general of New York, Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah did not join the case that was filed but may soon file a related but parallel case. They stated:
      • Over the last year, both the U.S. DOJ and state attorneys general have conducted separate but parallel investigations into Google’s anticompetitive market behavior. We appreciate the strong bipartisan cooperation among the states and the good working relationship with the DOJ on these serious issues. This is a historic time for both federal and state antitrust authorities, as we work to protect competition and innovation in our technology markets. We plan to conclude parts of our investigation of Google in the coming weeks. If we decide to file a complaint, we would file a motion to consolidate our case with the DOJ’s. We would then litigate the consolidated case cooperatively, much as we did in the Microsoft case.
  • France’s Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) handed down multi-million Euro fines on Google and Amazon for putting cookies on users’ devices. CNIL fined Google a total of €100 million and Amazon €35 million because its investigation of both entities determined “when a user visited [their] website, cookies were automatically placed on his or her computer, without any action required on his or her part…[and] [s]everal of these cookies were used for advertising purposes.”
    • CNIL explained the decision against Google:
      • [CNIL] noticed three breaches of Article 82 of the French Data Protection Act:
      • Deposit of cookies without obtaining the prior consent of the user
        • When a user visited the website google.fr, several cookies used for advertising purposes were automatically placed on his or her computer, without any action required on his or her part.
        • Since this type of cookies can only be placed after the user has expressed his or her consent, the restricted committee considered that the companies had not complied with the requirement provided for in Article 82 of the French Data Protection Act regarding the collection of prior consent before placing cookies that are not essential to the service.
      • Lack of information provided to the users of the search engine google.fr
        • When a user visited the page google.fr, an information banner displayed at the bottom of the page, with the following note “Privacy reminder from Google”, in front of which were two buttons: “Remind me later” and “Access now”.
        • This banner did not provide the user with any information regarding cookies that had however already been placed on his or her computer when arriving on the site. The information was also not provided when he or she clicked on the button “Access now”.
        • Therefore, the restricted committee considered that the information provided by the companies did not enable the users living in France either to be previously and clearly informed regarding the deposit of cookies on their computer or, therefore, to be informed of the purposes of these cookies and the available means enabling to refuse them.
      • Partial failure of the « opposition » mechanism
        • When a user deactivated the ad personalization on the Google search by using the available mechanism from the button “Access now”, one of the advertising cookies was still stored on his or her computer and kept reading information aimed at the server to which it is attached.
        • Therefore, the restricted committee considered that the “opposition” mechanism set up by the companies was partially defective, breaching Article 82 of the French Data Protection Act.
    • CNIL explained the case against Amazon:
      • [CNIL] noticed two breaches of Article 82 of the French Data Protection Act:
      • Deposit of cookies without obtaining the prior consent of the user
        • The restricted committee noted that when a user visited one of the pages of the website amazon.fr, a large number of cookies used for advertising purposes was automatically placed on his or her computer, before any action required on his or her part. Yet, the restricted committee recalled that this type of cookies, which are not essential to the service, can only be placed after the user has expressed his or her consent. It considered that the deposit of cookies at the same time as arriving on the site was a practice which, by its nature, was incompatible with a prior consent.
      • Lack of information provided to the users of the website amazon.fr
        • First, the restricted committee noted that, in the case of a user visiting the website amazon.fr, the information provided was neither clear, nor complete.
        • It considered that the information banner displayed by the company, which was “By using this website, you accept our use of cookies allowing to offer and improve our services. Read More.”, only contained a general and approximate information regarding the purposes of all the cookies placed. In particular, it considered that, by reading the banner, the user could not understand that cookies placed on his or her computer were mainly used to display personalized ads. It also noted that the banner did not explain to the user that it could refuse these cookies and how to do it.
        • Then, the restricted committee noticed that the company’s failure to comply with its obligation was even more obvious regarding the case of users that visited the website amazon.fr after they had clicked on an advertisement published on another website. It underlined that in this case, the same cookies were placed but no information was provided to the users about that.
  • Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) wrote the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), to express “serious concerns regarding recent reports on the data collection practices of Amazon’s health-tracking bracelet (Halo) and to request information on the actions [HHS] is taking to ensure users’ health data is secure.” Klobuchar stated:
    • The Halo is a fitness tracker that users wear on their wrists. The tracker’s smartphone application (app) provides users with a wide-ranging analysis of their health by tracking a range of biological metrics including heartbeat patterns, exercise habits, sleep patterns, and skin temperature. The fitness tracker also enters into uncharted territory by collecting body photos and voice recordings and transmitting this data for analysis. To calculate the user’s body fat percentage, the Halo requires users to take scans of their body using a smartphone app. These photos are then temporarily sent to Amazon’s servers for analysis while the app returns a three-dimensional image of the user’s body, allowing the user to adjust the image to see what they would look like with different percentages of body fat. The Halo also offers a tone analysis feature that examines the nuances of a user’s voice to indicate how the user sounds to others. To accomplish this task, the device has built-in microphones that listen and records a user’s voice by taking periodic samples of speech throughout the day if users opt-in to the feature.
    • Recent reports have raised concerns about the Halo’s access to this extensive personal and private health information. Among publicly available consumer health devices, the Halo appears to collect an unprecedented level of personal information. This raises questions about the extent to which the tracker’s transmission of biological data may reveal private information regarding the user’s health conditions and how this information can be used. Last year, a study by BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) found that 79 percent of health apps studied by researchers were found to share user data in a manner that failed to provide transparency about the data being shared. The study concluded that health app developers routinely share consumer data with third-parties and that little transparency exists around such data sharing.
    • Klobuchar asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar II to “respond to the following questions:
      • What actions is HHS taking to ensure that fitness trackers like Halo safeguard users’ private health information?
      • What authority does HHS have to ensure the security and privacy of consumer data collected and analyzed by health tracking devices like Amazon’s Halo?
      • Are additional regulations required to help strengthen privacy and security protections for consumers’ personal health data given the rise of health tracking devices? Why or why not?
      • Please describe in detail what additional authority or resources that the HHS could use to help ensure the security and protection of consumer health data obtained through health tracking devices like the Halo.

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 Naya Shaw 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

Armed Services Committees Agree On Final NDAA

The annual defense policy bill creates a new National Cyber Director and addresses other technology issues.

Last week, the negotiators agreed on a final FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that could get passed as early as this week. To no great surprise, President Donald Trump has threatened to veto the annual policy and authorization package for reasons largely unrelated to the Department of Defense and other agencies subject to the bill. It is unclear how the President will respond if Congress ends him the bill and similarly unclear whether Republicans would vote to override a veto. Additionally, the bill might not make it to the White House until around Christmas Day which would complicate the reconvening of Congress to hold override votes.

Nonetheless, big picture, the conferees explained in the Joint Explanatory Statement that conference report to accompany the “William M. “Mac” Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021” (H.R.6395):

  • The budget request for national defense discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives for fiscal year 2021 was $731.6 billion. Of this amount, $636.3 billion was requested for base Department of Defense programs, $69.0 billion was requested for overseas contingency operations, $26.0 billion was requested for national security programs in the Department of Energy and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and $314.0 million for defense-related activities.
  • The conference agreement would authorize $731.6 billion in fiscal year 2021, including $635.5 billion for base Department of Defense programs, $69.0 billion for overseas contingency operations, $26.6 billion for national security programs in the Department of Energy and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and $494.0 million for defense-related activities.

As always, the bill is replete with provisions to change national security-related technology policy, most of which pertains to the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Intelligence Community (IC). However, anymore, the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies also receive policy alterations in the NDAA.

The bill would change the requirements as to when the DOD notifies Congress if it conducts offensive or defensive cyber operations by narrowing the category of such operations. For example, if Cyber Command were to strike a botnet again as it reportedly did in the run up to the election, it would not need to notify Congress, for such an operation is not a foreign terrorist organization or a foreign government unless they may be deemed a “proxy force.” There is a provision extending the liability shield for DOD contractors participating in the Pentagon’s mandated cyber incident reporting system to include compliance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement clause 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting.

H.R.6395 would tweak the Quadrennial Cyber Posture Review assessments of U.S. statutes, policies, and authorities to manage cyber threats, especially in achieving cyber deterrence.

The DOD would need to set requirements for the periodic, systematic review of the cybersecurity of major weapons systems and related critical infrastructure to ensure the security of these platforms. The Pentagon must also establish a “Strategic Cybersecurity Program” “to ensure that the Department of Defense is always able to conduct the most important military missions of the Department.” This new initiative “shall identify and designate for inclusion in the Program all of the systems, critical infrastructure, kill chains, and processes, including systems and components in development, that comprise the following military missions of the Department of Defense:

  • Nuclear deterrence and strike.
  • Select long-range conventional strike missions germane to the warfighting plans of United States European Command and United States Indo-Pacific Command.
  • Offensive cyber operations.
  • Homeland missile defense.

The DOD will need to “develop a standard, comprehensive framework to enhance the consistency, execution, and effectiveness of cyber hunt forward operations” including the criteria used to identify such operations, the roles of various stakeholders in the DOD, pre-deployment planning guidelines, the metrics to measure the success of the operation, and other facets. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency have been deploying more of these teams to other nations to develop partnerships with nations closer to shared cyber adversaries (e.g. Estonia and Montenegro visa vis Russia.) The formalization of this process indicates increased Congressional interest and a desire to regularize the practice.

The DOD must “conduct a review of the Cybersecurity Service Provider and Cyber Mission Force enterprises” to determine where there are gaps and redundancies between DOD systems and those provided by contractors. Presumably such an inventory process would precede the DOD consolidating where it can and expanding where necessary.

The position of DOD Principal Cyber Advisor would be reformed. The Secretary of Defense would name a person to fill this position from the DOD civilian officials confirmed by the Senate. The Principal Cyber Advisor would have the following responsibilities, among others:

  • Acting as the principal advisor to the Secretary on military cyber forces and activities.
  • Overall integration of Cyber Operations Forces activities relating to cyberspace operations, including associated policy and operational considerations, resources, personnel, technology development and transition, and acquisition.
  • Assessing and overseeing the implementation of the cyber strategy of the Department and execution of the cyber posture review of the Department on behalf of the Secretary.

The Principal Cyber Advisor will be tasked with the responsibility for the cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection of the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) and must “synchronize, harmonize, de-conflict, and coordinate all policies and programs germane to defense industrial base cybersecurity.” This will encompass the Sector Specific Agency (SSA) responsibilities bestowed on the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy’s purview under Presidential Policy Directive-21, the Obama Administration era document that established the division and oversight of critical infrastructure with an eye towards cyber infrastructure. The Principal Cyber Advisor would also need to examine the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment’s authorities and responsibilities with respect to contracting and cybersecurity. The Principal Cyber Advisor would need to evaluate other facets of the DIB’s cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection housed in different offices in the DOD, suggesting an obvious fracturing of efforts that may be at odds with one another.

The Principal Cyber Advisor and the head of Cyber Command would need to “conduct and complete an assessment on the operational planning and deconfliction policies and processes that govern cyber operations of the Department of Defense.” It appears that Congress would like DOD components to play better together when planning and conducting cyber operations, but this state of affairs is to be expected inside a large bureaucracy with players and entities interested in defending and even expanding their turf.

The DOD must “assess the feasibility and advisability of developing and using speed-based metrics to measure the performance and effectiveness of security operations centers and cyber security service providers in the Department of Defense.”

The DOD must study the feasibility of creating a new DIB information sharing program that would be above and beyond any current incident reporting requirements. Under law and regulation, at present, DIB contractors must report intrusions and incidents within 72 hours, but the language in H.R. 6395 envisions a program of greater information sharing for “cybersecurity purposes.” However, it begs the question as to why the DOD does not already have such a program given the “Cybersecurity Act of 2015” established the template for such programs over five years ago.

The Pentagon would need to “complete an assessment of the feasibility, suitability, definition of, and resourcing required to establish a defense industrial base cybersecurity threat hunting program to actively identify cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities within the DIB.”

The DOD must “assess each Department component against the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) framework and submit to the congressional defense committees a report that identifies each such component’s CMMC level and implementation of the cybersecurity practices and capabilities required in each of the levels of the CMMC framework.” And, for those components that fail to meet the “good cyber hygiene” standards, the report must indicate whether they will bring their hygiene up to snuff by March of 2022 and how they will shore up vulnerabilities and risks in the meantime.

The DOD would need to start submitting monthly reports on all “cross domain incidents,” a new term that seems to include all intrusions into classified or restricted systems regardless of whether information is exfiltrated, contaminated, or exposed. The Pentagon would also need to provide Congress with a list of all currently operative exemptions to DOD information policy.

The DOD must draft and implement a plan on how to secure and protect the U.S. nuclear command and control system from cyber threats.

The Cyberspace Solarium Commission (CSC) was extended. It was supposed to sunset after the delivery of its final report, but now it will continue to exist for the better part of two more years. The CSC would need to discharge the following duties:

  • collecting and assessing comments and feedback from the Executive Branch, academia, and the public on the analysis and recommendations contained in the Commission’s report;
  • collecting and assessing any developments in cybersecurity that may affect the analysis and recommendations contained in the Commission’s report;
  • reviewing the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Commission’s report;
  • revising, amending, or making new recommendations based on the [aforementioned] assessments and reviews…

The CSC’s primary recommendation that the U.S. have a National Cyber Director in the White House was included in the final bill. This new position shall also have a dedicated office in the Executive Office of the President but would not be a Senate confirmed position as the CSC advised. Moreover, it appears that offensive and defensive cyber operations of the DOD would be outside his or her statutory remit unless the President decides to make it so. The National Cyber Director would offer advice to the National Security Council (NSC) on U.S. cyber strategy and policy and coordinate the formulation of such policies and strategies. Moreover, the director would be a statutory member of the NSC. The National Cyber Director would lead U.S. responses at the federal level to cyber attacks and significant cyber campaigns.

The bill would expand the authority of the United States’ (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) with respect to operating on civilian agency networks. CISA would be able to access and inspect other agencies’ information systems without the permission or knowledge of the other agency and could then share information and its findings with the agency. And yet, CISA would not receive authority to act if it found something on another agency’s information networks or systems. Nonetheless, CISA would also be empowered to provide a range of assistance to other agencies.

DHS would need to conduct an assessment of CISA per the CSC’s recommendations on how the agency could improve its operations and better use its resources, among other matters. DHS would also be tasked with evaluating how well the Sector Specific Agency approach to regulating critical infrastructure is working as laid out in Presidential Policy Directive 21 and successor documents and make recommendations on how to revise the framework if needed. This could result in the Biden Administration revamping the current 17 sectors and other components of how the U.S. oversees its critical infrastructure. In concert with this review and possible revision, Sector Specific Agencies would be replaced by Sector Risk Management Agencies that, as a practical matter, will probably be the same agencies overseeing the same sectors but with greater statutory responsibilities.

DHS must study and draft a strategy for all U.S.-based email providers to use Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC), “an email authentication, policy, and reporting protocol that verifies the authenticity of the sender of an email and blocks and reports to the sender fraudulent accounts.”

DHS would need to report annually on digital content forgery technology with the Director of National Intelligence, including:

  • An assessment of the underlying technologies used to create or propagate digital content forgeries, including the evolution of such technologies and patterns of dissemination of such technologies.
  • A description of the types of digital content forgeries, including those used to commit fraud, cause harm, harass, coerce, or silence vulnerable groups or individuals, or violate civil rights recognized under Federal law.
  • An assessment of how foreign governments, and the proxies and networks thereof, use, or could use, digital content forgeries to harm national security.
  • An assessment of how non-governmental entities in the United States use, or could use, digital content forgeries.
  • An assessment of the uses, applications, dangers, and benefits, including the impact on individuals, of deep learning or digital content forgery technologies used to generate realistic depictions of events that did not occur.
  • An analysis of the methods used to determine whether content is created by digital content forgery technology, and an assessment of any effective heuristics used to make such a determination, as well as recommendations on how to identify and address suspect content and elements to provide warnings to users of such content.
  • A description of the technological countermeasures that are, or could be, used to address concerns with digital content forgery technology.
  • Any additional information the Secretary determines appropriate.

CISA would receive the subpoena authority it requested to obtain the contact information of owners and operators of critical cyber infrastructure from internet service providers (ISP) should there be a risk. CISA submitted a legislative proposal in summer 2019 that was then taken up by Senate and House stakeholders who then introduced legislation in December and February respectively: the “Cybersecurity Vulnerability Identification and Notification Act of 2019” (S. 3045) and the “Cybersecurity Vulnerability Identification and Notification Act of 2020” (H.R. 5680). The bills were very similar but had some differences that have been ironed out.

CISA would be able to appoint an employee in each state to serve as Cybersecurity State Coordinator to help states improve their cybersecurity.

CISA must establish a “Cybersecurity Advisory Committee” to “advise, consult with, report to, and make recommendations to the Director, as appropriate, on the development, refinement, and implementation of policies, programs, planning, and training pertaining to the cybersecurity mission of the Agency.”

Inside CISA, there would be a newly created Joint Cyber Planning Office “to develop, for public and private sector entities, plans for cyber defense operations, including the development of a set of coordinated actions to protect, detect, respond to, and recover from cybersecurity risks or incidents or limit, mitigate, or defend against coordinated, malicious cyber operations that pose a potential risk to critical infrastructure or national interests.”

Within one year, CISA “a report on Federal cybersecurity centers and the potential for better coordination of Federal cybersecurity efforts at an integrated cybersecurity center within” CISA.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) would need to investigate and report on cyber insurance in the U.S. At one time, some experts considered the development of a cyber insurance market as being crucial to driving greater cybersecurity across the private sector. However, this has not come to pass, which is likely why the GAO will be reporting on the issue.

On other technology policy, a Public Wireless Supply Chain Innovation Fund would be established and overseen by the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to support the following activities:

  • Promoting and deploying technology, including software, hardware, and microprocessing technology, that will enhance competitiveness in the fifth-generation (commonly known as ‘‘5G’’) and successor wireless technology supply chains that use open and interoperable interface radio access networks.
  • Accelerating commercial deployments of open interface standards-based compatible, interoperable equipment, such as equipment developed pursuant to the standards set forth by organizations such as the O-RAN Alliance, the Telecom Infra Project, 3GPP, the Open-RAN Software Community, or any successor organizations.
  • Promoting and deploying compatibility of new 5G equipment with future open standards-based, interoperable equipment.
  • Managing integration of multi-vendor network environments.
  • Identifying objective criteria to define equipment as compliant with open standards for multi-vendor network equipment interoperability.
  • Promoting and deploying security features enhancing the integrity and availability of equipment in multi-vendor networks.
  • Promoting and deploying network function virtualization to facilitate multi-vendor interoperability and a more diverse vendor market.

A Multilateral Telecommunications Security Fund would be created and run by the Department of State “to establish a common funding mechanism, in coordination with foreign partners, that uses amounts from the Multilateral Telecommunications Security Fund to support the development and adoption of secure and trusted telecommunications technologies.” The bill provides that “[i]n creating and sustaining a common funding mechanism, the Secretary of State should leverage United States funding in order to secure commitments and contributions from trusted foreign partners such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, and should prioritize the following objectives:

  • Advancing research and development of secure and trusted communications technologies.
  • Strengthening supply chains.
  • Promoting the use of trusted vendors.”

Both of these new programs would need the Appropriations Committees to provide funding as the FY 2021 NDAA does not give them any money.

H.R.6395 directs “an interagency information technology spectrum modernization effort, led by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Infrastructure and the NTIA, to synchronize development and coordination of standards and Federal spectrum management.” This provision “would also require the Secretary of Defense to establish a program to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities in the telecommunications infrastructure of the DOD.”

The FY 2021 NDAA contains the “Developing Innovation and Growing the Internet of Things Act” (DIGIT Act) (S.1611) that would require the Department of Commerce to “convene a working group of Federal stakeholders for the purpose of providing recommendations and a report to Congress relating to the aspects of the Internet of Things.”

H.R.6395 has provisions “that would require the Secretary of Commerce to establish a program that provides grants to covered entities to incentivize investment of semiconductor fabrication facilities, or assembly, testing, advanced packaging, or advanced research and development of semiconductors in the U.S.”

© 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 Michael Afonso on Unsplash

Courts Further Block TikTok and WeChat Bans

Two Trump Administration measures to strike at the PRC remain unimplemented.

The Trump Administration has suffered more setbacks in its efforts to move forward with its bans on applications from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). United States’ (U.S.) courts continue to block enforcement of orders prohibiting TikTok and WeChat on national security grounds. Courts have been skeptical of the rationale and reasons offered by the Trump Administration and have not allowed a single portion of either order to take effect.

In a decision late last month, a magistrate judge in San Francisco rejected the Trump Administration’s request to essentially reverse the injunction on the ban of WeChat. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler explained:

The government moved to stay the preliminary injunction, and it submitted additional information (that it could not have reasonably submitted earlier) that the Secretary of Commerce considered in identifying the prohibited transactions. The plaintiffs submitted additional information too. On this record, the court denies the motion to stay. The government’s additional evidence does not alter the court’s previous holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction.

Beeler said the Department of Commerce presented additional evidence on the threats to national security posed by WeChat and Tencent, chiefly because of the PRC’s access to the data amassed and used by PRC companies, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity Infrastructure and Security Agency presented evidence on potential threats the app poses, including as a vehicle for PRC misinformation, a means of introducing malicious code, and the exposure of data of Americans to the PRC.

One of the plaintiff’s experts identified “four targeted measures to address the government’s concerns about WeChat:

  • First, WeChat could partner with a U.S. cloud provider to store data, which would allow a relatively secure place for user data and easy audits to detect unauthorized access to data.
  • Second, regular compliance audits would mitigate data-security risks.
  • Third, it is industry best practice to have stringent corporate or external oversight over management and personnel with access to user data.
  • Fourth, WeChat could use end-to-end encryption. These measures do not eliminate all risks of data leaks to the Chinese government, but they meet the industry’s current standards.

This expert further noted

that the government’s concern about WeChat’s surveillance capabilities could be addressed by an independent third party’s review and audit of WeChat’s source codes. Banning WeChat downloads is dangerous because it increases security risks to users: software needs updates to fix bugs, and if bugs are not fixed, WeChat users’ devices and data are subject to attack. Security concerns about government employees are addressed through narrower bans of those employees’ use of the WeChat app. Otherwise, data protection generally requires best practices such as end-to-end encryption, protecting consumer data and metadata (in the manner of Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation or California’s Consumer Privacy Act), and supporting research into making traffic analysis more difficult. Tech companies such as Facebook and Google, which collect data and sell it to data brokers, also pose surveillance concerns. If China wants U.S. users’ private information, it can buy it from those data brokers. Effectively banning WeChat does not protect U.S. user data from criminals or China.

Beeler found:

The government’s new evidence does not meaningfully alter its earlier submissions. The court’s assessment of the First Amendment analysis and the risks to national security — on this record — are unchanged.

[T]he record does not support the conclusion that the government has “narrowly tailored” the prohibited transactions to protect its national-security interests. Instead, the record, on balance, supports the conclusion that the restrictions “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.”

Consequently, Beeler denied the motion to lift the injunction against the WeChat order.

Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to stay’s Beeler’s injunction barring implementation of the WeChat ban, as requested by the Trump Administration.

On 19 September, Beeler granted a preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration’s implementation of the WeChat order. As explained in a footnote, “[t]he plaintiffs are U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, a nonprofit formed to challenge the WeChat Executive Order, and individual and business users.” In short, they contended that the WeChat ban

(1) violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,

(2) violates the Fifth Amendment,

(3) violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(1)(a),

(4) was not a lawful exercise of the President’s and the Secretary’s authority under IEEPA— which allows the President to prohibit “transactions” in the interest of national security — because the IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)(1), does not allow them to regulate personal communications, and

(5) violates the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) because the Secretary exceeded his authority under the IEEPA and should have promulgated the rule through the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures in 5 U.S.C. § 553(b).

The judge granted the motion for a preliminary injunction “on the ground that the plaintiffs have shown serious questions going to the merits of the First Amendment claim, the balance of hardships tips in the plaintiffs’ favor, and the plaintiffs establish sufficiently the other elements for preliminary-injunctive relief.” The judge seemed most persuaded by this claim and summarized the plaintiffs’ argument:

  • First, they contend, effectively banning WeChat — which serves as a virtual public square for the Chinese-speaking and Chinese-American community in the United States and is (as a practical matter) their only means of communication — forecloses meaningful access to communication in their community and thereby operates as a prior restraint on their right to free speech that does not survive strict scrutiny.
  • Second, even if the prohibited transactions are content-neutral time-place-or-manner restrictions, they do not survive intermediate scrutiny because the complete ban is not narrowly tailored to address the government’s significant interest in national security.

In a decision from last week, a new federal court has found reason to block the TikTok ban on new grounds. Three TikTok influencers  had filed suit and lost their motion for a preliminary injunction. However, after District Court of the District of Columbia granted TikTok’s request to stop the Department of Commerce from enforcing the first part of the order implementing the ban, the three influencers revised their motion and refiled.

Judge Wendy Beetlestone found that the Trump Administration exceeded its powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in issuing part of its TikTok order effectuating the ban set to take effect on 12 November:

  • Any provision of internet hosting services, occurring on or after 11:59 p.m. eastern standard time on November 12, 2020, enabling the functioning or optimization of the TikTok mobile application[;]
  • Any provision of content delivery network services, occurring on or after 11:59 p.m. eastern standard time on November 12, 2020, enabling the functioning or optimization of the TikTok mobile application[;]
  • Any provision of directly contracted or arranged internet transit or peering services, occurring on or after 11:59 p.m. eastern standard time on November 12, 2020, enabling the functioning or optimization of the TikTok mobile application[; and]
  • Any utilization, occurring on or after 11:59 p.m. eastern standard time on November 12, 2020, of the TikTok mobile application’s constituent code, functions, or services in the functioning of software or services developed and/or accessible within the land and maritime borders of the United States and its territories.

Beetlestone found that the limit on the use of IEEPA powers to regulate information is clearly implicated by Commerce’s order, which proposes to do just that. Consequently, this is not a legal use of IEEPA powers. The judge also found the plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed through a loss of their audiences and brand sponsorships

Plaintiffs challenge the Commerce Identification on both statutory and constitutional grounds. First, they contend that the Commerce Identification violates both the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They then contend that the Commerce Identification violates the Administrative Procedure Act,5 U.S.C. §701 et seq.,as it is both arbitrary and capricious, see id.§706(2)(A), and ultra vires, see id. § 706(2)(C). Plaintiffs’ ultra vires claim consists of three separate arguments: (1) the Commerce Identification contravenes IEEPA’s “informational materials” exception, 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)(3); (2) the Commerce Identification contravenes IEEPA’s prohibition on the regulation of “personal communication[s] . . . not involv[ing] a transfer of anything of value,” id. § 1702(b)(1), and (3) the Commerce Identification is not responsive to the national emergency declared in the ICTS Executive Order, and therefore requires the declaration of a new national emergency to take effect, see id. §1701(b).

In the first injunction granted against the TikTok ban, the court found that TikTok’s claims on the misuse of IEEPA , 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–08, the primary authority President Donald Trump relied on in his executive order banning the app, were unpersuasive. The court conceded “IEEPA contains a broad grant of authority to declare national emergencies and to prohibit certain transactions with foreign countries or foreign nationals that pose risks to the national security of the United States.” But, the court noted “IEEPA also contains two express limitations relevant here: the “authority granted to the President . . . does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly” either (a) the importation or exportation of “information or informational materials”; or (b) “personal communication[s], which do[] not involve a transfer of anything of value.” The court concluded:

In sum, the TikTok Order and the Secretary’s prohibitions will have the intended effect of stopping U.S. users from communicating (and thus sharing data) on TikTok. To be sure, the ultimate purpose of those prohibitions is to protect the national security by preventing China from accessing that data and skewing content on TikTok. And the government’s actions may not constitute direct regulations or prohibitions of activities carved out by 50 U.S.C. 1702(b). But Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on their claim that the prohibitions constitute indirect regulations of “personal communication[s]” or the exchange of “information or informational materials.”

After considering the risks of irreparable harm to TikTok and the equities and public interest, the court decided:

Weighing these interests together with Plaintiffs’ likelihood of succeeding on their IEEPA claim and the irreparable harm that Plaintiffs (and their U.S. users) will suffer absent an injunction, the Court concludes that a preliminary injunction is appropriate.

On 18 September, the Trump Administration issued orders barring TikTok and WeChat pursuant to the “Executive Order on Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok” and “Executive Order on Addressing the Threat Posed by WeChat” that bar any transactions with the companies that made, distribute, and operate TikTok and WeChat respectively. The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) issued orders effectuating the executive orders.

In a press release, Commerce explained:

As of September 20, 2020, the following transactions are prohibited:

  1. Any provision of service to distribute or maintain the WeChat or TikTok mobile applications, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store in the U.S.;
  2. Any provision of services through the WeChat mobile application for the purpose of transferring funds or processing payments within the U.S.

As of September 20, 2020, for WeChat and as of November 12, 2020, for TikTokthe following transactions are prohibited:

  1. Any provision of internet hosting services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.;
  2. Any provision of content delivery network services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.;
  3. Any provision directly contracted or arranged internet transit or peering services enabling the function or optimization of the mobile application within the U.S.;
  4. Any utilization of the mobile application’s constituent code, functions, or services in the functioning of software or services developed and/or accessible within the U.S.

Commerce added:

Any other prohibitive transaction relating to WeChat or TikTok may be identified at a future date. Should the U.S. Government determine that WeChat’s or TikTok’s illicit behavior is being replicated by another app somehow outside the scope of these executive orders, the President has the authority to consider whether additional orders may be appropriate to address such activities. The President has provided until November 12 for the national security concerns posed by TikTok to be resolved. If they are, the prohibitions in this order may be lifted.

© 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 iXimus from Pixabay

Supreme Court Justice Weighs In On Section 230; FCC To Move Ahead on Rulemaking

A conservative Justice on the Supreme Court opines on Section 230, and then the FCC announces it will proceed with rulemaking to clarify Section 230.

There continues to be intense and growing scrutiny of social media platforms that benefit from the liability shield in 47 U.S.C. 230 (Section 230), particularly from Republicans who seem intent on both cowing Facebook, Twitter, and others into not taking down Republican and conservative misinformation, disinformation, and lies and using the alleged but not proven claim that conservatives face bias on social media as a campaign issue. Unlike other recent weeks, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States has all but asked a lower court to send a Section 230 case so that the scope of the law can be decided. It is almost as if Republicans see no other pressing technology issue before them.

The Supreme Court opted not to hear a case, Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, in which one of the parties had tried to claim that Section 230 shielded it from antitrust claims, a very creative application of the law. In his statement on the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari, Justice Clarence Thomas explained the background:

This case involves Enigma Software Group USA and Malwarebytes, two competitors that provide software to enable individuals to filter unwanted content, such as content posing security risks. Enigma sued Malwarebytes, alleging that Malwarebytes engaged in anticompetitive conduct by reconfiguring its products to make it difficult for consumers to download and use Enigma products. In its defense, Malwarebytes invoked a provision of §230 that states that a computer service provider cannot be held liable for providing tools “to restrict access to material” that it “considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” §230(c)(2). The Ninth Circuit relied heavily on the “policy” and “purpose” of §230 to conclude that immunity is unavailable when a plaintiff alleges anticompetitive conduct.

Thomas then goes on to recite the caselaw on Section 230, making note of where decisions have strayed from the text. Thomas concludes by asserting:

  • Paring back the sweeping immunity courts have read into §230 would not necessarily render defendants liable for online misconduct. It simply would give plaintiffs a chance to raise their claims in the first place. Plaintiffs still must prove the merits of their cases, and some claims will undoubtedly fail. Moreover, States and the Federal Government are free to update their liability laws to make them more appropriate for an Internet-driven society.
  • Extending §230 immunity beyond the natural reading of the text can have serious consequences. Before giving companies immunity from civil claims for “knowingly host[ing] illegal child pornography,” Bates, 2006 WL 3813758, *3, or for race discrimination, Sikhs for Justice, 697 Fed. Appx., at 526, we should be certain that is what the law demands.
  • Without the benefit of briefing on the merits, we need not decide today the correct interpretation of §230. But in an appropriate case, it behooves us to do so.

Thomas’ statement served as a clarion call for conservatives who envision themselves oppressed by platforms like Twitter and Facebook despite the most popular content is consistently from those on the right.

Thereafter, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced that that the “[t]he Commission’s General Counsel has informed me that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230…[and] [c]onsistent with this advice, I intend to move forward with a rulemaking to clarify its meaning.” Pai namechecked Thomas’ statement in which he “pointed out that courts have relied upon ‘policy and purpose arguments to grant sweeping protections to Internet platforms’ that appear to go far beyond the actual text of the provision.”

Working along a parallel track is pressure on the Senate committee that oversees the FCC to vet, hold a hearing on, and approve Trump’s nominee for the FCC. Commissioner Mike O’Reilly was lukewarm to the EO and his appointment to the FCC was expiring. And so, in typical Trump Administration fashion, the White House decided that the policy was not the problem. Personnel was. Consequently, Nathan Simington of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) was nominated to replace O’Reilly, and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee is set to take up the nomination on 10 November.

In May, after Twitter factchecked two of his Tweets regarding false claims made about mail voting in California in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, President Donald Trump signed a long rumored executive order (EO) seen by many as a means of cowing social media platforms: the “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship.” This EO directed federal agencies to act, and one has by asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to start a rulemaking, which has been initiated. However, there is at least one lawsuit pending to enjoin action on the EO that could conceivably block implementation.

In the EO, the President claimed

Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.  When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.  It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

Consequently, the EO directs that “all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.”

Following the directive in the EO, on 27 July, the NTIA filed a petition with the FCC, 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 asserted “[t]he FCC should use its authorities to clarify ambiguities in section 230 so as to make its interpretation appropriate to the current internet marketplace and provide clearer guidance to courts, platforms, and users…[and] urges the FCC to promulgate rules addressing the following points:

  1. Clarify the relationship between subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2), lest they be read and applied in a manner that renders (c)(2) superfluous as some courts appear to be doing.
  2. Specify that Section 230(c)(1) has no application to any interactive computer service’s decision, agreement, or action to restrict access to or availability of material provided by another information content provider or to bar any information content provider from using an interactive computer service.
  3. Provide clearer guidance to courts, platforms, and users, on what content falls within (c)(2) immunity, particularly section 230(c)(2)’s “otherwise objectionable” language and its requirement that all removals be done in “good faith.”
  4. Specify that “responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information” in the definition of “information content provider,” 47 U.S.C.
    § 230(f)(3), includes editorial decisions that modify or alter content, including but not limited to substantively contributing to, commenting upon, editorializing about, or presenting with a discernible viewpoint content provided by another information content provider.
  5. Mandate disclosure for internet transparency similar to that required of other internet companies, such as broadband service providers.

NTIA argued that

  • Section 230(c)(1) has a specific focus: it prohibits “treating” “interactive computer services,” i.e., internet platforms, such as Twitter or Facebook, as “publishers.” But, this provision only concerns “information” provided by third parties, i.e., “another internet content provider”68 and does not cover a platform’s own content or editorial decisions.
  • Section (c)(2) also has a specific focus: it eliminates liability for interactive computer services that act in good faith “to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”

In early August, the FCC asked for comments on the NTIA petition, and comments were due by 2 September. Over 2500 comments have been filed, and a cursory search turned up numerous form letter comments drafted by a conservative organization that were then submitted by members and followers.

© 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 skeeze from Pixabay

Court Issues Injunction On First Part of TikTok Ban

The Trump Administration’s efforts to start banning TikTok is blocked by a federal court, its second defeat this month.

A federal court has granted a request made by TikTok to stop the first part of an order that would have required Apple and Google to remove the Chinese app from its stores or providing updates. The court was not persuaded by the President’s use of his emergency powers in ways that are contrary to the text of the law regarding information, information services, and personal communication. It is likely the Trump Administration appeals even though it appears TikTok has a very good chance of winning on the merits. However, this injunction does not effect, at present, the four other provisions in the order, and nor does it have any relevance on the order by the inter-agency group to ByteDance to unwind the deal that brought it musical.ly

The District Court of the District of Columbia granted TikTok’s request to stop the Department of Commerce from enforcing the first part of the order implementing the ban:

Any provision of services, occurring on or after 11:59 p.m. eastern standard time on September 27, 2020, to distribute or maintain the TikTok mobile application, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store

The court found that TikTok’s claims on the misuse of “International Emergency Economic Powers Act” (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–08, the primary authority President Donald Trump relied on in his executive order banning the app, were unpersuasive. The court conceded “IEEPA contains a broad grant of authority to declare national emergencies and to prohibit certain transactions with foreign countries or foreign nationals that pose risks to the national security of the United States.” But, the court noted “IEEPA also contains two express limitations relevant here: the “authority granted to the President . . . does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly” either (a) the importation or exportation of “information or informational materials”; or (b) “personal communication[s], which do[] not involve a transfer of anything of value.” The court concluded:

In sum, the TikTok Order and the Secretary’s prohibitions will have the intended effect of stopping U.S. users from communicating (and thus sharing data) on TikTok. To be sure, the ultimate purpose of those prohibitions is to protect the national security by preventing China from accessing that data and skewing content on TikTok. And the government’s actions may not constitute direct regulations or prohibitions of activities carved out by 50 U.S.C. 1702(b). But Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on their claim that the prohibitions constitute indirect regulations of “personal communication[s]” or the exchange of “information or informational materials.”

After considering the risks of irreparable harm to TikTok and the equities and public interest, the court decided:

Weighing these interests together with Plaintiffs’ likelihood of succeeding on their IEEPA claim and the irreparable harm that Plaintiffs (and their U.S. users) will suffer absent an injunction, the Court concludes that a preliminary injunction is appropriate.

This is the second defeat of the Trump Administration’s efforts to ban companies from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) this month. On 19 September, a magistrate judge in San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration’s implementation of the WeChat order. As explained in a footnote, “[t]he plaintiffs are U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, a nonprofit formed to challenge the WeChat Executive Order, and individual and business users.” In short, they contended that the WeChat ban

(1) violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,

(2) violates the Fifth Amendment,

(3) violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(1)(a),

(4) was not a lawful exercise of the President’s and the Secretary’s authority under IEEPA— which allows the President to prohibit “transactions” in the interest of national security — because the IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)(1), does not allow them to regulate personal communications, and

(5) violates the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) because the Secretary exceeded his authority under the IEEPA and should have promulgated the rule through the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures in 5 U.S.C. § 553(b).

The judge granted the motion for a preliminary injunction “on the ground that the plaintiffs have shown serious questions going to the merits of the First Amendment claim, the balance of hardships tips in the plaintiffs’ favor, and the plaintiffs establish sufficiently the other elements for preliminary-injunctive relief.” The judge seemed most persuaded by this claim and summarized the plaintiffs’ argument:

  • First, they contend, effectively banning WeChat — which serves as a virtual public square for the Chinese-speaking and Chinese-American community in the United States and is (as a practical matter) their only means of communication — forecloses meaningful access to communication in their community and thereby operates as a prior restraint on their right to free speech that does not survive strict scrutiny.
  • Second, even if the prohibited transactions are content-neutral time-place-or-manner restrictions, they do not survive intermediate scrutiny because the complete ban is not narrowly tailored to address the government’s significant interest in national security.

The Trump Administration will almost certainly appeal these decisions, but it remains to be seen how quickly the case moves through the court system.

As noted, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) recommended that the President order ByteDance to divest musical.ly, and Trump did so in an “Order Regarding the Acquisition of Musical.ly by ByteDance Ltd.” The deadline for selling off this part of the company is mid-November, but this timeline was effectively moved up by Trump’s public comments about the sale and the TikTok executive order set to take effect in mid-September. Oracle, Walmart, and ByteDance are awaiting review of the deal in both Washington and Beijing. At present, the terms proposed seem to indicate Oracle would become a “trusted technology partner,” a term not used before in such transactions, and Walmart would provide “ecommerce, fulfillment, payments and other omnichannel services” to TikTok operations in the U.S. It has been suggested but contested that a majority of these operations would be in the hands of U.S. entities, but ByteDance has disputed that claim. Moreover, it has been separately claimed Oracle and Walmart would get a collective 20% stake in U.S. operations. All of this is unclear and subject to change depending on CFIUS review. Moreover, the PRC will need to approve the deal per its recently implemented export control regulations that would seem to bar the transfer of technology like TikTok’s algorithm.

In terms of background, on 18 September, the Trump Administration issued orders barring TikTok and WeChat pursuant to executive orders issued an “Executive Order on Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok” and an “Executive Order on Addressing the Threat Posed by WeChat” that bar any transactions with the companies that made, distribute, and operate TikTok and WeChat respectively. The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) issued orders effectuating the executive orders.

In a press release, Commerce explained:

As of September 20, 2020, the following transactions are prohibited:

  1. Any provision of service to distribute or maintain the WeChat or TikTok mobile applications, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store in the U.S.;
  2. Any provision of services through the WeChat mobile application for the purpose of transferring funds or processing payments within the U.S.

As of September 20, 2020, for WeChat and as of November 12, 2020, for TikTokthe following transactions are prohibited:

  1. Any provision of internet hosting services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.;
  2. Any provision of content delivery network services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.;
  3. Any provision directly contracted or arranged internet transit or peering services enabling the function or optimization of the mobile application within the U.S.;
  4. Any utilization of the mobile application’s constituent code, functions, or services in the functioning of software or services developed and/or accessible within the U.S.

Commerce added:

Any other prohibitive transaction relating to WeChat or TikTok may be identified at a future date. Should the U.S. Government determine that WeChat’s or TikTok’s illicit behavior is being replicated by another app somehow outside the scope of these executive orders, the President has the authority to consider whether additional orders may be appropriate to address such activities. The President has provided until November 12 for the national security concerns posed by TikTok to be resolved. If they are, the prohibitions in this order may be lifted.

Commerce has submitted notices to be published this week in the Federal Register identifying the transactions that will be illegal regarding TikTok and WeChat:

Pursuant to Executive Order 13942, the Secretary of Commerce is publishing the list of prohibited transactions by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with ByteDance Ltd. (a.k.a. Zìjié Tiàodòng), Beijing, China, or its subsidiaries, including TikTok Inc., in which any such company has any interest, to address the national emergency with respect to the information and communications technology and services supply chain declared in Executive Order 13873, May 15, 2019 (Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain), and particularly to address the threat identified in Executive Order 13942 posed by mobile application TikTok.

On 19 September, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a statement pushing back the effective date of the order against TikTik from 20 September to 27 September because of “recent positive developments” regarding a possible deal between ByteDance, Oracle, and Walmart that would satisfy U.S. national security concerns about the app.

© 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 Solen Feyissa on Unsplash

TikTok Deal Struck And WeChat Wins Injunction

A TikTok deal may be taking shape even though there are indications the details have not been hammered out entirely. A federal court blocked implementation of the WeChat ban.

Over the weekend with the 20 September effective dates looming on the TikTok and WeChat notices, there were separate developments that delayed implementation of the bans on the two apps from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). It appeared the Trump Administration, ByteDance, and potential United States (U.S.) partners were closing in on a deal even as there continued to be disputes as to the composition and nature of the new entity that would house TikTok in the U.S. The ban against WeChat was blocked by a U.S. court, a decision sure to be appealed.

On 19 September, a magistrate judge in San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration’s implementation of the WeChat order. As explained in a footnote, “[t]he plaintiffs are U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, a nonprofit formed to challenge the WeChat Executive Order, and individual and business users.” In short, they contended that the WeChat ban

(1) violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,

(2) violates the Fifth Amendment,

(3) violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(1)(a),

(4) was not a lawful exercise of the President’s and the Secretary’s authority under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (“IEEPA”) — which allows the President to prohibit “transactions” in the interest of national security — because the IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)(1), does not allow them to regulate personal communications, and

(5) violates the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) because the Secretary exceeded his authority under the IEEPA and should have promulgated the rule through the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures in 5 U.S.C. § 553(b).

The judge granted the motion for a preliminary injunction “on the ground that the plaintiffs have shown serious questions going to the merits of the First Amendment claim, the balance of hardships tips in the plaintiffs’ favor, and the plaintiffs establish sufficiently the other elements for preliminary-injunctive relief.” The judge seemed most persuaded by this claim and summarized the plaintiffs’ argument:

  • First, they contend, effectively banning WeChat — which serves as a virtual public square for the Chinese-speaking and Chinese-American community in the United States and is (as a practical matter) their only means of communication — forecloses meaningful access to communication in their community and thereby operates as a prior restraint on their right to free speech that does not survive strict scrutiny.
  • Second, even if the prohibited transactions are content-neutral time-place-or-manner restrictions, they do not survive intermediate scrutiny because the complete ban is not narrowly tailored to address the government’s significant interest in national security.

The Trump Administration will almost certainly appeal this decision, but it remains to be seen how quickly the case moves through the court system.

Also, over the weekend, the Trump Administration paused its notice for implementing the EO against TikTok because of agreement in principles of a deal that would permit Oracle and Walmart to control a certain percentage of TikTok in the U.S. However, the details of which entity would control what remain murky with ByteDance arguing that U.S. entities will not control TikTok, but assertions to the opposite being made by the company’s U.S. partners. Over the weekend, it appeared Oracle and Walmart would be able to take a collective 20% stake in a new entity TikTok Global that would operate in the U.S. Walmart has been partnering with Microsoft, but when the tech giant failed in its bid, Walmart began talks with Oracle. ByteDance would have a stake in the company but not majority control according to some sources. However, ByteDance began pushing back on that narrative as President Donald Trump declared this morning “if we find that [Oracle and Walmart] don’t have total control, then we’re not going to approve the deal.” Moreover, $5 billion would be used for some sort of educational fund. However, it is hard to tell what exactly would occur and whether this is supposed to be the “finder’s fee” of sorts Trump had said the U.S. would deserve from the deal.

On 19 September, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a statement pushing back the effective date of the order against TikTik from 20 September to 27 September because of “recent positive developments.” The same day, the U.S. Department of the Treasury released a statement, explaining:

The President has reviewed a deal among Oracle, Walmart, and TikTok Global to address the national security threat posed by TikTok’s operations. Oracle will be responsible for key technology and security responsibilities to protect all U.S. user data. Approval of the transaction is subject to a closing with Oracle and Walmart and necessary documentation and conditions to be approved by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). 

TikTok also released a statement, asserting

We’re pleased that today we’ve confirmed a proposal that resolves the Administration’s security concerns and settles questions around TikTok’s future in the US. Our plan is extensive and consistent with previous CFIUS resolutions, including working with Oracle, who will be our trusted cloud and technology provider responsible for fully securing our users’ data. We are committed to protecting our users globally and providing the highest levels of security. Both Oracle and Walmart will take part in a TikTok Global pre-IPO financing round in which they can take up to a 20% cumulative stake in the company. We will also maintain and expand the US as TikTok Global’s headquarters while bringing 25,000 jobs across the country.

Walmart issued its own statement on 19 September:

While there is still work to do on final agreements, we have tentatively agreed to purchase 7.5% of TikTok Global as well as enter into commercial agreements to provide our ecommerce, fulfillment, payments and other omnichannel services to TikTok Global. Our CEO, Doug McMillon, would also serve as one of five board members of the newly created company. In addition, we would work toward an initial public offering of the company in the United States within the next year to bring even more ownership to American citizens. The final transaction will need to be approved by the relevant U.S. government agencies.

The same day, Oracle and Walmart released a joint statement:

  • The President has announced that ByteDance has received tentative approval for an agreement with the U.S. Government to resolve the outstanding issues, which will now include Oracle and Walmart together investing to acquire 20% of the newly formed TikTok Global business.
  • As a part of the deal, TikTok is creating a new company called TikTok Global that will be responsible for providing all TikTok services to users in United States and most of the users in the rest of the world. Today, the administration has conditionally approved a landmark deal where Oracle becomes TikTok’s secure cloud provider.
  • TikTok Global will be majority owned by American investors, including Oracle and Walmart. TikTok Global will be an independent American company, headquartered in the U.S., with four Americans out of the five member Board of Directors.
  • All the TikTok technology will be in possession of TikTok Global, and comply with U.S. laws and privacy regulations. Data privacy for 100 million American TikTok users will be quickly established by moving all American data to Oracle’s Generation 2 Cloud data centers, the most secure cloud data centers in the world.
  • In addition to its equity position, Walmart will bring its omnichannel retail capabilities including its Walmart.com assortment, eCommerce marketplace, fulfillment, payment and measurement-as-a-service advertising service.
  • TikTok Global will create more than 25,000 new jobs in the Unites States and TikTok Global will pay more than $5 billion in new tax dollars to the U.S. Treasury.
  • TikTok Global, together with Oracle, SIG, General Atlantic, Sequoia, Walmart and Coatue will create an educational initiative to develop and deliver an AI-driven online video curriculum to teach children from inner cities to the suburbs, a variety of courses from basic reading and math to science, history and computer engineering.
  • TikTok Global will have an Initial Public Offering (IPO) in less than 12 months and be listed on a U.S. Exchange. After the IPO, U.S. ownership of TikTok Global will increase and continue to grow over time.

Today, Oracle went further in a statement to the media claiming, “ByteDance will have no ownership in TikTok Global,” which is a different message than the one the company was sending. For example, in a blog post, ByteDance stated “[t]he current plan does not involve the transfer of any algorithms or technology…[but] Oracle has the authority to check the source code of TikTok USA.”

Late last week, the Trump Administration issued orders barring TikTok and WeChat pursuant to executive orders issued an “Executive Order on Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok” and an “Executive Order on Addressing the Threat Posed by WeChat” that bar any transactions with the companies that made, distribute, and operate TikTok and WeChat respectively. The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) issued orders effectuating the executive orders, which were set to take effect this past weekend. In a press release, Commerce explained:

As of September 20, 2020, the following transactions are prohibited:

  1. Any provision of service to distribute or maintain the WeChat or TikTok mobile applications, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store in the U.S.;
  2. Any provision of services through the WeChat mobile application for the purpose of transferring funds or processing payments within the U.S.

As of September 20, 2020, for WeChat and as of November 12, 2020, for TikTokthe following transactions are prohibited:

  1. Any provision of internet hosting services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.;
  2. Any provision of content delivery network services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.;
  3. Any provision directly contracted or arranged internet transit or peering services enabling the function or optimization of the mobile application within the U.S.;
  4. Any utilization of the mobile application’s constituent code, functions, or services in the functioning of software or services developed and/or accessible within the U.S.

Commerce added:

Any other prohibitive transaction relating to WeChat or TikTok may be identified at a future date. Should the U.S. Government determine that WeChat’s or TikTok’s illicit behavior is being replicated by another app somehow outside the scope of these executive orders, the President has the authority to consider whether additional orders may be appropriate to address such activities. The President has provided until November 12 for the national security concerns posed by TikTok to be resolved. If they are, the prohibitions in this order may be lifted.

Commerce has submitted notices to be published this week in the Federal Register identifying the transactions that will be illegal regarding TikTok and WeChat:

  • Pursuant to Executive Order 13942, the Secretary of Commerce is publishing the list of prohibited transactions by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with ByteDance Ltd. (a.k.a. Zìjié Tiàodòng), Beijing, China, or its subsidiaries, including TikTok Inc., in which any such company has any interest, to address the national emergency with respect to the information and communications technology and services supply chain declared in Executive Order 13873, May 15, 2019 (Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain), and particularly to address the threat identified in Executive Order 13942 posed by mobile application TikTok.
  • Pursuant to Executive Order 13943, the Secretary of Commerce is publishing this Identification of Prohibited Transactions related to WeChat by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with Tencent Holdings Ltd. (a.k.a. Téngxùn Kònggŭ Yŏuxiàn Gōngsī), Shenzhen, China, or any subsidiary of that entity, to address the national emergency with respect to the information and communications technology and services supply chain declared in Executive Order 13873, May 15, 2019 (Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain), and particularly to address the threat identified in Executive Order 13943 posed by mobile application WeChat.

© 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 chuttersnap on Unsplash