EDPB Issues FAQs On Privacy Shield Decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are notable excerpts:

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

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

Image by Maret H. from Pixabay

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

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

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

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

FY 2021 Homeland Security Appropriations Act

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

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

Among other programmatic and funding highlights, the Committee

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

FY 2021 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Committee made the following recommendations generally:

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

FY 2021 Department of Defense Appropriations Act

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

The Committee Report contained these technology-related provisions:

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

FY 2021 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Act

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

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

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

Further Reading and Other Developments (17 July)

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

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

Other Developments

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

Further Reading

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

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

Europe’s Highest Court Strikes Down Privacy Shield

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a summary of its decision, the CJEU explained

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

The CJEU found

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The DPC issued a statement in which it asserted

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

The DPC added

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

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

European Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders stated

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

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

In a statement, US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross

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

Ross continued

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

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

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

Image by harakir from Pixabay

Further Reading and Other Developments (4 July)

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

Other Developments

  • The Senate invoked cloture on the nomination of acting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought to be confirmed in that role and will vote on the nomination on 20 July. OMB has been without a Senate-confirmed Director since Mick Mulvaney resigned at the end of March, but he was named acting White House Chief of Staff in January 2019, resulting in Vought serving as the acting OMB head since that time.
  • The United States Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) Suzette Kent announced she is stepping down in July, and Deputy Federal CIO Maria Roat is expected to be named acting Federal CIO. Given the Trump Administration’s approach to submitting nominations to the Senate for confirmation and the Senate’s truncated work schedule due to the election, it is likely no nomination is made this year. Kent technically held the position of Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and her portfolio includes a range of technology related matters including cybersecurity, information technology IT policy and procurement, workforce, data security, data management and others.
  • The General Services Administration (GSA) announced the next step in “establish[ing] a program to procure commercial products through commercial e-commerce portals for purposes of enhancing competition, expediting procurement, enabling market research, and ensuring reasonable pricing of commercial products.” GSA “awarded contracts to three e-marketplace platform providers…[to] Amazon Business, Fisher Scientific, and Overstock.com, Inc. allows GSA to test the use of commercial e-commerce portals for purchases below the micro-purchase threshold of $10,000 using a proof-of-concept (for up to three years).” Section 846 of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (P. L. 115-91) directed GSA to implement such a program, and the agency claimed in a blog posting:
    • These contracts and platforms will be available to federal agencies as part of a governmentwide effort to modernize the buying experience for agencies and help them gain insights into open-market online spend occurring outside of existing contracts.  It is estimated that open market purchases on government purchase cards represent an addressable market of $6 billion annually.
    • The goal of the proof of concept is to provide a modern buying solution for federal customers and increase transparency on agency spending that’s already taking place with better data through this solution. Further, this solution leverages the government’s buying power and increases supply chain security awareness with a governmentwide approach.
  • In response to the ongoing and growing advertising boycott, Facebook announced in a press release some changes to the platform’s policies regarding voter suppression or hateful content. CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated “Three weeks ago, I committed to reviewing our policies ahead of the 2020 elections…[and] [t]hat work is ongoing, but today I want to share some new policies to connect people with authoritative information about voting, crack down on voter suppression, and fight hate speech:
    • 1. Providing Authoritative Information on Voting During the Pandemic
      • Last week, we announced the largest voting information campaign in American history, with the goal of helping 4 million people register to vote. As part of this, we’re creating a Voting Information Center to share authoritative information on how and when you can vote, including voter registration, voting by mail and early voting. During a pandemic when people may be afraid of going to polls, sharing authoritative information on voting by mail will be especially important. We’ll be showing the Voting Information Center at the top of the Facebook and Instagram apps over the coming months.
    • 2. Additional Steps to Fight Voter Suppression
      • Since the most dangerous voter suppression campaigns can be local and run in the days immediately before an election, we’re going to use our Elections Operations Center to quickly respond and remove false claims about polling conditions in the 72 hours leading into election day. Learning from our experience fighting Covid misinformation, we will partner with and rely on state election authorities to help determine the accuracy of information and what is potentially dangerous. We know this will be challenging in practice as facts on the ground may be uncertain and we don’t want to remove accurate information about challenges people are experiencing, but we’re building our operation to be able to respond quickly.
      • We will also ban posts that make false claims saying ICE agents are checking for immigration papers at polling places, which is a tactic used to discourage voting. We’ll also remove any threats of coordinated interference, like someone saying “My friends and I will be doing our own monitoring of the polls to make sure only the right people vote”, which can be used to intimidate voters. We will continue to review our voter suppression policies on an ongoing basis as part of our work on voter engagement and racial justice.
    • 3. Creating a Higher Standard for Hateful Content in Ads
      • This week’s study from the EU showed that Facebook acts faster and removes a greater percent of hate speech on our services than other major internet platforms, including YouTube and Twitter. We’ve invested heavily in both AI systems and human review teams so that now we identify almost 90% of the hate speech we remove before anyone even reports it to us. We’ve also set the standard in our industry by publishing regular transparency reports so people can hold us accountable for progress. We will continue investing in this work and will commit whatever resources are necessary to improve our enforcement.
      • We believe there is a public interest in allowing a wider range of free expression in people’s posts than in paid ads. We already restrict certain types of content in ads that we allow in regular posts, but we want to do more to prohibit the kind of divisive and inflammatory language that has been used to sow discord. So today we’re prohibiting a wider category of hateful content in ads. Specifically, we’re expanding our ads policy to prohibit claims that people from a specific race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, gender identity or immigration status are a threat to the physical safety, health or survival of others. We’re also expanding our policies to better protect immigrants, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers from ads suggesting these groups are inferior or expressing contempt, dismissal or disgust directed at them.
    • 4. Labeling Newsworthy Content
      • A handful of times a year, we leave up content that would otherwise violate our policies if the public interest value outweighs the risk of harm. Often, seeing speech from politicians is in the public interest, and in the same way that news outlets will report what a politician says, we think people should generally be able to see it for themselves on our platforms.
      • We will soon start labeling some of the content we leave up because it is deemed newsworthy, so people can know when this is the case. We’ll allow people to share this content to condemn it, just like we do with other problematic content, because this is an important part of how we discuss what’s acceptable in our society — but we’ll add a prompt to tell people that the content they’re sharing may violate our policies.
      • To clarify one point: there is no newsworthiness exemption to content that incites violence or suppresses voting. Even if a politician or government official says it, if we determine that content may lead to violence or deprive people of their right to vote, we will take that content down. Similarly, there are no exceptions for politicians in any of the policies I’m announcing here today.
  • On 30 June, Facebook banned the boogaloo movement from its platform. The company “designat[ed] a violent US-based anti-government network under our Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy and disrupting it on our services…[and] [a]s a result, this violent network is banned from having a presence on our platform and we will remove content praising, supporting or representing it.”
  • The United States Department of Commerce suspended “regulations affording preferential treatment to Hong Kong… including the availability of export license exceptions.” The Trump Administration took this latest action in its trade war with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) because of “the Chinese Communist Party’s imposition of new security measures on Hong Kong” and “the risk that sensitive U.S. technology will be diverted to the People’s Liberation Army or Ministry of State Security has increased, all while undermining the territory’s autonomy.” The United States Department of State added “the United States will today end exports of U.S.-origin defense equipment and will take steps toward imposing the same restrictions on U.S. defense and dual-use technologies to Hong Kong as it does for China.”
  • The Democratic National Committee (DNC) updated its “social media comparative analysis to reflect changes companies have made in recent months to their counter disinformation and election integrity policies.” The DNC is working with Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, Google/YouTube, and now Snapchat to “to combat platform manipulation and train our campaigns on how best to secure their accounts and protect their brands against disinformation.”
  • The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) and three privacy agencies for provinces of Canada announced an investigation “into a Tim Hortons mobile ordering application after media reports raised concerns about how the app may be collecting and using data about people’s movements as they go about their daily activities.” A journalist made a request to Tim Hortons under Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and learned the company’s app had logged his longitude and latitude coordinates over 2,700 times in five months, sometimes when he was not using the app even though the company has claimed it only tracks users when the app is being used. Moreover, Tim Hortons combines data from sister companies also owned by Restaurant Brands International like Burger King and Popeyes.
  • The United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) released an “investigation report into the use of mobile phone extraction (MPE) by police forces when conducting criminal investigations in England and Wales” which “found that police data extraction practices vary across the country, with excessive amounts of personal data often being extracted and stored without an appropriate basis in existing data protection law.” The ICO made a range of recommendations, many of which will require a legislative revamp of the laws that currently govern these practices.
  • Ireland’s Data Protection Commission released its “2018-2020 Regulatory Activity Under GDPR” and listed the following enforcement actions under the General Data Protection Regulation:
    • An Garda Síochana–reprimand and corrective powers applied in accordance with the Data Protection Act, 2018.
    • Tusla; The Child and Family Agency –reprimand and fine applied in accordance with the Data Protection Act, 2018.
    • Tusla; The Child and Family Agency –reprimand and fine applied in accordance with the Data Protection Act, 2018.
    • Twitter–Inquiry completed and draft decision forwarded to EU concerned data protection authorities in accordance with Article 60 of the GDPR.
    • DEASP-Enforcement notice issued regarding the use of the Public Services Card (currently under appeal).
    • 59 Section 10 decisions issued.
    • 15,000 breach notifications assessed and concluded.
    • 9 litigation cases concluded in the Irish Courts.
    • Hearing in CJEU Standard Contractual Clauses case brought by DPC to Irish High Court.
    • 80 % of cases received under the GDPR have been concluded.
  • The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issued its “American Broadband Initiative Progress Report,” an update on a Trump Administration inter-agency effort to implement “a cohesive government-wide strategy to reform broadband deployment” started in 2019. NTIA highlighted the following accomplishment:
    • Through the ReConnect program, as of March 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) awarded over $744 million in funds to support more than 80 broadband projects benefiting more than 430,000 rural residents in 34 states. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and USDA also established processes to coordinate awards for rural broadband deployment to ensure that USDA-funded grants do not overlap with the FCC’s $20 Billion Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) or the $9 Billion 5G Fund for Rural America
    • The Department of the Interior (DOI) launched a Joint Overview-Established Locations (JOEL) mapping tool to make site locations visible to service providers looking to locate equipment on Federal property, and added new data layers from the General Services Administration, the U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Postal Service. Since its release, the map has been viewed 4,294 times, averaging 7 views per day.
    • In June 2019, the General Services Administration (GSA) published the FY 2018 Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) public data set, updated with a set of filters allowing users to identify Federal property that could be candidates for communications infrastructure installation. This publicly available data now includes the height of buildings and facilities and the elevation above mean sea level, helping the communications industry to determine a structure’s suitability for siting communications facilities. In June 2020, GSA will update the FRPP public data set with more current data from FY 2019.
    • In March 2019, the Department of Commerce’s NTIA updated its website with information about Federal Agencies’ permitting processes and funding information to provide easier, “one-stop” access to the information. NTIA continues to update this information with support from Agencies.
    • In September 2019, NTIA completed the first phase of its National Broadband Availability Map (NBAM), a geographic information system platform which allows for the visualization and analysis of federal, state, and commercially available data sets. As of June 2020, the NBAM program includes 18 States who are partnering on this critical broadband data platform.
    • In February 2020, GSA and USDA’s Forest Service (FS) finalized a revised Standard Form (SF-299), making this Common Application Form suitable for telecommunications purposes.

Further Reading

  • Google will start paying some publishers for news articles” – The Verge. In part because of pressure from regulators in Australia and France, Google will begin paying some new outlets for articles. This could be the start of a larger trend of online platforms compensating media which has long argued this should be the case. However, similar systems in Germany and Spain earlier this decade failed to bolster the media in those countries financially, and Google responded to the Spanish statute by ceasing to operate its News platform in that country.
  • Trump’s strike at Twitter risks collateral damage inside the executive branch” – Politico. One aspect to the Trump Administration executive order on online platforms is that it directs federal agencies to review their online advertising and marketing subject to additional Office of Management and Budget and Department of Justice review. If fully implemented, this process could derail a number of agency initiatives ranging from military recruitment to fighting drug addiction.
  • Column: With its Sprint merger in the bag, T-Mobile is already backing away from its promises” – The Los Angeles Times. Critics of the T-Mobile-Sprint merger have pounced on a recent filing with the California Public Utilities Commission in which the company has asked for two additional years to build out its 5G network despite making this a signal promise in selling California Attorney General Xavier Becerra on the deal. Likewise, the company is trying to renegotiate its promise to create 1,000 new jobs in the state.
  • Facebook policy changes fail to quell advertiser revolt as Coca-Cola pulls ads” – The Guardian. Despite Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement of policy changes (see Other Developments above), advertisers continue to join a widening boycott that some companies are applying across all major social media platforms. Unilever, Coca Cola, Hershey’s, Honda, and other joined the movement. The majority of Facebook’s income comes from advertising, so a sustained boycott could do more than pushing down the company’s share value. And, the changes announced at the end of last week do not seem to have impressed the boycott’s organizers. It would be interesting if pressure placed on companies advertising on Facebook affects more change than pressure from the right and left in the United States, European Union, and elsewhere.
  • Trump administration tells Facebook, Twitter to act against calls to topple statues, commit violent acts” – The Washington Post. The Department of Homeland Security sent letters late last week to the largest technology companies, asserting they may have played a role in “burglary, arson, aggravated assault, rioting, looting, and defacing public property” by allowing people to post on or use their platforms. The thrust of the argument seems to be that Twitter, Facebook, Apple, Google, and other companies should have done more to prevent people from posting and sharing material that allegedly resulted in violence. Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf argued “In the wake of George Floyd’s death, America faced an unprecedented threat from violent extremists seeking to co-opt the tragedy of his death for illicit purposes.” These letters did not mention President Donald Trump’s tweets that seem to encourage authorities to use violence against protestors. Moreover, they seem to be of a piece with the recent executive order in that there is a scant legal basis for the action designed to cow the social media platforms.
  • Twitch, Reddit crack down on Trump-linked content as industry faces reckoning” – Politico. Two platforms acted against President Donald Trump and his supporters for violating the platforms terms of service and rules. The irony here is that the recent executive order on social platforms seeks to have them held accountable for not operating according to their terms of service.
  • Inside Facebook’s fight against European regulation” – Politico. Through until now unavailable European Commission documents on meetings with and positions of Facebook, this article traces the slow evolution of the company’s no-regulation approach in the European Union (EU) to a public position ostensibly amenable to regulation. It is also perhaps the tale of using lobbying tactics that work in Washington, DC, that have largely failed to gain traction in Brussels.

© 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 congerdesign from Pixabay

Further Reading and Other Developments (20 June)

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

Other Developments

  • The House Financial Services Committee’s National Security, International Development, and Monetary Policy Subcommittee held a virtual hearing titled “Cybercriminals and Fraudsters: How Bad Actors Are Exploiting the Financial System During the COVID-19 Pandemic.”
  • The Senate Appropriations Committee’s Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee held a hearing titled “Oversight of FCC Spectrum Auctions Program.”
  • The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held a hearing on a number of nominations, including a re-nomination of Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Michael O’Reilly for another full term.
  • The Department of Commerce’s Industry and Security Bureau released an interim final rule to amend “the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to authorize the release of certain technology to Huawei and its affiliates on the Entity List without a license if such release is made for the purpose of contributing to the revision or development of a “standard” in a “standards organization.” The Department added in its press release “The rule returns U.S. industry to the status quo ante, from an Entity List perspective, with respect to disclosures of such technology to Huawei and its affiliates in legitimate standards development contexts only, and not for commercial purposes. Disclosures for commercial purposes remain “subject to the EAR” and are still subject to recordkeeping and all other applicable EAR requirements.” Comments are due on 17 August 2020.
  • The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released its “Safety Recommendation Report” that “called for a change in air cargo shipping requirements for some types of lithium-ion batteries” following its investigation “into the shipment of lithium-ion batteries that ignited while in transport on a delivery truck in Canada.” The NTSB recommended that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration:
    • Propose to the International Civil Aviation Organization to remove its special provision A88 from its Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air allowing special permits for low-production or prototype lithium-ion cells or batteries shipped by airplane and eliminate any exceptions to the testing of United Nations Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Sub-section 38.3 requirements for all lithium-ion batteries before transport by air.( A-20-31)
    • Once the International Civil Aviation Organization removes special provision A88 from the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, remove the exemption from United Nations Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Sub-section 38.3 testing from Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 173.185(e) for low-production or prototype lithium-ion batteries, when transported by air. (A-20-32)
  • The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Partnership for Countering Influence Operations (PCIO) released “The Challenges of Countering Influence Operations” with these “Key Takeaways:”
    • Influence operations defy easy categorization. Influence operations often fail to fit neatly into boxes outlined by individual policies or legislation. They are run in a complex environment where actors overlap, borders are easily crossed and blurred, and motives are mixed—making enforcement challenging. In this case study, actors share highly politicized online content but also appear to benefit financially from their actions, making it difficult to ascertain whether their motives are primarily political, commercial, or both.
    • Relevant policies by social media platforms tend to be a patchwork of community standards that apply to individual activities of an influence campaign, not the operation as a whole. Policies published by social media companies often focus on individual components of influence operations. This approach attempts to neatly categorize and distinguish actors (foreign versus domestic), motives (political influence and profit), activities (including misrepresentation, fraud, and spamming behavior), and content (such as misinformation, hate speech, and abuse). This piecemeal approach to enforcement raises questions about whether officials within social media platforms fully understand how influence operations work and how such campaigns are more than the individual behaviors that compose them.
    • Social media networks have more opportunities to counter influence operations through their platform policies than governments do with existing legislation. Social media companies have implemented various policies to govern how their platforms are used, providing opportunities for combating influence operations. They also have greater access to information about how their platforms are used and have domain-specific expertise that allows them to create more tailored solutions. Fewer avenues exist for countering such influence operations using government-led legal mechanisms. This is not only because of the relative paucity of laws that govern online activity but also because law enforcement requires attribution before they can act, and such attribution can be difficult to ascertain in these cases. This means that governments have generally done little to help private industry actors determine what kinds of influence operations are unacceptable and should be combated. In the absence of such guidance, industry actors are de facto drawing those lines for society. Governments could do more to help guide industry players as they determine the boundaries of acceptable behavior by participating in multi-stakeholder efforts—some of which have been set up by think tanks and nonprofits—and by considering legal approaches that emphasize transparency rather than criminalization.
    • The influence operations uncovered by media scrutiny are not always as easy to counter as those writing about them might hope. Savvy influence operators understand how to evade existing rules, so that their activities and content do not breach known policies or legislation. Media coverage that showcases examples of influence operations seldom explains whether and how these operators violate existing platform policies or legislation. This is a problem because distasteful influence operations do not always overtly violate existing policies or laws—raising questions about where the lines are (and should be) between what is tolerable and what is not, and, moreover, who should be determining those lines. Even when existing policies clearly do apply, these questions persist. Stakeholders should more clearly assess what constitutes problematic behavior before rushing to demand enforcement.
  • A number of privacy and civil liberties groups released “principles to protect the civil rights and privacy of all persons, especially those populations who are at high risk for the virus and communities of color, when considering the deployment of technological measures in response to the COVID-19 crisis.” These groups also sent these principles in letters to both the House and the Senate.
  • The Technology Coalition, formed 15 years ago “when industry leaders came together to fight online child sexual exploitation and abuse (CSEA),” announced “Project Protect: A plan to combat online child sexual abuse – a renewed investment and ongoing commitment to our work seeking to prevent and eradicate online CSEA” with these elements:
    • Execute a Strategic “Five Pillar” Plan to reinforce the cross-industry approach to combating CSEA, putting in place the structure, membership models, and staffing needed to support the Technology Coalition’s long term objectives.
    • Establish a multi-million dollar Research and Innovation Fund to build crucial technological tools needed to more effectively prevent and work to eradicate CSEA.
    • Commit to publishing an Annual Progress Report on industry efforts to combat CSEA.
    • Create an annual Forum for CSEA experts bringing together industry, governments, and civil society to share best practices and drive collective action.
  • Amnesty International’s Security Lab named Bahrain, Kuwait and Norway as having “some of the most invasive COVID-19 contact tracing apps around the world, putting the privacy and security of hundreds of thousands of people at risk.”
  • The Knight Foundation and Gallup released “Free Expression, Harmful Speech, and Censorship in a Digital World,” “a study to gauge Americans’ opinions on [social media companies, the internet, and the role of government], delving specifically into two potential paths forward — amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which largely shields internet companies from legal liability for content shared on their sites, and the relatively new notion of content oversight boards” with these topline findings:
    • Americans prefer social media apps and sites to be places of open expression.
    • Even as Americans voice a preference for open expression, there are several forms of online content that many say should be restricted or never allowed
    • Many Americans have personally been targeted by harmful online behavior.
    • Americans are somewhat divided on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which largely shields major internet companies from liability for content posted on their websites and apps by third parties.
    • A majority of Americans do not trust social media companies to make the right decisions about what content appears on their sites or apps.
    • Despite misgivings about major internet companies making the right decisions related to harmful online content, Americans are more likely to favor the companies, rather than government, setting policies to regulate such content
    • Americans’ opinions of content oversight boards are largely favorable, tending to prefer them to social media companies or the government to make decisions about what can and cannot appear on social media websites and apps. 
    • Americans’ favorability toward content oversight boards increases when they know more about them.
    • The most important content oversight board attributes for Americans are transparency and diversity, followed closely by independence — i.e., who appoints board members. Less valuable is the board’s ability to compel social media companies to enact its decisions or guidelines.
    • Americans’ trust in a social media company will not automatically increase solely because the company adopts a content oversight board. Rather, trust can be gained based on the board’s features relating to its independence, transparency, diversity and ability to enforce decisions.
  • Graphika released a report titled “Exposing Secondary Infektion: Forgeries, interference, and attacks on Kremlin critics across six years and 300 sites and platforms,” “a long-running Russian information operation, encompassing multiple campaigns on social media run by a central entity, which was already active in 2014 and that was still running in early 2020.”
  • The University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab and Amnesty International released a report on “nine Indian lawyers, activists, and journalists….targeted in 2019 in a coordinated malware campaign” with “NetWire, a commercially available spyware.”

Further Reading

  • The Economy Is Reeling. The Tech Giants Spy Opportunity.” – The New York Times. All of the large technology companies are continuing the same pace of acquisition and product roll outs as last year. Critics fear that companies’ expansion through buying new businesses, technologies, and platforms will further cement their dominance of the United States (US) and world economies. Moreover, these companies have also been rolling out new services to compete with upstarts (e.g. Google’s meeting service to try to grab market share from Zoom.) It remains to be seen whether antitrust and anti-competitive actions in the US, European Union and elsewhere will stop or even reverse the continued growth of Google, Apple, Amazon, and others.
  • Amazon’s Ring has 29 new police agreements since the killing of George Floyd” – Protocol. In spite of its pledge to hold off on selling its facial recognition technology to police departments for a year, Amazon has continued to sign up local law enforcement for participation in partnerships using its Ring and Neighbors technology platforms. These systems make available to police footage from the camera/doorbell system Amazon is marketing as a security must have. Critics of the system and how Amazon operates it argue it has already disproportionately affected African Americans and other minorities in gentrifying areas and offers a workaround to warrant requirements for officers would not need to go to court to obtain this footage since private parties are not bound by the Fourth Amendment like government agencies.
  • Big Tech’s Pandemic Power Grab” – The Atlantic. This article foresees government regulation of large technology companies in the United States (US) that solidifies their preeminence, in large part, because these companies have been partnering with and working for the US government. And, in making this bargain, these companies are using every lever and all the leverage at their disposal to strike the type of bargain they want. There may be pushback against this impulse to grow, but it is worth keeping in mind that the trustbusting era in the US may have divided up corporate giants like Standard Oil but their progeny are still very powerful (e.g. Exxon Mobil.)
  • New York lawmakers want to outlaw geofence warrants as protests grow” – Protocol. A bill introduced in April to address the law enforcement practice of requesting geofencing data from technology companies receives renewed scrutiny in the New York State legislature in the midst of protests against racism and police violence in the United States. The article cites a Google filing in a Virginia lawsuit alleging “Between 2017 and 2018, Google saw a 1,500% increase in geofence requests…[and] [b]etween 2018 and 2019, that figure shot up another 500%.” Technology companies with troves of data on where people are at virtually every hour of the day are treading carefully as critics of geofence requests and warrants are pushing to ban law enforcement agencies from using these data.
  • Australian leader says unnamed state increasing cyberattacks” – Associated Press. Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison told reporters “Australian organizations are currently being targeted by a sophisticated state-based cyber actor.” He contended “[t]his activity is targeting Australian organizations across a range of sectors, including all levels of government, industry, political organizations, education, health, essential service providers and operators of other critical infrastructure.” In concert with Morrison’s statement, the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) and the Department of Home Affairs issued an advisory describing “the tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) identified during the ACSC’s investigation of a cyber campaign targeting Australian networks.” Some experts are saying it must be the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially after Canberra named the PRC as the entity that hacked into Parliament.
  • Eric Schmidt: Huawei has engaged in unacceptable practices” – BBC News. The former Google head claims the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has accessed Huawei’s routers to exfiltrate information. Schmidt conceded that Huawei’s products are superior to other offerings on the market, which poses a challenge for networks and nations. He also flagged the research and development budgets Huawei and other PRC companies have that eclipse other multinationals.
  • French Court Strikes Down Most of Online Hate Speech Law” – The New York Times. A French court struck down the core of President Emmanuel Macron’s new statute to police offensive online speech, finding two provisions would impinge freedom of expression. Macron’s party has vowed to take another run at such legislation.
  • Europe threatens digital taxes without global deal, after U.S. quits talks” – Reuters. After the United States withdrew from Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) talks on digital taxes, prompting promises from the European Union to proceed with such taxes.

© 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.

NTIA Petitions FCC To Reconsider Ligado Decision

The Trump Administration is asking the FCC to reverse its decision to allow a company to use the L-Band for a wireless system that opponents claim will endanger GPS networks.  

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

This week, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a component agency of the Department of Commerce, filed two petitions with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), asking the latter agency to stay its decision allowing Ligado to proceed with wireless service using a satellite-terrestrial network utilizing the L-Band opposed by a number of Trump Administration agencies and a number of key Congressional stakeholders. They argue the order would allow Ligado to set up a system that would interfere with the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Global Positioning System (GPS) and civilian federal agency applications of GPS as well. If the FCC denies these petitions, it is possible NTIA could file suit in federal court to block the FCC’s order and Ligado, and it is also conceivable Congress could fold language into the FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, or pass standalone legislation, to block the FCC.

The NTIA stated in its press release that it “petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reconsider its Order and Authorization that conditionally granted license modification applications filed by Ligado Networks LLC…[that] permits Ligado to provide terrestrial wireless services that threaten to harm federal government users of the Global Positioning System (GPS) along with a variety of other public and private stakeholders.”

In the petition for a stay, NTIA asked that “Ligado Networks LLC’s (Ligado’s) mobile satellite service (MSS) license modification applications for ancillary terrestrial operations” be paused until the agency’s petition for reconsideration is decided by the FCC because of “executive branch concerns of harmful interference to federal government and other GPS devices.”

In the petition for reconsideration, the NTIA argued it “focuses on the problems in the Ligado Order that are uniquely related to the interests of Department of Defense (DOD) and other federal agencies and their mission-critical users of GPS.” The NTIA added “that the Commission failed to consider the major economic impact its decision will have on civilian GPS users and the American economy…[and] [a]s the lead civil agency for GPS, DOT explained…Ligado’s proposed operations would disrupt a wide range of civil GPS receivers owned and operated by emergency first responders, among others.”

NTIA made the following arguments in its petition:

  • The Ligado Order failed to adequately consider and give appropriate weight to important and valid executive branch concerns about harmful interference to GPS.
  • None of Ligado’s latest mitigation proposals, nor the conditions based on them, have been tested or evaluated by any independent party…[and] [a] more scientific way of resolving these technical disputes could be accomplished through further joint FCC-executive branch or independent testing based on Ligado’s actual network and base station parameters.
  • The license conditions imposed on Ligado will not adequately mitigate the risk of harmful interference to federal GPS devices, will shift the burden of fixing such interference to federal users, and are otherwise impractical for addressing actual impacts to national security systems. In light of the large number of federal GPS devices that potentially would be impacted by Ligado’s network, the FCC conditions, even if modified, will be a high-cost, time consuming effort for Ligado and federal agencies. As written, the condition requiring the repair or replacement of government receivers, is impractical, infeasible, and potentially illegal.

In late April, the FCC’s “decision authorize[d] Ligado to deploy a low-power terrestrial nationwide network in the 1526-1536 MHz, 1627.5-1637.5 MHz, and 1646.5-1656.5 MHz bands that will primarily support Internet of Things (IoT) services.” The agency argued the order “provides regulatory certainty to Ligado, ensures adjacent band operations, including Global Positioning System (GPS), are sufficiently protected from harmful interference, and promotes more efficient and effective use of [the U.S.’s] spectrum resources by making available additional spectrum for advanced wireless services, including 5G.”

Defense and other civilian government stakeholders remained unconvinced. Also, in late April, the chairs and ranking members of the Armed Services Committees penned an op-ed, in which they claimed “the [FCC] has used the [COVID-19] crisis, under the cover of darkness, to approve a long-stalled application by Ligado Networks — a proposal that threatens to undermine our GPS capabilities, and with it, our national security.” Chairs James Inhofe (R-OK) and Adam Smith (D-WA) and Ranking Members Jack Reed (D-RI) and Mac Thornberry (R-TX) asserted:

  • So, we wanted to clarify things: domestic 5G development is critical to our economic competiveness against China and for our national security. The Pentagon is committed working with government and industry to share mid-band spectrum where and when it makes sense to ensure rapid roll-out of 5G.
  • The problem here is that Ligado’s planned usage is not in the prime mid-band spectrum being considered for 5G — and it will have a significant risk of interference with GPS reception, according to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The signals interference Ligado’s plan would create could cost taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars and require the replacement of current GPS equipment just as we are trying to get our economy back on its feet quickly — and the FCC has just allowed this to happen.

The Ligado application was seen as so important, the first hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee held after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic was on this issue. Not surprisingly the DOD explained the risks of Ligado’s satellite-terrestrial wireless system as it sees them at some length. Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Michael Griffin asserted at the 6 May hearing:

  • The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) conducted a testing program developed over multiple years with stakeholder involvement, evaluating 80 consumer-grade navigation, survey, precision agriculture, timing, space-based, and aviation GPS receivers. This test program was conducted in coordination with DoD testing of military receivers. The results, as documented in the DoT “Adjacent Band Compatibility” study released in March, 2018, demonstrated that even very low power levels from a terrestrial system in the adjacent band will overload the very sensitive equipment required to collect and process GPS signals.  Also, many high precision receivers are designed to receive Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals not only in the 1559 MHz to 1610 MHz band, but also receive Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) signals in the 1525 MHz to 1559 MHz band to provide corrections to GPS/GNSS to improve accuracy. With the present and future planned ubiquity of base stations for mobile broadband use, the use of GPS in entire metropolitan areas would be effectively blocked.  That is why every government agency having any stake in GPS, as well as dozens of commercial entities that will be harmed if GPS becomes unreliable,  opposed the FCC’s decision. 
  • There are two principal reasons for the Department’s opposition to Ligado’s proposal. The first and most obvious is that we designed and built GPS for reasons of national security, reasons which are at least as valid today as when the system was conceived. The second, less well-known, is that the DoD has a statutory responsibility to sustain and protect the system. Quoting from 10 USC 2281, the Secretary of Defense “…shall provide for the sustainment and operation of the GPS Standard Positioning Service for peaceful civil, commercial, and scientific uses…” and “…may not agree to any restriction of the GPS System proposed by the head of a department or agency of the United States outside DoD that would adversely affect the military potential of GPS.”

A few weeks ago, 32 Senators wrote the FCC expressing their concern that the “Order does not adequately project adjacent band operations – including those related to GPS and satellite communications –  from harmful interference that would impact countless commercial and military activities.” They also took issue “the hurried nature of the circulation and consideration of the Order,” which they claimed occurred during “a national crisis” and “was not conducive to addressing the many technical concerns raised by affected stakeholders.” Given that nearly one-third of the Senate signed the letter, this may demonstrate the breadth of opposition in Congress to the Ligado order.

Earlier this week, the House Armed Services Committee held a conference call with “FCC officials” and Inhofe issued a press release, claiming “I was concerned when I asked the FCC officials on the call if they had convinced any other agency this was good policy or if they had made an attempt to receive a classified briefing on the effects of their decision and their answer was no.”

© 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.

Trump Administration Extends Two Measures Against Huawei

As part of its larger battle with PRC, the Trump Administration continues to press Huawei  

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

Late last week, the Administration took two steps that will continue to place Huawei’s ability to access U.S. markets and products in jeopardy. President Donald Trump extended an executive order to secure the U.S.’ information and communications technology manufactured or supplied by foreign adversaries, namely the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In May 2019, the President issued Executive Order (EO) 13873, “Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain,” that declared a national emergency on the basis that

the unrestricted acquisition or use in the United States of 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 foreign adversaries augments the ability of foreign adversaries to create and exploit vulnerabilities in information and communications technology or services, with potentially catastrophic effects, and thereby constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.

In the continuation of the EO, Trump stated that “[t]his threat continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States…[and] [f]or this reason, the national emergency declared on May 15, 2019, must continue in effect beyond May 15, 2020.” He added that “[t]herefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13873 with respect to securing the information and communications technology and services supply chain.”

This is the latest development with this EO. In November 2019, Commerce released its long awaited draft regulations as required by the EO that would implement a case-by-case review process for information and communications technology and services (ICTS) that pose unacceptable risks to U.S. national security or the safety of Americans. While the executive order provided Commerce with the authority to exempt classes of ICTS, it has chosen not to do so at this point. In the same vein, Commerce could have found that a class of technology or services posed undue risks and, per the EO, could have summarily barred the import and sale of these items. And yet, Commerce has not chosen to do that either even though it would have likely pleased many in Congress if Commerce had barred Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese services and products. Nonetheless, a final rule has not been issued, amid reports of stakeholders inside and outside the Administration pushing to change or spike the rule.

Per the direction in the EO, Commerce “proposes to implement regulations that would govern the process and procedures that the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) will use to identify, assess, and address certain information and communications technology and services transactions that pose an undue risk to critical infrastructure or the digital economy in the United States, or an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the safety of United States persons.” Specifically, the EO “grants the [Commerce] the authority to prohibit any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology or service (a “transaction”) subject to United States’ jurisdiction where the Secretary, in consultation with other relevant agency heads, determines that the transaction:

(i) Involves property in which a foreign country or national has an interest;

(ii) includes 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

(iii) poses certain undue risks to critical infrastructure or the digital economy in the United States or certain unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or U.S. persons.

Commerce is proposing “a process by which the Secretary will determine whether a particular transaction should be prohibited.” Commerce stated that “[a] transaction that meets the following conditions will be subject to review by the Secretary and may require mitigation, prohibition, or an unwinding of the transaction if determined to be prohibited:

(1) The transaction is conducted by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or involves property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;

(2) the transaction involves any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has an interest (including through an interest in a contract for the provision of the technology or service); and

(3) the transaction was initiated, pending, or completed after May 15, 2019, regardless of when any contract applicable to the transaction was entered into, dated or signed, or when any license, permit, or authorization applicable to such transaction was granted. Transactions involving certain ongoing activities, including but not limited to managed services, software updates, or repairs, would constitute transactions that was completed on or after May 15, 2019 even if a contract was entered into prior to May 15, 2019.

Commerce is therefore proposing “a case-by-case, fact-specific approach to determine those transactions that meet the requirements set forth in the Executive order and are therefore prohibited or must be mitigated…[that] allows for the deliberative application of the authority granted to the Secretary by the President in the EO as the Secretary seeks to calibrate properly the application of this new authority.” Commerce contended that “[a] case-by-case application of this authority would allow the Secretary to target and prohibit transactions that meet the EO criteria, without unintentionally prohibiting other transactions involving similar ICTS that may not rise to the level of presenting an undue risk to critical infrastructure or the digital economy in the United States or an unacceptable risk to national security or the safety of U.S. persons.” Commerce asserted that “[t]his approach would also ensure that the Department does not inadvertently preclude innovation or access to technology in the United States.”

In terms of implementation, Commerce will decide whether the particular circumstances of a potentially prohibited transaction may meet” [the above three-part criteria]. Commerce may initiate this process, or at the behest of another federal agency, including the the Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC). In either case, Commerce will determine whether the identified transaction should be prohibited or mitigated in consultation with other agencies as necessary. Commerce would notify the parties involved in the flagged transaction once a preliminary decision has been made and the bases for the determination. Commerce “would assess, for example, whether a party to a transaction is owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary, and whether the use of a certain class of ICTS or transactions by particular classes of users present an undue or unacceptable risk.” Within 30 days after being notified of a determination, a party may submit its opposition and information arguing against the agency’s finding. 30 days after receiving such a submission, Commerce must issue its final decision to either prohibit the transaction; not prohibit the transaction; or “require measures and specific timeframes to mitigate risks identified during an evaluation as a precondition of approving a transaction that may otherwise be prohibited.” In any event, this determination must be in writing and an unclassified version would be released, and Commerce would safeguard and not release any classified information involving the transaction or the deliberative process.

Finally, as noted, Commerce opted against excluding or exempting any classes of ICTS at this time:

The EO also authorizes the Secretary to exempt certain classes of transactions from the EO’s restrictions if the Secretary determines (for example, because of the nature or capabilities of the ICTS involved or the characteristics of the purchaser or ultimate user) that such transactions do not present an undue or unacceptable risk or are outside the scope of the EO. The EO also authorizes the Secretary to prohibit transactions as a class if the Secretary determines that such class of transactions pose an undue or unacceptable risk. The proposed rule does not recognize particular technologies or particular participants in the market for ICTS as categorically included or excluded from the prohibitions established by the EO. If, in the future, the Secretary determines that it is appropriate to designate classes of transactions for categorical inclusion or exclusion, further guidance will be issued at that time.

In the other related action, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) stated that its Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) “announced plans to protect U.S. national security by restricting Huawei’s ability to use U.S. technology and software to design and manufacture its semiconductors abroad” per the agency’s press release. BIS released an interim final rule that takes effect as of 15 May, but the agency is accepting comments through 14 July, meaning there will be a final rule issued at some point in the future once the comments have been analyzed and addressed. Nevertheless, Commerce claimed the BIS interim final rule “cuts off Huawei’s efforts to undermine U.S. export controls.”

Commerce stated

  • BIS is amending its longstanding foreign-produced direct product rule and the Entity List to narrowly and strategically target Huawei’s acquisition of semiconductors that are the direct product of certain U.S. software and technology.
  • Since 2019 when BIS added Huawei Technologies and 114 of its overseas-related affiliates to the Entity List, companies wishing to export U.S. items were required to obtain a license.[1]  However, Huawei has continued to use U.S. software and technology to design semiconductors, undermining the national security and foreign policy purposes of the Entity List by commissioning their production in overseas foundries using U.S. equipment.
  • Specifically, this targeted rule change will make the following foreign-produced items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR):
  • Items, such as semiconductor designs, when produced by Huawei and its affiliates on the Entity List (e.g., HiSilicon), that are the direct product of certain U.S. Commerce Control List (CCL) software and technology; and
  • Items, such as chipsets, when produced from the design specifications of Huawei or an affiliate on the Entity List (e.g., HiSilicon), that are the direct product of certain CCL semiconductor manufacturing equipment located outside the United States.  Such foreign-produced items will only require a license when there is knowledge that they are destined for reexport, export from abroad, or transfer (in-country) to Huawei or any of its affiliates on the Entity List.

Commerce added that “[t]o prevent immediate adverse economic impacts on foreign foundries utilizing U.S. semiconductor manufacturing equipment that have initiated any production step for items based on Huawei design specifications as of May 15, 2020, such foreign-produced items are not subject to these new licensing requirements so long as they are reexported, exported from abroad, or transferred (in-country) by 120 days from the effective date.”

The PRC’s Commerce Ministry posted a statement, arguing “[t]he U.S. uses state power, under the so-called excuse of national security, and abuses export control measures to continuously oppress and contain specific enterprises of other countries.” The Ministry vowed the PRC will “take all necessary measures to resolutely safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises.”

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