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 Starts Consideration of Its NDAA

The House will consider scores of amendments to change US technology policy, including a number of implement the recommendations of a congressional cybersecurity panel. However, some may not be in the final NDAA.

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.

As is almost always the case, House Members are using the occasion of the annual consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to offer a range of amendments to the House Rules Committee. Hundreds of amendments were submitted, and at the 17 July hearing, the Committee determined which would be made in order and allow to be debated on the House floor, including scores of technology amendments. Many of these amendments to the “William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021” (H.R.6395) would change US technology policy and funding, and some are complete bills the House has already passed, for inclusion in the NDAA increases the chances of enactment. Among the higher profile amendments made in order is one offered by Cyberspace Solarium Commission members that would establish a National Cyber Director position in the White House that the Senate declined to include in its FY 2021 NDAA, suggesting addition to the House’s bill does not necessarily this provision will make it into law.

Earlier today, the House began its consideration of H.R.6395, which may take up the better part of the week. The House Rules Committee made the following amendments in order to be offered during debate that pertain to technology:

The House Armed Services Committee has also released its Committee Report in two parts (Volume I and II) and detailed the overall funding authorized by the package:

H.R. 6395 supports an overall authorization of $740.5 billion dollars for our national defense. H.R. 6395 would authorize approximately $662.6 billion in discretionary spending for national defense and approximately $69.0 billion in discretionary spending for Over-seas Contingency Operations. This authorization level will allow our military to maintain readiness, expand capabilities, and invest in the new software and technologies required to secure our country.

The committee included a number of requests and directives of the DOD and other agencies, including but not limited to:

  • Report on Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification
    • The committee acknowledges that the Department of Defense has taken initial steps to ensure that its contractors are aware of the actions necessary to protect the government’s data and networks from cybersecurity threats. However, the committee is concerned that there remain key unanswered questions about how it will implement its cybersecurity framework, especially given the level of collaboration necessary between industry and government for its success. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by January 15, 2021, regarding the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program.
  • Report on Ties between Russia and China
    • The Department of Defense has acknowledged that China and Russia are increasingly working in cooperation on a wide range of matters, including economically, politically, and militarily; and that the Department believes the growing ties between Russia and China are challenging the rules-based order and present a threat to U.S. national security interests. The committee notes that the National Defense Strategy highlights the joint force’s eroding competitive edge against China and Russia. The committee endeavors to fully understand the extent of the ties between Russia and China. Therefore, the committee directs the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees and the congressional intelligence committees by March 1, 2021, on the relationship between China and Russia.
  • Fourth Estate Network Optimization
    • The committee recognizes the importance of creating efficiencies and cost savings within the Fourth Estate and across the Department of Defense, to include the consolidation of information technology services away from legacy common use information technology services into a single service provider (SSP). The committee notes that on August 15, 2019 the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to execute such consolidation under the Fourth Estate Network Optimization (4ENO) effort over the period of fiscal year 2020 to fiscal year 2024. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than February 1, 2021, on the status of the consolidation effort, including details on the schedule and plan for consolidation, progress on the transition of each Defense Agency and Field Activity (DAFA) from common use information technology services into the SSP environment, the list of assets and services being transitioned, a list of assets and services remaining within each DAFA, a justification for assets not transitioned, and the reallocation of funding as a result of the transition.
  • GAO Assessment on DOD Cyber Incident Management Efforts
    • The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) has experienced a number of high-profile breaches to Department of Defense (DOD) systems and networks. For example, in July 2015, a phishing attack on the Joint Chiefs of Staff unclassified email servers resulted in the system being shut down for more than a week while cyber experts rebuilt the network, affecting the work of roughly 4,000 military and civilian personnel. In 2018, DOD disclosed a data breach to its contracted travel management system that allegedly affected approximately 30,000 military and civilian employees. In 2020, DOD similarly acknowledged that the Defense Information Systems Agency networks were breached that reportedly resulted in the personal data of approximately 200,000 network users being compromised.
    • The committee is concerned that while DOD established the Joint Force Headquarters–DOD Information Network (JFHQ– DODIN) to operationalize and defend DOD systems and networks, other DOD components still view these systems and networks as an administrative capability. Cyber incidents, such as those identified above, can disrupt critical military operations, lead to inappropriate access to and modification of sensitive information, result in long-term financial obligations for credit monitoring, and threaten national security. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide the congressional defense committees with an assessment of DOD management of cyber incidents and efforts to mitigate future cyber incidents.
  • GAO Study and Report on Electronic Continuity of Operations on the Department of Defense
    • The committee notes the centrality of electronic command, control, and communications to Department of Defense continuity of operations. To ensure that the committee is fully informed of how the Department of Defense is addressing issues related to the risk to electronic communications, the committee requests that the Comptroller General of the United States conduct a study of electronic communications continuity of operations of the Department of Defense.
  • Information Technology Asset Management and Inventory
    • The committee commends the Department of Defense for the considerable improvement made on information technology, asset discovery, and asset management. However, the committee believes the Department would benefit from an established process for auditing software and hardware inventories. The lack of a single policy framework hinders the capacity of the Department to discover license duplication and the Department is at risk of wasting valuable resources on redundant or underutilized hardware and software. The Department also lacks real-time discovery of and visibility over its network attack surface, particularly its forward-facing internet assets and Department assets held in cloud environments, resulting in increased risk of exposures exploitable by malicious adversaries. The private sector has successfully navigated this challenge through the use of automated software tools widely available on the commercial market.
    • The committee directs the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense, in coordination with chief information officers of the military services, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than March 1, 2021, on the processes in place for asset discovery and management of hardware and software products.
  • Internet Architecture Security
    • The committee recognizes that the internet is inextricable and central to the American way of life, and the architecture that enables internet communications is layered, complex, and multi-faceted. The committee notes that this architecture includes high-capacity cables laid underground and underseas, cable landing stations that connect cables from continent to continent, and internet exchange points that serve as clearinghouses for data between Internet Service Providers and content delivery networks; all of which are required for the internet to operate. The committee recognizes that the executive branch has assigned responsibility for components or sectors of critical infrastructure to various executive branch departments and agencies, and internet architecture is approached in a fractured and piecemeal fashion, with multiple government stakeholder entities claiming responsibility. The committee is concerned that the lack of direction on the subject of internet architecture security creates significant risks to the nation. Consequently, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2021, to examine the issue of internet architecture security.
  • Report and GAO Briefing on DOD Cyber Hygiene and Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Framework
    • Given the importance of implementing cyber hygiene practices that could effectively protect DOD missions, information, and systems and networks, we direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the defense committees identifying the extent to which each of the DOD components have implemented cyber hygiene practices and levels identified in the CMMC framework. For each DOD component that does not achieve level 3 status (referred to as ‘‘good cyber hygiene’’ in CMMC Model ver. 1.02), the head of the component is to provide the Congressional defense committees, the DOD Chief Information Officer, the commander of JFHQ–DODIN a plan on how the component will implement those security measures within one year and mitigate potential consequences until those practices are implemented. In order to aid in the under-standing of what cyber hygiene practices have been and have not been implemented by the DOD that the department requires private sector companies to implement before they receive a contract where they would have access to controlled unclassified information, the Secretary of Defense shall submit the DOD report to the Congressional defense committees and the Comptroller General of the United States by March 1, 2021. The committee further directs the Comptroller General to conduct an independent review of the Secretary’s report and provide a briefing to the Congressional defense committees no later than the end of the fiscal year.
  • Department of Defense Artificial Intelligence Capabilities and Strategy
    • The committee believes that global leadership in artificial intelligence (AI) technology is a national security priority. In 2018, the Department of Defense issued a department-wide AI strategy to provide direction for AI development. As the Department increases its investments in AI, machine learning, and other automation technologies, the committee believes that the Department’s re-sources, capabilities, and plans should continue to ensure U.S. competitive advantage over potential adversaries. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide the committee with an assessment of the Department’s resources, capabilities, and plans for AI.

© 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 David Mark from Pixabay

Further Reading and Other Developments (17 July)

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

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

Other Developments

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

Further Reading

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

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

Europe’s Highest Court Strikes Down Privacy Shield

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a summary of its decision, the CJEU explained

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

The CJEU found

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The DPC issued a statement in which it asserted

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

The DPC added

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

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

European Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders stated

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

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

In a statement, US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross

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

Ross continued

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

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

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

Image by harakir from Pixabay

FTC Settles A Pair of Privacy Shield Cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NTT Global Data Centers must also

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by ipse dixit on Unsplash

House Action On FISA Fizzles; A Conference Committee Is Requested

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.

Despite House Democratic leadership’s plans to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reauthorization the Senate sent back to the House earlier this month, plans for a vote last week were scrapped when the coalition that made possible passage of substantially the same bill in March fell apart. Instead, the House voted for a motion to disagree with the Senate’s amendments, to request a conference, and to appoint conferees. It remains to be seen whether the Senate opts to go to conference with the House, but a statement from a spokesperson for the Senate Majority Leader suggested he would support doing so. In the meantime, intelligence and law enforcement agencies cannot use the authorities the bill would renew and reform for they expired on 15 March except for investigations that started before that date.

At week’s beginning, it appeared as if the House would bring the amended “USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020” (H.R. 6172) to the floor and possibly take a run at adding language that barely failed to get added during debate in the Senate that would further pare back the ability of federal law enforcement agencies to use the FISA process for surveillance. However, the Trump Administration more forcefully stated its objections to the amended bill, including a veto threat issued via Twitter, that caused Republican support for the bill to cave, and with it the chances of passage, for Republican votes were needed to pass the bill in the first place. Consequently, House Democratic Leadership explored the possibility of a clean vote on the Senate-amended bill, with the House Rules Committee reporting a rule for debate, but this effort was also scuttled as there were not the votes for passage of the bill, sending it to the White House. Instead, House Democratic Leadership opted to go to conference committee, which succeeded in a 284-122 proxy vote, one of the first taken under the new procedure. Thereafter, the House named the following conferees: House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-OH); House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA).

House Democratic plans on the FISA reauthorization went from amendment to passing the bill the Senate passed to requesting a conference after the Democratic-Republican coalition that got the bill out of the House in March crumbled.  

As noted, this week, the Trump Administration’s opposition has stiffened with the President getting on the field via Twitter, the Department of Justice (DOJ) publicly stating its opposition, and House Republican leadership urging its Members to vote no on H.R.6172. Moreover, progressive Democrats and allied advocacy groups were pushing House Democratic Leadership to adopt provisions blocking the collection and surveillance of web browsing and search engine history under Section 215. Also, some House Democrats had announced their intention to vote against H.R. 6172 regardless of whether the Section 215 narrowing was added, and so it was not clear the Speaker had the votes to pass a bill the President had vowed to veto anyway.

On 26 May, President Donald Trump tweeted “I hope all Republican House Members vote NO on FISA until such time as our Country is able to determine how and why the greatest political, criminal, and subversive scandal in USA history took place!” On 27 May, Trump tweeted

If the FISA Bill is passed tonight on the House floor, I will quickly VETO it. Our Country has just suffered through the greatest political crime in its history. The massive abuse of FISA was a big part of it!

Also on 27 May, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd released the following statement on H.R.6172:

The Department worked closely with House leaders on both sides of the aisle to draft legislation to reauthorize three national security authorities in the U.S.A. Freedom Act while also imposing reforms to other aspects of FISA designed to address issues identified by the DOJ Inspector General. Although that legislation was approved with a large, bipartisan House majority, the Senate thereafter made significant changes that the Department opposed because they would unacceptably impair our ability to pursue terrorists and spies. We have proposed specific fixes to the most significant problems created by the changes the Senate made. Instead of addressing those issues, the House is now poised to further amend the legislation in a manner that will weaken national security tools while doing nothing to address the abuses identified by the DOJ Inspector General.

Accordingly, the Department opposes the Senate-passed bill in its current form and also opposes the Lofgren amendment in the House. Given the cumulative negative effect of these legislative changes on the Department’s ability to identify and track terrorists and spies, the Department must oppose the legislation now under consideration in the House. If passed, the Attorney General would recommend that the President veto the legislation.

And yet this week, the head of the DOJ’s National Security Division John Demers said there is no pressing need for reauthorization at this time. He remarked in an interview:

We’re going to have to look at where we can fill in the gaps using criminal tools. They’re not perfect. Foreign partners are not crazy when we use their information as the basis of criminal tools, because we don’t have the same protections that we do to protect underlying information as we do on the national security side. We are going to do the best we can to fill those holes and keep those investigations going.

Two weeks ago, following Senate amendment and passage of H.R.6172, a DOJ spokesperson said of the bill, it “would unacceptably degrade our ability to conduct surveillance of terrorists, spies and other national security threats.”

Early in the week, Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Warren Davidson (R-OH) submitted an amendment along the lines of the language Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Steve Daines (R-MT) that the Senate rejected by one vote to bar the collection of web browsing and internet search history via a FISA order under Section 215. Lofgren and Davidson had negotiated with other House Democratic stakeholders on language acceptable to them.

Regarding their amendment, in their press release, Lofgren and Davidson claimed “[t]he amendment – which is supported by Reps. Adam Schiff, Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee – is an outright prohibition: the government will not be able to use Section 215 to collect the websites that a U.S. person visits, the videos that a U.S. person watches, or the search queries that a U.S. person makes…[and] [s]pecifically:

  • If the government is not sure if you’re a U.S. person, but you could be, the government cannot get your internet activity without a Title I FISA warrant.
  • If the government wants to order a service provider to produce a list of everyone who has visited a particular website, watched a particular video, or made a particular search query: the government cannot make that order unless it can guarantee that no U.S. persons’ IP addresses, device identifiers, or other identifiers will be disclosed to the government.
    • This amendment does not allow for the incidental collection of U.S. persons’ web browsing or search information when the target is a specific-selection term that would or could produce such information.
  • This prohibition is a strict liability-type provision. (It isn’t a knowledge standard or a reasonable-belief standard. An order must not result in the production of a U.S. person’s web browsing or search information.)
  • If the order would or could result in the production of a U.S. person’s web browsing or search information, the government cannot order it without a Title I FISA warrant that must be narrowly tailored toward the subject of the warrant.

It appeared this amendment would be made in order during debate, but opposition from both the left and right in the House and among stakeholders made this untenable. The fact that the Lofgren/Davidson amendment was narrower in that it would only provide this protection to people in the United States whereas the Wyden/Daines amendment would have outright barred the practice under FISA led to opposition on the left. Early on 27 May, Wyden supported this language, but when House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) suggested that intelligence agencies could continue to collect web browsing and search histories of Americans, Wyden withdrew his support. Thereafter, House Democratic Leadership ultimately decided against allowing this amendment to have a vote.

In December, Lofgren and Davidson were among the Members who introduced the “Safeguarding Americans’ Private Records Act of 2020” (H.R.5675/S.3242) in both chambers. In their press release, the sponsors claimed “[t]he bill includes a host of reforms:

  • It would permanently end the flawed phone surveillance program, which secretly scooped up Americans’ telephone records for years.
  • It would close loopholes and prohibit secret interpretation of the law, like those that led to unconstitutional warrantless surveillance programs.
  • It would prohibit warrantless collection of geolocation information by intelligence agencies.
  • It would respond to issues raised by the Inspector General’s office by ensuring independent attorneys, known as amici, have access to all documents, records and proceedings of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to provide more oversight and transparency.

Notably, beyond revoking the authority for the NSA to restart the telephone collection program, the bill would also exclude from the definition of “tangible thing” in the Section 215 business records exception: Cell site location information, Global positioning system information, Internet website browsing information, and Internet search history information. The bill also contains language that would limit the use of Section 215 to only counterterrorism and foreign intelligence matters and limit the retention of any such material to three years unless it includes foreign intelligence. Moreover, the bill would increase the justification requirements the government must meet before a nondisclosure requirement (aka gag order) can be placed on a company subject to a Section 215 order.

Two week ago, the Senate amended and passed H.R. 6172 by an 80-16 vote. Consideration of the bill was stalled in March when some Senators pushed for amendments, a demand to which the Senate Majority Leader finally agreed, provided these amendments would need 60 votes to be adopted. Consequently, once COVID-19 legislation had been considered, the Senate returned to H.R.6172, and debated and voted upon three amendments, one of which was agreed to. Senators Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Mike Lee’s (R-UT) amendment to expand the amicus process during the FISA process prevailed by a 77-19 vote. In an op-ed in The Washington Post, Leahy and Lee argued

  • The key to our proposal is to substantially strengthen a program that currently allows FISA judges, in very limited circumstances, to appoint outside legal scholars — called “amici”— to independently analyze FBI surveillance requests that are particularly sensitive. Out of thousands of cases, FISA judges have called for such an independent review by a court-appointed “amicus” only 16 times. Yet this protection is critical because, unlike every courtroom you may have stepped into or any court in a TV drama, the FISA court is not adversarial — meaning there is only a government lawyer and a judge, but no one to advocate for Americans under surveillance.
  • We propose measures that would authorize and actively encourage judges in this secret court to seek independent amicus reviews in all sensitive cases — such as those involving significant First Amendment issues — thereby adding a layer of protection for those who will likely never know they have been targeted for secret surveillance.

As mentioned, Wyden and Daines offered an amendment to narrow the Section 215 exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that a search requires a warrant. Section 215 currently allows for FISA court approved searches of business records and all tangible things in the course of a national security investigation, and the underlying text of H.R. 6172 would exclude cell site location and GPS location from Section 215. The Wyden/Daines amendment would also exclude web browsing and search engine histories.

As Wyden explained during debate,

With web browsing and searches, you are talking about some of the most intimate, some of the most personal, some of the most private details of the lives of Americans. Every thought that can come into people’s heads can be revealed in an internet search or in a visit to a website: their health histories, their medical fears, their political views, their romantic lives, their religious beliefs. Collecting this information is as close to reading minds as surveillance can get. It is the digital mining of the personal lives of the American people.

However, the amendment failed to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary for adoption under the rule of debate for H.R. 6172, failing by one vote as four Senators did not vote.

As for the underlying bill the Senate considered, in March, the House passed H.R. 6172 by a 278-136 vote, a bill to reauthorize three expiring FISA provisions used by the National Security Agency (NSA) primarily to conduct surveillance: the business records exception, roving wiretaps, and the “lone wolf” provision. These authorities had been extended in December 2019 to March 15, 2020. However, the Senate did not act immediately on the bill and opted instead to send a 77-day extension of these now lapsed authorities to the House, which did not to take up the bill. The Senate was at an impasse on how to proceed, for some Members did not favor the House reforms while others wanted to implement further changes to the FISA process. Consequently, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) promised amendment votes when the Senate took up H.R.6172.

Moreover, H.R. 6172 ends the NSA’s ability to use the so-called call detail record (CDR) program that had allowed the agency to access data on many billions of calls. Nonetheless, the NSA shut down the program in 2018 due to what it termed technical problems. This closure of the program was included in the bill even though the Trump Administration had explicitly requested it also be reauthorized.

As mentioned, H.R. 6172 would reauthorize the business records exception, which includes “any tangible thing,” in FISA first instituted in the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 but would reform certain aspects of the program. For example, if the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or NSA is seeking a business record under FISA for which a law enforcement agency would need to obtain a warrant, then the FBI or NSA will also need to obtain a warrant. Currently, this is not the case. Additionally, under H.R.6172, the FISA application process under Section 215 could not be used to obtain a person’s cell site location or GPS information. However, the FBI or NSA would still be able to use Title I of FISA to seek cell site location or GPS data for purposes of conducting electronic surveillance related to alleged foreign intelligence. The bill would require that prosecutors must inform defendants of the evidence derived from electronic surveillance unless doing so would harm national security.

Moreover, records obtained under Section 215 could be retained no longer than five years subject to a number of exceptions that may serve to make this limitation a dead letter. For example, if such records are deemed to have a “secret meaning” or are certified by the FBI as being vital to national security, then such records may be held longer than five years. Given the tendency of agencies to read their authority as broadly as possible and the past record of IC agencies, it is likely these authorities will be stretched as far as legally possible. It bears note that all restrictions are prospective, meaning that current, ongoing uses of Section 215 would be exempted. The business records provision would be extended until December 1, 2023 as are the other two expiring authorities that permit so-called roving wiretaps and allow for surveillance of so-called “lone wolves.”

For FISA applications under Title I (i.e. electronic surveillance), any agency seeking a FISA order to surveil will need to disclose to the FISA court any information that may call into question the accuracy of the application or any doubtful information. Moreover, certain FISA applications to surveil Americans or residents would need to spell out the proposed investigative techniques to the FISA court. Moreover, any FISA application targeting U.S. officials or candidates for federal office must be approved by the Attorney General in writing before they can be submitted. H.R.6172 would permit the suspension or removal of any federal official, employee, or contractor for misconduct before the FISA court and increases criminal liability for violating FISA from five to eight years. Most of these reforms seem aimed at those Members, many of whom are Republican, that were alarmed by the defects in the FISA surveillance process of Trump Campaign associate Cater Page as turned up by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General investigation. Some of these Members were opposed to the House Judiciary Committee’s initial bill, which they thought did not implement sufficient reforms to the larger FISA process.

© 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.

Senate Amends FISA Reauthorization; Bill Goes Back To House

A bill to renew three lapsed surveillance provisions was changed during debate, and it is unclear when the House would take up the bill.  

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

The Senate sent an amended version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reauthorization back to the House without a clear timeline as to when that body will take up this bill. The Senate adopted one amendment to bolster the FISA amicus and disclosure process, narrowly failed to adopt another to exclude web browsing information and search history outside the scope of Section 215, and handily rejected an amendment to limit the use of FISA against United States persons.

In March, the House passed the “USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020” (H.R. 6172) by a 278-136 vote, a bill to reauthorize three expiring FISA provisions used by the National Security Agency (NSA) primarily to conduct surveillance: the business records exception, roving wiretaps, and the “lone wolf” provision. These authorities had been extended in December 2019 to March 15, 2020. However, the Senate did not act immediately on the bill and opted instead to send a 77-day extension of these now lapsed authorities to the House, which did not to take up the bill. The Senate was at an impasse on how to proceed, for some Members did not favor the House reforms while others wanted to implement further changes to the FISA process.

Moreover, H.R. 6172 ends the NSA’s ability to use the so-called call detail record (CDR) program that had allowed the agency to access data on many billions of calls. Nonetheless, the NSA shut down the program in 2018 due to what it termed technical problems. This closure of the program was included in the bill even though the Trump Administration had explicitly requested it also be reauthorized.

As mentioned, H.R. 6172 would reauthorize the business records exception, which includes “any tangible thing,” in FISA first instituted in the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 but would reform certain aspects of the program. For example, if the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or NSA is seeking a business record under FISA for which a law enforcement agency would need to obtain a warrant, then the FBI or NSA will also need to obtain a warrant. Currently, this is not the case. Additionally, under H.R.6172, the FISA application process under Section 215 could not be used to obtain a person’s cell site location or GPS information. However, the FBI or NSA would still be able to use Title I of FISA to seek cell site location or GPS data for purposes of conducting electronic surveillance related to alleged foreign intelligence. The bill would require that prosecutors must inform defendants of the evidence derived from electronic surveillance unless doing so would harm national security.

Moreover, records obtained under Section 215 could be retained no longer than five years subject to a number of exceptions that may serve to make this limitation a dead letter. For example, if such records are deemed to have a “secret meaning” or are certified by the FBI as being vital to national security, then such records may be held longer than five years. Given the tendency of agencies to read their authority as broadly as possible and the past record of IC agencies, it is likely these authorities will be stretched as far as legally possible. It bears note that all restrictions are prospective, meaning that current, ongoing uses of Section 215 would be exempted. The business records provision would be extended until December 1, 2023 as are the other two expiring authorities that permit so-called roving wiretaps and allow for surveillance of so-called “lone wolves.”

For FISA applications under Title I (i.e. electronic surveillance), any agency seeking a FISA order to surveil will need to disclose to the FISA court any information that may call into question the accuracy of the application or any doubtful information. Moreover, certain FISA applications to surveil Americans or residents would need to spell out the proposed investigative techniques to the FISA court. Moreover, any FISA application targeting U.S. officials or candidates for federal office must be approved by the Attorney General in writing before they can be submitted. H.R.6172 would permit the suspension or removal of any federal official, employee, or contractor for misconduct before the FISA court and increases criminal liability for violating FISA from five to eight years. Most of these reforms seem aimed at those Members, many of whom are Republican, that were alarmed by the defects in the FISA surveillance process of Trump Campaign associate Cater Page as turned up by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General investigation. Some of these Members were opposed to the House Judiciary Committee’s initial bill, which they thought did not implement sufficient reforms to the larger FISA process.

Like the bill the House Judiciary Committee was to mark up, the “USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020” would set a six-month deadline for the Director of National Intelligence to declassify significant FISA opinions, orders, and decisions. The bill also beefs up the adversarial procedures in the FISA process by expanding the process by which amici curiae are expanded and their ability to ability FISA decisions to the FISA review court would also be expanded. Additionally, both FISA courts and the FISA review court would be empowered to seek outside legal counsel.

The Intelligence Committees would see their power increased to seek and obtain FISA applications in order to conduct oversight of the FISA process.

Finally, the powers of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) to oversee the FISA process would also be expanded. PCLOB would need to report on the extent to which FISA investigations are arising from protected First Amendment activities and from protected characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and others. There are broader PCLOB reforms that, for example, lengthen PCLOB members’ terms to six years and allows them to serve past the six-year mark until a successor is confirmed by the Senate as is the case with many other agencies.

Senators Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Mike Lee (R-UT) succeeded in having their amendment to expand the amicus process expanded during the FISA process by a 77-19 vote. In an op-ed in The Washington Post, Leahy and Lee argued

  • The key to our proposal is to substantially strengthen a program that currently allows FISA judges, in very limited circumstances, to appoint outside legal scholars — called “amici”— to independently analyze FBI surveillance requests that are particularly sensitive. Out of thousands of cases, FISA judges have called for such an independent review by a court-appointed “amicus” only 16 times. Yet this protection is critical because, unlike every courtroom you may have stepped into or any court in a TV drama, the FISA court is not adversarial — meaning there is only a government lawyer and a judge, but no one to advocate for Americans under surveillance.
  • We propose measures that would authorize and actively encourage judges in this secret court to seek independent amicus reviews in all sensitive cases — such as those involving significant First Amendment issues — thereby adding a layer of protection for those who will likely never know they have been targeted for secret surveillance.

Leahy elaborated during floor debate:

  • My amendment with Senator Lee would create a presumption of amici participation in cases involving significant First Amendment issues, not just “exceptional concerns” as in the House bill. Importantly, we also create a presumption of amici participation when the FBI considers the case to be a “sensitive investigative matter” which the FBI would call an investigation involving the domestic media, a domestic religious organization, or a public official. I think all of us should agree that in those instances we ought to have somebody independently looking at them.
  • Most critically, though, we would leave the decision to appoint amici entirely up to the FISA judge. Even if it would fall into all of these categories they could still say no. As a result, the argument that the expanded amici participation would duly burden the court doesn’t even withstand the slightest scrutiny. If the judge believes amici would not be appropriate because the case is too time sensitive or too simple or too routine or for any other reason–any other reason–they have the discretion to not appoint amici at all. Under our amendment, throughout the FISA process, the judge maintains complete control. It is not a burden on the court. What it is doing is empowering the court. It is up to them.

Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Steve Daines (R-MT) offered an amendment to narrow the Section 215 exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that a search requires a warrant. Section 215 currently allows for FISA court approved searches of business records and all tangible things in the course of a national security investigation, and H.R. 6172 would, as noted, exclude cell site location and GPS location from Section 215.

As Wyden explained during debate,

With web browsing and searches, you are talking about some of the most intimate, some of the most personal, some of the most private details of the lives of Americans. Every thought that can come into people’s heads can be revealed in an internet search or in a visit to a website: their health histories, their medical fears, their political views, their romantic lives, their religious beliefs. Collecting this information is as close to reading minds as surveillance can get. It is the digital mining of the personal lives of the American people.

However, the amendment failed to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary for adoption under the rule of debate for H.R. 6172, failing by one vote as four Senators did not vote.

Finally, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) offered an amendment “to prohibit the use of  authorities  under  [FISA]  to  surveil  United  States  persons  and  to  prohibit  the  use of information acquired under such Act in  any  criminal,  civil,  or  administrative  proceeding or as part of any criminal, civil, or  administrative  investigation,  and  for  other purposes.” Paul’s amendment would bar the use of FISA for the following:

(1)  electronic surveillance of a United  States person;

(2)  a  physical  search  of  a  premises, information, material,  or  property used  exclusively  by, or under the open and exclusive  control of, a United States person;

(3) approval of the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device to obtain information concerning a United States person;

(4) the production of  tangible  things (including  books,  records,  papers,  documents,  and other items) concerning a United States person; or

(5) the  targeting of a United States person for the acquisition of information.

Moreover, prosecutors could not use any such information in court proceedings against U.S. persons if obtained without a warrant issued by a federal court excepting FISA courts.

The amendment failed by an 11-87 vote, and then the Senate sent the amended version of H.R. 6172 back to the House by an 80-16 vote where its path to enactment is not immediately clear, in no small part, due to the extended COVID-19 recess that body has taken. However, the House Rules Committee is taking up a proxy voting measure today that may allow all Members to vote without having to be in Washington. This may allow action much sooner on the bill.

© 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.

OIG Finds More Flaws in FBI FISA Process

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued another report critical of how the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has complied with requirements for submitting applications to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Like the previous report in December 2019 investigating the FISA process that led to surveillance of certain members of the Trump presidential campaign, this report also turned up numerous instances under which the FBI was not meeting the requirements to substantiate claims made in FISA applications. This report comes at a time when four FISA authorities have lapsed as the House and Senate could not agree on a final bill, and the House has declined to pass the Senate’s extension passed before COVID-19 more or less took over the legislative agenda.

The OIG explained

As a result of these findings (i.e. the investigation in FBI surveillance of some Trump campaign operatives), in December 2019, my office initiated an audit to examine more broadly the FBI’s execution of, and compliance with, its Woods Procedures relating to U.S. Persons covering the period from October 2014 to September 2019. As an initial step in our audit, over the past 2 months, we visited 8 FBI field offices of varying sizes and reviewed a judgmentally selected sample of 29 applications relating to U.S. Persons and involving both counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations. This sample was selected from a dataset provided by the FBI that contained more than 700 applications relating to U.S. Persons submitted by those 8 field offices over a 5-year period. The proportion of counterintelligence and counterterrorism applications within our sample roughly models the ratio of the case types within that total of FBI FISA applications. Our initial review of these applications has consisted solely of determining whether the contents of the FBI’s Woods File supported statements of fact in the associated FISA application; our review did not seek to determine whether support existed elsewhere for the factual assertion in the FISA application (such as in the case file), or if relevant information had been omitted from the application. For all of the FISA applications that we have reviewed to date, the period of court-authorized surveillance had been completed and no such surveillance was active at the time of our review.

The OIG stated that “[a]s a result of our audit work to date and as described below, we do not have confidence that the FBI has executed its Woods Procedures in compliance with FBI policy.” The OIG noted that “[s]pecifically, the Woods Procedures mandate compiling supporting documentation for each fact in the FISA application…[and] [a]dherence to the Woods Procedures should result in such documentation as a means toward achievement of the FBI’s policy that FISA applications be ‘scrupulously accurate.’” The OIG stated that “[o]ur lack of confidence that the Woods Procedures are working as intended stems primarily from the fact that:

(1) we could not review original Woods Files for 4 of the 29 selected FISA applications because the FBI has not been able to locate them and, in 3 of these instances, did not know if they ever existed;

(2) our testing of FISA applications to the associated Woods Files identified apparent errors or inadequately supported facts in all of the 25 applications we reviewed, and interviews to date with available agents or supervisors in field offices generally have confirmed the issues we identified;

(3) existing FBI and National Security Division (NSD) oversight mechanisms have also identified deficiencies in documentary support and application accuracy that are similar to those that we have observed to date; and

(4) FBI and NSD officials we interviewed indicated to us that there were no efforts by the FBI to use existing FBI and NSD oversight mechanisms to perform comprehensive, strategic assessments of the efficacy of the Woods Procedures or FISA accuracy, to include identifying the need for enhancements to training and improvements in the process, or increased accountability measures.

However, the OIG cautioned that “[d]uring this initial review, we have not made judgments about whether the errors or concerns we identified were material.” The OIG added that “we do not speculate as to whether the potential errors would have influenced the decision to file the application or the FISC’s decision to approve the FISA application…[and] our review was limited to assessing the FBI’s execution of its Woods Procedures, which are not focused on affirming the completeness of the information in FISA applications.”

This is the second report critical of government surveillance programs in the last month. In March, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB or Board) released its “Report on the Government’s Use of the Call Detail Records Program Under the USA Freedom Act“ that noted that in only two instances did the CDR program turn up intelligence that was unique and valuable despite having collected over 434 million CDRs in 2018. Opponents of the program have seized on the PCLOB’s review to further argue for closing down the CDR program even though the Board did not find any willful violations of the USA FREEDOM Act, the latter point being likely to be used by proponents of the program.

As noted, even though the House passed the “USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020” (H.R. 6172) in early March to reauthorize three expiring Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provisions, shutter the CDR program and implement reforms, the Senate declined to act immediately on the bill and opted instead to send a 77-day extension of these now lapsed authorities to the House, which is currently in recess. The Senate will turn to a reform bill under a process that will allow votes on specified amendments subject to a 60-vote threshold.

Senate Demurs on House-Passed FISA Reauthorization; Sends House A Clean Extension

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

Even though the House passed the “USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020” (H.R. 6172) to reauthorize three expiring Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provisions, the Senate declined to act immediately on the bill and opted instead to send a 77-day extension of these now lapsed authorities to the House, which is currently in recess.

Last week, on March 12, the Senate started the process of invoking cloture on H.R.6172 before the business records exception, roving wiretaps, and the “lone wolf” provision lapsed on March 15 when the current authorization ended. The Senate scheduled a vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill at 5:30 pm on March 16. Thereafter, on the floor, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) twice asked for unanimous consent to pass a clean 45-day extension of the expiring FISA authorities and then the consideration of amendments to H.R. 6172 offered by Members looking to reform and limit FISA, but Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr (R-NC) objected to each request.

Ultimately, instead of proceeding with the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.R.6172, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reached agreement with Lee and other Senators looking to reform FISA to debate H.R.6172 at some point to be determine in the future with only the three following amendments in order as well as side-by-side amendments:

  • Lee’s on “amicus reforms and exculpatory evidence;”
  • Senator Rand Paul’s (R-KY) “on rights of Americans;”
  • Senator Steve Daines’ (R-MT) “on Section 215 web browser/search history data collection prohibition”

However, each amendment would need 60 votes to be adopted instead of the usual majority threshold.

After this agreement was reached, S. 3501 was passed by unanimous consent that would extend the expired FISA authorities until May 30, 2020 and would make them retroactively effective as of March 14, thus eliminating the lapse in authorization.

It remains to be seen what the House will do as it is in recess and will convene tomorrow for a pro forma session at which any Member present could object, thus holding up an extension.

House Passes FISA Reauthorization; Senate To Vote Today

Last week, the House passed the “USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020” (H.R. 6172) by a 278-136 vote, a bill to reauthorize three expiring Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provisions used by the National Security Agency (NSA) primarily to conduct surveillance: the business records exception, roving wiretaps, and the “lone wolf” provision.

However, the Senate started the process of invoking cloture on H.R.6172 before leaving for the weekend, and these authorities lapsed on March 15 when the current authorization ended. The Senate is scheduled to hold a vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill at 5:30 pm. During floor consideration on March 12, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) twice asked for unanimous consent to pass a clean 45-day extension of the expiring FISA authorities and then the consideration of amendments to H.R. 6172 offered by Members looking to reform and limit FISA, but Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr (R-NC) objected to each request.

A few weeks ago, the House Judiciary Committee set a February 26 markup of the bill that had been agreed upon with the House Intelligence Committee. However, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), was dissatisfied with the bill, calling it “so pitiful that it is not even worth pursuing.” She added that “[w]e have the opportunity to reform the system…[and] [w]e should take that opportunity.” Reportedly, Lofgren was going to offer amendments changing the bill to require that an amici curiae be appointed to oppose every government application under FISA to surveil an American and to change the definition of business records to exclude cell phone location, web browsing data, and search history. Information on the other amendments was not made available.

H.R. 6172 would end the controversial Call Detail Record (CDR) program that replaced the bulk telephony metadata program exposed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The NSA had already shut down this program over what it framed as technical issues and deleted all the CDRs acquired from telecommunications companies, and yet, the Trump Administration asked that the program be reauthorized and vowed not to restart it until a need arose for these authorities. However, this request was coolly received by many Republicans and Democrats.

Also, H.R. 6172 would reauthorize the business records exception, which includes “any tangible thing,” in FISA first instituted in the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 but would reform certain aspects of the program. For example, if the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or NSA is seeking a business record under FISA for which a law enforcement agency would need to obtain a warrant, then the FBI or NSA will also need to obtain a warrant. Currently, this is not the case. Additionally, under H.R.6172, the FISA application process under Section 215 could not be used to obtain a person’s cell site location or GPS information. However, the FBI or NSA would still be able to use Title I of FISA to seek cell site location or GPS data for purposes of conducting electronic surveillance related to alleged foreign intelligence. The bill would require that prosecutors must inform defendants of the evidence derived from electronic surveillance unless doing so would harm national security.

Moreover, records obtained under Section 215 could be retained no longer than five years subject to a number of exceptions that may serve to make this limitation a dead letter. For example, if such records are deemed to have a “secret meaning” or are certified by the FBI as being vital to national security, then such records may be held longer than five years. Given the tendency of agencies to read their authority as broadly as possible and the past record of IC agencies, it is likely these authorities will be stretched as far as legally possible. It bears note that all restrictions are prospective, meaning that current, ongoing uses of Section 215 would be exempted. The business records provision would be extended until December 1, 2023 as are the other two expiring authorities that permit so-called roving wiretaps and allow for surveillance of so-called “lone wolves.”

For FISA applications under Title I (i.e. electronic surveillance), any agency seeking a FISA order to surveil will need to disclose to the FISA court any information that may call into question the accuracy of the application or any doubtful information. Moreover, certain FISA applications to surveil Americans or residents would need to spell out the proposed investigative techniques to the FISA court. Moreover, any FISA application targeting U.S. officials or candidates for federal office must be approved by the Attorney General in writing before they can be submitted. H.R.6172 would permit the suspension or removal of any federal official, employee, or contractor for misconduct before the FISA court and increases criminal liability for violating FISA from five to eight years. Most of these reforms seem aimed at those Members, many of whom are Republican, that were alarmed by the defects in the FISA surveillance process of Trump Campaign associate Cater Page as turned up by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General investigation. Some of these Members were opposed to the House Judiciary Committee’s initial bill, which they thought did not implement sufficient reforms to the larger FISA process.

Like the bill the House Judiciary Committee was to mark up, the “USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020” would set a six-month deadline for the Director of National Intelligence to declassify significant FISA opinions, orders, and decisions. The bill also beefs up the adversarial procedures in the FISA process by expanding the process by which amici curiae are expanded and their ability to ability FISA decisions to the FISA review court would also be expanded. Additionally, both FISA courts and the FISA review court would be empowered to seek outside legal counsel.

The Intelligence Committees would see their power increased to seek and obtain FISA applications in order to conduct oversight of the FISA process.

Finally, the powers of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) to oversee the FISA process would also be expanded. PCLOB would need to report on the extent to which FISA investigations are arising from protected First Amendment activities and from protected characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and others. There are broader PCLOB reforms that, for example, lengthen PCLOB members’ terms to six years and allows them to serve past the six-year mark until a successor is confirmed by the Senate as is the case with many other agencies.

During floor debate on H.R. 6172, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrod Nadler (D-NY) explained “[i]t is by no means a perfect bill…[and] [t]here are many other changes to FISA that I would have liked to have seen here, but this bill includes very important reforms:

  • First and foremost, it ends the NSA’s Call Detail Records program, which began as part of a secret and unlawful surveillance project almost 20 years ago.
  • This bill also prohibits the use of Section 215 to acquire information that would otherwise require a warrant in the law enforcement context. Our understanding of the Fourth Amendment has come to recognize a privacy interest in our physical location, and this legislation provides new protections accordingly.
  • As the law continues to evolve, the public will see how the government applies these standards in the FISA court. This bill requires the government to disclose all significant opinions of the FISA court within 180 days.
  • The bill also requires a one-time historical review of all significant opinions issued by the court since its inception.

Nadler stated the bill was changed to address the concerns of stakeholders on the left and right:

  • To address the concerns of those who seek additional guarantees of privacy, we have added new retention limits, new reports to explain key legal issues, and an explicit prohibition on the use of Section 215 to obtain GPS and cell site location information.
  • Other Members asked us to address the deep structural flaws in FISA identified by the inspector general in the report issued late last year. We have done just that. Working with our Republican colleagues, we have mandated additional transparency in FISA applications, created additional scrutiny for cases that involve elected officials, and elevated the consequences for misrepresenting information to the FISA court.

Lofgren argued against passage of the bill:

  • I would like to quote from the American Civil Liberties Union letter received today. The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges us to vote ‘‘no’’ on this bill. They say: ‘‘Over the last several years, it has been abundantly clear that many of our surveillance laws are broken.’’
  • But that, ‘‘disappointingly, the reforms contained in H.R. 6172 are minimal—in many cases merely rep-resenting a codification of the status quo. In addition,’’ the ACLU says, ‘‘the bill contains provisions that would be a step back from even our flawed current law.’’
  • The ACLU goes on to say that ‘‘the bill fails to require that individuals receive appropriate notice and access to information when FISA information is used against them,’’ that ‘‘the bill fails to fully address deficiencies with the FISA court that have led to illegal surveillance,’’ that ‘‘the bill fails to appropriately limit the types of information that can be collected under Section 215,’’ that ‘‘the bill fails to appropriately raise the standard for collecting information under Section 215,’’ and that ‘‘the bill fails to appropriately limit the retention of information collected under Section 215.’