FY 2021 Omnibus and COVID Stimulus Become Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FY 2021 omnibus requires of CISA the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding NTIA programmatic language, the bill provides:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Division U contains two bills pertaining to technology policy:

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

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

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

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

Division FF contains telecommunications provisions:

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

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

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

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

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

© Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog and michaelkans.blog, 2019-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Michael Kans, Michael Kans Blog, and michaelkans.blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Image by forcal35 from Pixabay

Armed Services Committees Agree On Final NDAA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by Michael Afonso on Unsplash

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (26 October)

Further Reading

  •  “Google is giving data to police based on search keywords, court docs show” By Alfred Ng — c|net. Google is responding to keyword warrants where prosecutors ask the company to provide IP addresses for all people who made a certain search within a geographical area during a certain time. In the case discussed in the piece (bizarrely witness intimidation of someone testifying against R. Kelly), a keyword warrant allowed them to locate a person who may have burned down someone’s house. It is likely this warrant will be challenged on Fourth Amendment grounds.
  • Google AI Tech Will Be Used for Virtual Border Wall, CBP Contract Shows” By Lee Fang and Sam Biddle — The Intercept. Google may again be wading into territory its labor force may find objectionable. The United States (U.S.) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will use Google Cloud in its artificial intelligence-driven virtual fence on the U.S.-Mexico border. This may result in employee push back as it did in 2018 when this sort of internal pressure caused Google to walk away from a Department of Defense program, Project Maven. A whistleblower group ferreted out the fact that Google is contracting with CBP, which took some effort considering Google appears to be a subcontractor to a prime contractor.
  • Facebook Manipulated the News You See to Appease Republicans, Insiders Say” By Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery — Mother Jones. In January 2018 Facebook changed its algorithm to try to address the growing toxicity during and after the 2016 election. The supposed solution was to remove untrustworthy information. However, the original test of this new algorithm led to deprioritizing many conservative sources that traffic in misinformation and slanted stories. This was deemed unacceptable from a political point of view, and the opposite was done. A number of liberal media organizations saw their traffic drop off a cliff.
  • Why A Gamer Started A Web Of Disinformation Sites Aimed At Latino Americans” By Kaleigh Rogers and Jaime Longoria — FiveThirtyEight. The reason why a gamer and YouTuber started fake sites aimed at Latinos was profit, nothing else.
  • Twitter and White House deny claims that researcher hacked Trump’s account” By Adi Robertson — The Verge. A Dutch researcher claims the password maga2020 got him into President Donald Trump’s Twitter account even though the White House and Twitter both deny the claim. There is a bizarre tweet Trump sent earlier this month that may, in fact, be the work of this researcher. In any event, he is being coy about whether he sent it or not.

Other Developments

  • The United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) reduced its fine on British Airways (BA) to a ninth of the preliminary total for violations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The ICO has levied a £20 million fine on the airline “for failing to protect the personal and financial details of more than 400,000 of its customers.” In July 2019, the ICO issued a notice of its intention to fine British Airways £183.39 million because the “[p]ersonal data of approximately 500,000 customers were compromised.” After BA made its case, the ICO reduced the fine to £30 million before knocking off another £10 million because of mitigating factors and a British government policy to ease up on businesses during the pandemic. Conceivably, the fine could have been much higher for the GDPR allows for fines of up to 4% of worldwide revenue, and in this case, for the period in question, BA had £12.26 billion in revenue. The ICO explained:
    • The attacker is believed to have potentially accessed the personal data of approximately 429,612 customers and staff. This included names, addresses, payment card numbers and CVV numbers of 244,000 BA customers.
    • Other details thought to have been accessed include the combined card and CVV numbers of 77,000 customers and card numbers only for 108,000 customers.
    • Usernames and passwords of BA employee and administrator accounts as well as usernames and PINs of up to 612 BA Executive Club accounts were also potentially accessed.
    • The ICO found:
      • There were numerous measures BA could have used to mitigate or prevent the risk of an attacker being able to access the BA network. These include:
        • limiting access to applications, data and tools to only that which are required to fulfil a user’s role
        • undertaking rigorous testing, in the form of simulating a cyber-attack, on the business’ systems;
        • protecting employee and third party accounts with multi-factor authentication.
      • Additional mitigating measures BA could have used are listed in the penalty notice.
      • None of these measures would have entailed excessive cost or technical barriers, with some available through the Microsoft Operating System used by BA.
      • Since the attack, BA has made considerable improvements to its IT security.
      • ICO investigators found that BA did not detect the attack on 22 June 2018 themselves but were alerted by a third party more than two months afterwards on 5 September. Once they became aware BA acted promptly and notified the ICO.
      • It is not clear whether or when BA would have identified the attack themselves. This was considered to be a severe failing because of the number of people affected and because any potential financial harm could have been more significant.
  • The Congressionally created Cyberspace Solarium Commission (CSC) issued a white paper “Building a Trusted ICT Supply Chain,” with its assessment as to why the United States (U.S.) no longer has a thriving technological industrial base and how it might again, which is nothing less than a matter of signal importance considering the growing dominance of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in those fields. With the CSC releasing this white paper, it has become another player on the field in U.S. government policy circles proposing how the U.S. may protect its information and communications technology (ICT) supply chain against sabotage, malice, or control by an adversarial power. 
    • The CSC claimed:
      • United States lacks key industrial capacities crucial to the production of essential technologies, including fifth-generation (5G) telecommunications equipment. Among other factors, the willingness of countries such as China to subsidize and support their domestic industries has created the uneven playing field that hinders the competitiveness and, ultimately, the viability of U.S. companies in global markets. The resulting lack of industrial capacity has forced critical dependencies on companies that manufacture in adversary countries, such as China, where companies are beholden to Chinese national intelligence, national cybersecurity, and national security laws. While dependency on foreign production and foreign goods is not inherently bad—indeed, the United States relies on manufacturing and companies headquartered in partner countries such as Finland, Sweden, South Korea, and Taiwan—the U.S. government must emphasize the importance of trusted suppliers, and these dependencies pose three concrete risks to the security of the United States.
    • The CSC explained why fostering a supply chain for ICT in the U.S. will not be easy:
      • Three main challenges confront attempts to rebuild U.S. high-tech manufacturing capacity: (1) lack of patient funding capital, (2) high investment barriers to entry, and (3) standards and intellectual property barriers to entry. These challenges arise from the simple fact that the economics of the hardware industry are not as attractive as those of many other technology sectors. One of the major shortcomings of U.S. efforts to date to secure ICT supply chains is their failure to address how the United States got to this point, where ICT equipment manufacturing and production is a critical economic weakness. In order to craft an effective strategy to rebuild high-tech manufacturing and gain greater industrial independence, policymakers must first understand the challenges to reinvigorating the United States’ high-tech manufacturing industry. Only then can they comprehend why market forces have pushed U.S. high-tech industrial capacity to atrophy over the past two decades and recognize the issues that they must tackle in developing an industrial base strategy.
      • None of these barriers are insurmountable, but the reality is that the United States has lost much of its market share for the manufacture of electronics components and nearly all of its market share for the manufacture and assembly of finished electronics products. Nonetheless, a U.S. strategy to secure its ICT supply chain from all threats must include a plan to identify the key technologies and materials, and then attract more patient investment in hardware manufacturing, devise a method to retrain the atrophied muscles of production, and set the conditions to overcome barriers to entry posed by the constraints of standards and intellectual property.
    • The CSC “specifies a strategy to build trusted supply chains for critical ICT by:
      • Identifying key technologies and equipment through government reviews and public-private partnerships to identify risk.
      • Ensuring minimum viable manufacturing capacity through both strategic investment and the creation of economic clusters.
      • Protecting supply chains from compromise through better intelligence, information sharing, and product testing.
      • Stimulating a domestic market through targeted infrastructure investment and ensuring the ability of firms to offer products in the United States similar to those offered in foreign markets.
      • Ensuring global competitiveness of trusted supply chains, including American and partner companies, in the face of Chinese anti-competitive behavior in global markets.
    • The CSC also highlighted “five key and eight supporting recommendations to build trusted supply chains for critical ICT technologies:
      • Supply Chain 1: Congress should direct the executive branch to develop and implement an information and communication technologies industrial base strategy.
      • Supply Chain 2: Congress should direct the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of State, and other departments and agencies, to identify key information and communication technologies and materials through industry consultation and government review.
      • Supply Chain 3: Congress should direct the Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense, to conduct a viability study of localities fit for economic clustering. It should fund the Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, and Department of Defense, to solicit competitive bids and applications from candidate states, municipalities, and localities for the designation of no fewer than three and no more than five critical technology manufacturing clusters.
        • Supply Chain 3.1: The federal government should commit significant and consistent funding toward research and development in emerging technologies.
        • Supply Chain 3.2: The federal government should, in partnership with partner and ally governments, develop programs to incentivize the movement of critical chip and technology manufacturing out of China.
        • Supply Chain 3.3: Congress should direct the President to conduct a study on the viability of a public-private national security investment corporation to attract private capital for investment in strategically important areas.
      • Supply Chain 4: The President should designate a lead agency to integrate and coordinate government ICT supply chain risk management efforts into an ongoing national strategy and to serve as the nexus for public-private partnerships on supply chain risk management.
        • Supply Chain 4.1: Congress should direct the President to construct or designate a National Supply Chain Intelligence Center.
        • Supply Chain 4.2: Congress should fund three Critical Technology Security Centers, selected and designated by DHS, in collaboration with the Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and Department of Defense.
      • Supply Chain 5: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should tie 5G infrastructure investment to open and interoperable standards and work with the Department of Defense and the National Telecommunications and Information Agency to facilitate the release of more mid-band spectrum in order to ensure a strong domestic market for telecommunications equipment.
        • Supply Chain 5.1: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) should work with international partners to develop a digital risk impact assessment that highlights the risks associated with the use of untrusted technologies in implementing digitization and telecommunications infrastructure projects.
        • Supply Chain 5.2: Congress should ensure that the Export-Import Bank (EXIM), U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and United States Trade Development Agency (USTDA) all operate in legal, regulatory, and funding environments conducive to successfully competing with Chinese state-owned and state-backed enterprises, including their ability to support investments from companies headquartered in partner and ally countries.
        • Supply Chain 5.3: USAID, DFC, and USTDA should develop and maintain a list of prohibited contractors and clients, including companies subject to the Chinese national security and national intelligence laws, that may not be used to implement USAID-, DFC-, and USTDA-funded projects.
  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has reportedly met to review its anti-trust case against Facebook that could get filed as soon as next month. The FTC start looking into Facebook’s dominance in the social messaging market about the same time it handed down a $5 billion fire for the tech giant’s involvement with Cambridge Analytica that violated the 2012 consent decree. The anti-trust investigation is reportedly focused on Facebook’s acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram, two of the world’s largest messaging platforms. The FTC is reportedly focused on the effects of Facebook’s buying two potential competitors, WhatsApp and Instagram, and if the FTC succeeds in a suit against Facebook, the company may be forced to spin off those two entities. Moreover, New York Attorney General Tish James is leading a state investigation of Facebook that “focuses on Facebook’s dominance in the industry and the potential anticompetitive conduct stemming from that dominance.” This inquiry started over a year ago, and any timing on possible action is not clear. The European Commission is also reportedly looking at Facebook for anti-trust violations as media accounts indicated in late 2019.
    • The House Judiciary Committee argued in its recent report on competition in digital markets that “the strong network effects associated with Facebook has tipped the market toward monopoly such that Facebook competes more vigorously among its own products—Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger—than with actual competitors.” In response to the House Judiciary Committee’s view on these deals, a Facebook spokesperson claimed “[a] strongly competitive landscape existed at the time of both acquisitions and exists today…[and] [r]egulators thoroughly reviewed each deal and rightly did not see any reason to stop them at the time.”
    • In February 2019, the German agency with jurisdiction over competition issued a decision that potentially could block Facebook from combining the personal data of Germans from other Facebook-owned entities such as Instagram and WhatsApp or from unrelated third-party sources. According to the Bundeskartellamt’s press release, the agency “has imposed on Facebook far-reaching restrictions in the processing of user data.”
  • A group of nations are proposing a third way to bridge the dual efforts of two United Nations (U.N.) groups to develop cyber norms. In the “The future of discussions on ICTs and cyberspace at the UN,” this group of nations propose to “explore establishment of a Programme of Action for advancing responsible State behaviour in cyberspace with a view to ending the dual track discussions (GGE/OEWG) and establishing a permanent UN forum to consider the use of ICTs by States in the context of international security.” They stressed “the urgent need for the international community to address the use of ICTs in the context of international peace and security.” France, Egypt, Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Gabon, Georgia, Japan, Morocco, Norway, Salvador, Singapore, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Moldova, The Republic of North Macedonia, the United Kingdom, the EU and its member States submitted the proposal.
    • These nations argued:
      • Since 2018, two working groups and many initiatives have started under the auspices of the UN. We welcome the willingness of the international community to engage, and recognize that each of those initiatives has its own merits and specificities. Yet, they aim at tackling the same issues: advancing norms of responsible behaviour, understanding how international law concretely applies to cyberspace, developing CBMs and fostering capacity building. We consider that this situation, although evidencing the growing commitment of the international community to dedicating time and resources to the matters at hand, creates redundancies and, at times, can be counter-productive. It is therefore a cause for concern.
      • In the fall of 2019, the U.N. Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) and the U.N. Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) started meeting per U.N. resolutions to further consultative discussions on an international agreement or set of agreements on what is considered acceptable and unacceptable cyber practices. Previous efforts largely stalled over disagreements between a bloc led by the U.S. and its allies and nations like the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Russia, and others with a different view on acceptable practices. Notably, unlike 2010, 2013 and 2015, the 2017 U.N. GGE could not reach agreement on additional voluntary, non-binding norms on how nations should operate in cyberspace. The OEWG was advocated for by countries like Russia, the PRC, and others seen as being in opposition to some of the views propagated by the U.S. and its allies, notably on the issue of what kind of measures a nation may use inside its borders to limit internet usage for its citizens.
      • As explained in a 2018 U.N. press release, competing resolutions were offered to create groups “aimed at shaping norm-setting guidelines for States to ensure responsible conduct in cyberspace:”
        • the draft resolution “Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security” (document A/C.1/73/L.27.Rev.1), tabled by the Russian Federation.  By the text, the Assembly would decide to convene in 2019 an open-ended working group acting on a consensus basis to further develop the rules, norms and principles of responsible behaviour of States.
        • the draft resolution “Advancing Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace in the Context of International Security” (document A/C.1/73/L.37), tabled by the United States…[that] would request the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be established in 2019, to continue to study possible cooperative measures to address existing and potential threats in the sphere of information security, including norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviour of States.
  • The United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published a compulsory audit of the Department for Education (DfE) and found:
    • The audit found that data protection was not being prioritised and this had severely impacted the DfE’s ability to comply with the UK’s data protection laws. A total of 139 recommendations for improvement were found, with over 60% classified as urgent or high priority.
    • The ICO explained:
      • The Commissioner’s Enforcement team ran a broad range investigation in 2019 following complaints from DefendDigitalMe and Liberty and their concerns around the National Pupil Database (NPD). The ICO met with key senior level data protection professionals at the DfE’s offices in London in November2019 where the possibilities of a consensual audit were discussed. However, due to the risks associated with the volume and types of personal data processed within the NPD as well as the ages of the data subjects involved, the Commissioner decided, in line with her own Regulatory Action Policy, to undertake a compulsory audit using her powers under section 146 of the DPA18.The Commissioner determined this approach would provide a comprehensive review of DfE data protection practices, governance and other key control measures supporting the NPD and internally held databases, using the framework of scope areas of audit as listed below. This would allow the Commissioner to identify any risk associated with the data processed and implications to the individual rights of over 21 million data subjects.
  • The European Commission (EC) announced it “made commitments offered by [United States firm] Broadcom legally binding under EU antitrust rules.” The EC started looking into the company in mid-2019 for supposedly abusive behavior that was harming players and people in the TV and modem chipset markets in the European Union.
    • The EC explained:
      • In June 2019, the Commission initiated proceedings into alleged abuse of dominance by Broadcom and at the same time issued a Statement of Objections seeking the imposition of interim measures. In October 2019, the Commission took a decision concluding that interim measures were necessary to prevent serious and irreparable damage to competition from occurring in the worldwide markets for SoCs for (i) TV set-top boxes, (ii) xDSL modems, (iii) fibre modems, as well as (iv) cable modems.
      • The Commission took issue with certain exclusivity or quasi-exclusivity and leveraging arrangements imposed by Broadcom in relation to SoCs for TV set top boxes, xDSL and fibre modems. The decision ordered Broadcom to stop applying these provisions contained in agreements with six of its main customers and ordered the implementation of interim measures applicable for a period of three years.
    • The EC asserted Broadcom has agreed to the following:
      • At European Economic Area (EEA) level, Broadcom will:
        • a) Not require or induce by means of price or non-price advantages an OEM to obtain any minimum percentage of its EEA requirements for SoCs for TV set-top boxes, xDSL modems and fibre modems from Broadcom; and
        • b) Not condition the supply of, or the granting of advantages for, SoCs for TV set-top boxes, xDSL modems and fibre modems on an OEM obtaining from Broadcom another of these products or any other product within the scope of the commitments (i.e. SoCs for cable modems, Front End Chips for set-top boxes and modems and/or Wi-Fi Chips for set-top boxes and modems).
      • At worldwide level (excluding China), Broadcom will:
        • a) Not require or induce an OEM by means of certain types of advantages to obtain more than 50% of its requirements for SoCs for TV set-top boxes, xDSL modems and fibre modems from Broadcom; and
        • b) Not condition the supply of, or the granting of advantages for, SoCs for TV set-top boxes, xDSL modems and fibre modems on an OEM obtaining from Broadcom more than 50% of its requirements for any other of these products, or for other products within the scope of the commitments.
      • The commitments also include specific provisions regarding incentives to bid equipment based on Broadcom products as well as certain additional clauses with regard to service providers in the EEA.

Coming Events

  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an open commission meeting on 27 October, and the agency has released its agenda:
    • Restoring Internet Freedom Order Remand. The Commission will consider an Order on Remand that would respond to the remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and conclude that the Restoring Internet Freedom Order promotes public safety, facilitates broadband infrastructure deployment, and allows the Commission to continue to provide Lifeline support for broadband Internet access service. (WC Docket Nos. 17-108, 17-287, 11-42)
    • Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural America . The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would establish the 5G Fund for Rural America to ensure that all Americans have access to the next generation of wireless connectivity. (GN Docket No. 20-32)
    • Increasing Unlicensed Wireless Opportunities in TV White Spaces. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would increase opportunities for unlicensed white space devices to operate on broadcast television channels 2-35 and expand wireless broadband connectivity in rural and underserved areas. (ET Docket No. 20-36)
    • Streamlining State and Local Approval of Certain Wireless Structure Modifications . The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would further accelerate the deployment of 5G by providing that modifications to existing towers involving limited ground excavation or deployment would be subject to streamlined state and local review pursuant to section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012. (WT Docket No. 19-250; RM-11849)
    • Revitalizing AM Radio Service with All-Digital Broadcast Option . The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would authorize AM stations to transition to an all-digital signal on a voluntary basis and would also adopt technical specifications for such stations. (MB Docket Nos. 13-249, 19-311)
    • Expanding Audio Description of Video Content to More TV Markets. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would expand audio description requirements to 40 additional television markets over the next four years in order to increase the amount of video programming that is accessible to blind and visually impaired Americans. (MB Docket No. 11-43)
    • Modernizing Unbundling and Resale Requirements. The Commission will consider a Report and Order to modernize the Commission’s unbundling and resale regulations, eliminating requirements where they stifle broadband deployment and the transition to next-generation networks, but preserving them where they are still necessary to promote robust intermodal competition. (WC Docket No. 19-308)
    • Enforcement Bureau Action. The Commission will consider an enforcement action.
  • The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will hold a hearing on 28 October regarding 47 U.S.C. 230 titled “Does Section 230’s Sweeping Immunity Enable Big Tech Bad Behavior?” with testimony from:
    • Jack Dorsey, Chief Executive Officer of Twitter;
    • Sundar Pichai, Chief Executive Officer of Alphabet Inc. and its subsidiary, Google; and 
    • Mark Zuckerberg, Chief Executive Officer of Facebook.
  • On 29 October, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold a seminar titled “Green Lights & Red Flags: FTC Rules of the Road for Business workshop” that “will bring together Ohio business owners and marketing executives with national and state legal experts to provide practical insights to business and legal professionals about how established consumer protection principles apply in today’s fast-paced marketplace.”
  • On 10 November, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will hold a hearing to consider nominations, including Nathan Simington’s to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission.

© 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 Isaac Struna on Unsplash

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (2 October)

Coming Events

  • On 6 October, the House Administration Committee’s Elections Subcommittee will hold a virtual hearing titled “Voting Rights and Election Administration: Combatting Misinformation in the 2020 Election.”
  • The United States’ Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) announced that its third annual National Cybersecurity Summit “will be held virtually as a series of webinars every Wednesday for four weeks beginning September 16 and ending October 7:”
    • October 7: Defending our Democracy
    • One can register for the event here.
  • On October 29, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold a seminar titled “Green Lights & Red Flags: FTC Rules of the Road for Business workshop” that “will bring together Ohio business owners and marketing executives with national and state legal experts to provide practical insights to business and legal professionals about how established consumer protection principles apply in today’s fast-paced marketplace.”

Other Developments

  • The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on the confused nature of the United States’ (U.S.) government efforts to address longstanding, endemic cybersecurity issues that will likely renew calls for a National Cyber Director position to be created in the White House. Moreover, Congress could revisit and clarify current lines of authority and responsibility for a more streamlined, transparent, and accountable structure to oversee federal and private sector cybersecurity.  The report was requested by the chair and ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, and three of the four members of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission serving in Congress.
    • The GAO found:
      • The White House’s September 2018 National Cyber Strategy and the NSC’s accompanying June 2019 Implementation Plan detail the executive branch’s approach to managing the nation’s cybersecurity. When evaluated together, these documents addressed several of the desirable characteristics of national strategies, but lacked certain key elements for addressing others.
      • While the National Cyber Strategy and Implementation Plan address some of the characteristics of an effective national strategy, additional efforts are needed to fully incorporate risk assessment; performance measures; and resources, investments, and risk management into the executive branch’s cybersecurity strategy. Further, our previous reviews, as well as other studies, have highlighted the need for responsibility and accountability for leading and overseeing national cybersecurity policy to be elevated to the White House. Although NSC staff is tasked with the coordination of efforts to carry out the National Cyber Strategy and its accompanying Implementation Plan, there is a lack of clarity around how it plans on accomplishing this. Without effective and transparent leadership that includes a clearly defined leader, a defined management process, and a formal monitoring mechanism, the executive branch cannot ensure that entities are effectively executing their assigned activities intended to support the nation’s cybersecurity strategy and ultimately overcome this urgent challenge
    • The GAO recommended that Congress consider “legislation to designate a leadership position in the White House with the commensurate authority—for example, over budgets and resources—to implement and encourage action in support of the nation’s cyber critical infrastructure, including the implementation of the National Cyber Strategy.”
    • The GAO recommended to the National Security Council:
      • The Chairman of the National Security Council, or his designee, should work with relevant federal entities to update strategy documents related to the nation’s cybersecurity to better reflect desirable characteristics of a national strategy, to include:
        • an assessment of cyber-related risk, based on an analysis of the threats to, and vulnerabilities of, critical assets and operations;
        • measures of performance and formal mechanism to track progress of the execution of activities; and
        • an analysis of the cost and resources needed to implement the National Cyber Strategy. (Recommendation 1)
  • The United States (U.S.) and the United Kingdom (UK) issued a declaration “on Cooperation in Artificial Intelligence Research and Development: A Shared Vision for Driving Technological Breakthroughs in Artificial Intelligence.” The U.S. and UK committed to cooperate on research and development on artificial intelligence (AI), a key emphasis of the Trump Administration which sees this realm as being crucial for maintaining U.S. military and technological superiority over adversaries like the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Russian Federation. The U.S. and UK stated:
    • Building on the US-UK Science and Technology Agreement signed in September 2017, we intend to advance our shared vision and work towards an AI R&D ecosystem that embodies this approach by:
      • Taking stock of and utilizing existing bilateral science and technology cooperation (e.g., the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. National Science Foundation and UK Research and Innovation on Research Cooperation) and multilateral cooperation frameworks;
      • Recommending priorities for future cooperation, particularly in R&D areas where each partner shares strong common interest (e.g., interdisciplinary research and intelligent systems) and brings complementary challenges, regulatory or cultural considerations, or expertise to the partnerships;
      • Coordinating as appropriate the planning and programming of relevant activities in these areas, including promoting researcher and student collaboration that could potentially involve national partners, the private sector, academia, and the scientific community to further our efforts by harnessing the value of public-private partnerships; and
      • Promoting research and development in AI, focusing on challenging technical issues, and protecting against efforts to adopt and apply these technologies in the service of authoritarianism and repression.
      • We intend to establish a bilateral government-to-government dialogue on the areas identified in this vision and explore an AI R&D ecosystem that promotes the mutual wellbeing, prosperity, and security of present and future generations.
  • A bipartisan task force comprised of Members of the House Armed Services Committee published its recommendations that call for a dramatic remaking of funding and the structure of the United States’ (U.S.) military over the next few decades to meet the waning threat posed by the Russian Federation and the waxing threat posed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The Future of Defense Task Force asserted:
    • The stakes could scarcely be higher. The national security challenges the United States faces today are existential, and they cannot be met by simply doubling down on old models of policy and investment. Our adversaries are surging around the globe in a long-game effort to supplant western-style democracy with a form of authoritarianism that cloaks itself in capitalism as it undermines personal liberties and freedoms. The United States must recognize that without a new commitment to achieving technological superiority, the successes of the 20thcentury–the American Century–will no longer be assured.
    • The task force made these findings:
      • I. China represents the most significant economic and national security threat to the United States over the next 20 to 30 years. Because of its nuclear arsenal and ongoing efforts to undermine Western democratic governments, Russia presents the most immediate threat to the United States; however, Russia’s long-term economic forecast makes its global power likely to recede over the next 20 to 30 years.
      • II.As a result of historic levels of government-sponsored science and technology research, and the inherent advantages of a free market economy, the United States emerged from the Cold War with a substantial economic and military lead over any potential rival. However, these gaps have dramatically narrowed. China will soon overtake the United States as the world’s largest economy, and despite historic defense budgets, the United States has failed to keep pace with China’s and Russia’s military modernization.
      • III. Assuring the United States’ continued leadership will require dramatic changes to the structure and implementation of the defense budget, the effective implementation of a whole-of-government approach to security, and the strengthening of underlying institutions such as our education system and national security innovation base to out-pace our adversaries.
      • IV. Advancements in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum computing, and space, cyber, and electronic warfare, among others, are making traditional battlefields and boundaries increasingly irrelevant. To remain competitive, the United States must prioritize the development of emerging technologies over fielding and maintaining legacy systems. This will require significant changes to the Pentagon’s force structure, posture, operational plans, and acquisition system and must be complemented by a tough and fulsome review of legacy systems, platforms, and missions.
      • V. The Pentagon’s emerging operational concepts have the potential to provide the U.S. military a decisive advantage, but they are not yet fully viable. To address current and future threats and deter conflict, the Department of Defense must more aggressively test new operational concepts against emerging technologies.
      • VI. To endure as the leading global power with preeminent economic might, political influence, and a resilient national security apparatus, the United States must strengthen and modernize geopolitical alliances with longstanding allies while establishing new alliances to meet emerging threats.
      • VII. Technological advancements in artificial intelligence and biotechnology will have an outsized impact on national security; the potential of losing this race to China carries significant economic, political, and ethical risks for the United States and our free democratic allies for decades to come. Winning this race requires a whole-of-nation approach where the distinct advantages of both America’s private and public sector are harnessed and synthesized.
      • VIII. Increased government investment in basic scientific research must be complemented by increased cooperation with the private sector to quickly adopt resulting technologies. The Department of Defense and elements of the greater U.S. government must adapt their culture and business practices to better support, and more quickly integrate, innovation from the private sector.
      • IX. Whereas emerging technologies offer tremendous opportunities for commercial and social transformation, many are also fraught with the potential for nefarious use. It is essential that the United States and our free democratic allies set and enforce the terms and norms for their employment.
      • X. Authoritarianism is on the rise globally, whereas democracy is waning. A whole-of-government approach to national security should be led by diplomacy and economic cooperation, supported by development and humanitarian assistance, and strengthened by military-to-military relationships.
      • XI.The United States is most likely to succeed by playing to our strengths: a free, fair, and open economy, strong education system, and a culture for innovation that rests on the open market and free democratic principles.
  • The top Democrats and Democratic Leadership in the Senate introduced the “America Labor, Economic competitiveness, Alliances, Democracy and Security (America LEADS) Act” which is characterized as the “Senate Democrats’ proposal for a new United States (U.S.)-China policy” according to a press release. The sponsors of the bill argued:
    • The most comprehensive China legislation to date, the America LEADS Act seeks to recognize that only when we have a vibrant economy here at home can we truly compete with China abroad.  The legislation provides significant new investments to rebuild the U.S. economy and provide our workers, entrepreneurs, researchers, and manufacturers with the skills and support needed to out-compete China and succeed in the twenty-first century. The proposal includes over $350 billion in new funding to synchronize and mobilize all aspects of U.S. national power. This approach is grounded in getting the broader Indo-Pacific strategy “right,” centered on our alliances and partnerships, animated by America’s longstanding values, and driven by the need for a course correction, after almost four years of destruction under President Trump.
    • They summarized the provisions of the bill:
      • Invests in American workers and restores United States’ competitiveness in science and technology, manufacturing, global infrastructure, digital technologies, and global clean energy development, by increasing federal funding for research and development, including investment to lead in the development and production of new and emerging technologies like 5G, quantum, and artificial intelligence that will define the twenty-first century, taking action to strengthen domestic supply chains, and providing support for domestic manufacturing industries like seminconductors. 
      • Confronts China’s education and influence campaigns by requiring new reporting requirements and invests in registered apprenticeships, training, and STEM education programs with a focus on building a diverse and inclusive innovation and manufacturing workforce for the 21st Century.
      • Renews and reorients the United States’ diplomatic strategy towards China centered on America’s commitment to its allies around the world and in the Indo-Pacific region, including Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Thailand, and Taiwan, and calls for the United States to reassert its leadership within regional and international organizations, like the World Health Organization and the G7.
      • Reaffirms America’s strong security commitment in the Indo-Pacific and a forward-deployed posture in the region to ensure that all nations can exercise their rights in the region’s international waters and airspace, and directs the United States to provide additional assistance and training to countries under the Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative. The bill also provides regional strategies to confront malign PRC influence in the Western Hemisphere, South and Central Asia, Africa, the Arctic region, and the Middle East and North Africa.
      • Invests in our values, authorizing a broad range of efforts to support human rights and civil society measures, especially as they relate to Tibet, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), and Hong Kong, including allowing certain Hong Kong citizens and residents of Xinjiang to apply for admission to the United States.  The bill also directs the President to report foreign persons identified for engaging in and facilitating forced labor in China and to apply sanctions to Chinese officials complicit in human rights violations. 
      • Focuses on countering and confronting China’s predatory international economic behavior, and includes measures to strengthen trade enforcement across a wide range of areas, including intellectual property, supply chains, currency manipulation, and counterfeit goods.
  • Senators Rick Scott (R-FL) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) unveiled the “American Privacy Protection (APP) Act” (S.4669) that would “require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ensure all entities that operate application platforms disclose the location in which the application was developed and where data collected by the application is stored” according to their press release. This bill flows from “recent security concerns about apps made by U.S. adversaries, including Communist China and Russia,” such as TikTok and WeChat.
  • The United States (U.S.) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a notice of inquiry and asked for comments on:
    • the potential risks to the bulk electric system posed by using equipment and services produced or provided by entities identified as risks to national security.
    • whether the current Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards adequately mitigate the identified risks.
    • possible actions the Commission could consider taking to address the identified risks.
    • The Department of Defense (DOD), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and other U.S. agencies are undertaking similar efforts to root out what they consider suspicious, malicious, or compromised parts, equipment, or systems that would allow nations like the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to access, impair, or cripple critical infrastructure. Even though nations other than the PRC are listed in this RFI, as a practical matter, the PRC is the focus since so much of the world’s electronics supply chain originates in that country.
    • FERC explained:
      • On October 18, 2018, the Commission approved the first set of supply chain risk management Reliability Standards in Order No. 850. The Commission described the supply chain risk management Reliability Standards as “forward-looking and objective-based and require each affected entity to develop and implement a plan that includes security controls for supply chain management for industrial control system hardware, software, and services associated with bulk electric system operations.”In approving the supply chain risk management Reliability Standards, the Commission recognized that “the global supply chain creates opportunities for adversaries to directly or indirectly affect the management or operations of companies with potential risks to end users.”
      • Since the issuance of Order No. 850, there have been significant developments in the form of Executive Orders, legislation, as well as federal agency actions that raise concerns over the potential risks posed by the use of equipment and services provided by certain entities identified as risks to national security. In particular, Huawei Technologies Company (Huawei) and ZTE Corporation (ZTE) have been identified as examples of such certain entities because they provide communication systems and other equipment and services that are critical to bulk electric system reliability.
      • Therefore, as discussed in this Notice of Inquiry, the Commission seeks comments on: (1) The extent of the use of equipment and services provided by certain entities identified as risks to national security related to bulk electric system operations; (2) the risks to bulk electric system reliability and security posed by the use of equipment and services provided by certain entities; (3) whether the CIP Reliability Standards adequately mitigate the identified risks; (4) what mandatory actions the Commission could consider taking to mitigate the risk of equipment and services provided by certain entities related to bulk electric system operations; (5) strategies that entities have implemented or plan to implement—in addition to compliance with the mandatory CIP Reliability Standards—to mitigate the risks associated with use of equipment and services provided by certain entities; and (6) other methods the Commission may employ to address this matter including working collaboratively with industry to raise awareness about the identified risks and assisting with mitigating actions (i.e., such as facilitating information sharing). The responses to these questions will provide the Commission with a better understanding of the risks to bulk electric system reliability posed by equipment and services provided by entities identified as risks to national security, as well as how the Commission may best address any identified risks.
    • This inquiry follows related actions. In July, acting per an early May executive order, the Department of Energy (DOE) has released a request for information (RFI) “to understand the energy industry’s current practices to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities in the supply chain for components of the bulk-power system (BPS).” In late June, the FERC sought “comment on certain potential enhancements to the currently-effective Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards,” and in mid-June, the FERC released a staff “Cybersecurity Incentives Policy White Paper” that made the case that the agency should create an incentive structure beyond the existing mandatory and binding cybersecurity regulations to prompt utilities to invest more in defending their systems.
  • The United Kingdom’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport released six principles to “strengthen digital identity delivery and policy in the UK” and floated the possibility of “legislation for consumer protection relating to digital identity, specific rights for individuals, an ability to seek redress if something goes wrong, and set out where the responsibility for oversight should lie. It will also consult on the appropriate privacy and technical standards for administering and processing secure digital identities.” The six principles were developed by “[a] new government Digital Identity Strategy Board:
    • 1) Privacy – When personal data is accessed people will have confidence that there are measures in place to ensure their confidentiality and privacy; for instance, a supermarket checking a shopper’s age, a lawyer overseeing the sale of a house or someone applying to take out a loan.
    • 2) Transparency – When an individual’s identity data is accessed when using digital identity products they must be able to understand by who, why and when; for example, being able to see how your bank uses your data through digital identity solutions.
    • 3) Inclusivity – People who want or need a digital identity should be able to obtain one; for example, not having documentation such as a passport or driving licence should not be a barrier to not having a digital identity.
    • 4) Interoperability – Setting technical and operating standards for use across the UK’s economy to enable international and domestic interoperability.
    • 5) Proportionality – User needs and other considerations such as privacy and security will be balanced so digital identity can be used with confidence across the economy.
    • 6) Good governance – Digital identity standards will be linked to government policy and law. Any future regulation will be clear, coherent and align with the government’s wider strategic approach to digital regulation. For example, firms verifying your identity will need to comply with laws around how they access and store data.
  • Basecamp, Blix, Blockchain.com, Deezer, Epic Games, the European Publishers Council, Match Group, News Media Europe, Prepear, Protonmail, SkyDemon, Spotify, and Tile have formed the Coalition for App Fairness (CAF) to “advocate for enforcement and reforms, including legal and regulatory changes, to preserve consumer choice and a level playing field for app and game developers that rely on app stores and the most popular gatekeeper platforms.” This Coalition follows on the heels of Epic Games suing Apple and Google about their app store practices, namely taking 30% of all in-app purchases. This organization “developed and published a set of 10 “App Store Principles” laying out how they think app stores should be designed and run.

Further Reading

  • Intel chief releases Russian disinfo on Hillary Clinton that was rejected by bipartisan Senate panel” By Andrew Desiderio and Daniel Lippman — Politico. New Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe released an unclassified version of allegations that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was working with the Russian Federation against Donald Trump in 2016. Ratcliffe released this information even though the Senate Intelligence Committee dismissed it as Russian disinformation, and the timing is curious, coming so close to the election.
  • At White House’s urging, Republicans launch anti-tech blitz ahead of election” By Cristiano Lima and John Hendel — Politico. This article shows how the White House’s pressure on Senate and House Republicans has borne fruit as they have focused on technology companies’ supposed bias against conservatives. Not only is this a narrative they can push, but the threat of regulatory and statutory changes to their liability shield also serve the same purpose that professional sports coaches seek when complaining about referees in advance of matches.
  • Coordinated push of groundless conspiracy theories targets Biden hours before debate” By Ben Collins — NBC News. This article shows how lies and information can get traded up the chain until legitimate news outlets cover baseless claims.
  • Russian operation masqueraded as right-wing news site to target U.S. voters – sources” By Jack Stubbs — Reuters. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has turned up another Internet Research Agency run disinformation operation offering fake information and content from the right wing. Like the recently uncovered Peace Data site, the Newsroom for American and European Based Citizens (NAEBC) was reposting content from conservative sites and paying unwitting Americans to write for the site. Like Peace Data, the IRA then spread and amplified this slanted content on social media as a means of once again disseminating disinformation and chaos in the United States.
  • Google to Pay Publishers Over $1 Billion for News Content” By Natalia Drozdiak — Bloomberg. As announced by Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, Google will pay some media outlets up to $1 billion over the next three years  “to create and curate high-quality content for a different kind of online news experience” for its new product, Google News Showcase. Pichai claimed:
    • This approach is distinct from our other news products because it leans on the editorial choices individual publishers make about which stories to show readers and how to present them. It will start rolling out today to readers in Brazil and Germany, and will expand to other countries in the coming months where local frameworks support these partnerships.
    • Google’s announcement comes as the company and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) are fighting over the latter’s proposal to ensure that media companies are compensated for articles and content the former uses. In late July the ACCC released for public consultation a draft of “a mandatory code of conduct to address bargaining power imbalances between Australian news media businesses and digital platforms, specifically Google and Facebook.”
    • The European Publishers Council (EPC) noted
      • The French Competition Authority decision from April considered that Google’s practices were likely to constitute an abuse of a dominant position and brought serious and immediate damage to the press sector. It calls on Google, within three months, to conduct negotiations in good faith with publishers and press agencies on the remuneration for their protected content. Google’s appeal in July seeks to get some legal clarity on parts of the decision.
    • Moreover, the European Union (EU) Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market is being implemented in EU member states and would allow them to require compensation from platforms like Facebook and Google. The EPC claimed:
      • Many are quite cynical about Google’s perceived strategy. By launching their own product, they can dictate terms and conditions, undermine legislation designed to create conditions for a fair negotiation, while claiming they are helping to fund news production.

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

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

Coming Events

  • The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Competition Policy & Consumer Rights Subcommittee will hold a hearing on 15 September titled “Stacking the Tech: Has Google Harmed Competition in Online Advertising?.” In their press release, Chair Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asserted:
    • Google is the dominant player in online advertising, a business that accounts for around 85% of its revenues and which allows it to monetize the data it collects through the products it offers for free. Recent consumer complaints and investigations by law enforcement have raised questions about whether Google has acquired or maintained its market power in online advertising in violation of the antitrust laws. News reports indicate this may also be the centerpiece of a forthcoming antitrust lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice. This hearing will examine these allegations and provide a forum to assess the most important antitrust investigation of the 21st century.
  • The United States’ Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) announced that its third annual National Cybersecurity Summit “will be held virtually as a series of webinars every Wednesday for four weeks beginning September 16 and ending October 7:”
    • September 16: Key Cyber Insights
    • September 23: Leading the Digital Transformation
    • September 30: Diversity in Cybersecurity
    • October 7: Defending our Democracy
    • One can register for the event here.
  • The House Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing titled “Worldwide Threats to the Homeland” on 17 September with the following witnesses:
    • Chad Wolf, Department of Homeland Security
    • Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
    • Christopher Miller, Director, National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)
  • On 17 September, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Communications & technology Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled “Trump FCC: Four Years of Lost Opportunities.”
  • The House Armed Services Committee’s Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee will hold a hearing’ titled “Interim Review of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence Effort and Recommendations” with these witnesses:
    • Dr. Eric Schmidt , Chairman, National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence 
    • HON Robert Work, Vice Chairman, National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, HON Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner, National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence 
    • Dr. José-Marie Griffiths, Commissioner, National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence
  • On 22 September, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold a public workshop “to examine the potential benefits and challenges to consumers and competition raised by data portability.” The agency has released its agenda and explained:
    • The workshop will also feature four panel discussions that will focus on: case studies on data portability rights in the European Union, India, and California; case studies on financial and health portability regimes; reconciling the benefits and risks of data portability; and the material challenges and solutions to realizing data portability’s potential.
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Competition Policy & Consumer Rights Subcommittee will hold a hearing on 30 September titled “Oversight of the Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws” with Federal Trade Commission Chair Joseph Simons and United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division Assistant Attorney General Makan Delhrahim.
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an open meeting on 30 September and has made available its agenda with these items:
    • Facilitating Shared Use in the 3.1-3.55 GHz Band. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would remove the existing non-federal allocations from the 3.3-3.55 GHz band as an important step toward making 100 megahertz of spectrum in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band available for commercial use, including 5G, throughout the contiguous United States. The Commission will also consider a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would propose to add a co-primary, non-federal fixed and mobile (except aeronautical mobile) allocation to the 3.45-3.55 GHz band as well as service, technical, and competitive bidding rules for flexible-use licenses in the band. (WT Docket No. 19-348)
    • Expanding Access to and Investment in the 4.9 GHz Band. The Commission will consider a Sixth Report and Order that would expand access to and investment in the 4.9 GHz (4940-4990 MHz) band by providing states the opportunity to lease this spectrum to commercial entities, electric utilities, and others for both public safety and non-public safety purposes. The Commission also will consider a Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would propose a new set of licensing rules and seek comment on ways to further facilitate access to and investment in the band. (WP Docket No. 07-100)
    • Improving Transparency and Timeliness of Foreign Ownership Review Process. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would improve the timeliness and transparency of the process by which it seeks the views of Executive Branch agencies on any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns related to certain applications filed with the Commission. (IB Docket No. 16-155)
    • Promoting Caller ID Authentication to Combat Spoofed Robocalls. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would continue its work to implement the TRACED Act and promote the deployment of caller ID authentication technology to combat spoofed robocalls. (WC Docket No. 17-97)
    • Combating 911 Fee Diversion. The Commission will consider a Notice of Inquiry that would seek comment on ways to dissuade states and territories from diverting fees collected for 911 to other purposes. (PS Docket Nos. 20-291, 09-14)
    • Modernizing Cable Service Change Notifications. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would modernize requirements for notices cable operators must provide subscribers and local franchising authorities. (MB Docket Nos. 19-347, 17-105)
    • Eliminating Records Requirements for Cable Operator Interests in Video Programming. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would eliminate the requirement that cable operators maintain records in their online public inspection files regarding the nature and extent of their attributable interests in video programming services. (MB Docket No. 20-35, 17-105)
    • Reforming IP Captioned Telephone Service Rates and Service Standards. The Commission will consider a Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would set compensation rates for Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS), deny reconsideration of previously set IP CTS compensation rates, and propose service quality and performance measurement standards for captioned telephone services. (CG Docket Nos. 13-24, 03-123)
    • Enforcement Item. The Commission will consider an enforcement action.

Other Developments

  • After Ireland’s Data Protection Commission (DPC) directed Facebook to stop transferring the personal data of European Union citizens to the United States (U.S.), the company filed suit in Ireland’s court to stop enforcement of the order and succeeded in staying the matter until the court rules on the merits of the challenge. Earlier this summer, the Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU) struck down the adequacy decision for the agreement between the European Union (EU) and United States (U.S.) that had provided the easiest means to transfer the personal data of EU citizens to the U.S. for processing under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (i.e. the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield). In the case known as Schrems II, the CJEU also cast doubt on whether standard contractual clauses (SCC) used to transfer personal data o the U.S. would pass muster given the grounds for finding the Privacy Shield inadequate: the U.S.’s surveillance regime and lack of meaningful redress for EU citizens. Consequently, it has appeared as if data protection authorities throughout the EU would need to revisit SCCs for transfers to the U.S., and it appears the DPC was looking to stop Facebook from using its SCC. Facebook is apparently arguing in its suit that it will suffer “extremely significant adverse effects” if the DPC’s decision is implemented.
  • In a related development, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has established “a taskforce to look into complaints filed in the aftermath of the CJEU Schrems II judgement.” The EDPB noted the 101 identical complaints “lodged with EEA Data Protection Authorities against several controllers in the European Economic Area (EEA) member states regarding their use of Google/Facebook services which involve the transfer of personal data.” The Board added “[s]pecifically the complainants, represented by the NGO NOYB, claim that Google/Facebook transfer personal data to the U.S. relying on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield or Standard Contractual Clauses and that according to the recent CJEU judgment in case C-311/18 the controller is unable to ensure an adequate protection of the complainants’ personal data.” The EDPB claimed “[t]he taskforce will analyse the matter and ensure a close cooperation among the members of the Board…[and] [t]his taskforce will prepare recommendations to assist controllers and processors with their duty to identify and implement appropriate supplementary measures to ensure adequate protection when transferring data to third countries.” EDPB Chair Andrea Jelinek cautioned “the implications of the judgment are wide-ranging, and the contexts of data transfers to third countries very diverse…[and] [t]herefore, there cannot be a one-size-fits-all, quick fix solution.” She added “[e]ach organisation will need to evaluate its own data processing operations and transfers and take appropriate measures.”
  • An Australian court ruled against Facebook in its efforts to dismiss a suit brought against the company for its role in retaining and providing personal data to Cambridge Analytica. A Federal Court of Australia dismissed Facebook’s filings to reverse a previous ruling that allowed the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) to sue Facebook’s United States and Irish entities.
    • In March, the OAIC filed suit in federal court in Australia, alleging the two companies transgressed the privacy rights of 311,127 Australians under Australia’s Privacy Act. The two companies could face liability as high as $1.7 million ASD per violation.
    • In its November 2018 report to Parliament titled “Investigation into the use of data analytics in political campaigns”, the ICO explained
      • One key strand of our investigation involved allegations that an app, ultimately referred to as ‘thisisyourdigitallife’, was developed by Dr Aleksandr Kogan and his company Global Science Research (GSR) in order to harvest the data of up to 87 million global Facebook users, including one million in the UK. Some of this data was then used by Cambridge Analytica, to target voters during the 2016 US Presidential campaign process.
    • In its July 2018 report titled “Democracy disrupted? Personal information and political influence,” the ICO explained
      • The online targeted advertising model used by Facebook is very complex, and we believe a high level of transparency in relation to political advertising is vital. This is a classic big-data scenario: understanding what data is going into the system; how users’ actions on Facebook are determining what interest groups they are placed in; and then the rules that are fed into any dynamic algorithms that enable organisations to target individuals with specific adverts and messaging.
      • Our investigation found significant fair-processing concerns both in terms of the information available to users about the sources of the data that are being used to determine what adverts they see and the nature of the profiling taking place. There were further concerns about the availability and transparency of the controls offered to users over what ads and messages they receive. The controls were difficult to find and were not intuitive to the user if they wanted to control the political advertising they received. Whilst users were informed that their data would be used for commercial advertising, it was not clear that political advertising would take place on the platform.
      • The ICO also found that despite a significant amount of privacy information and controls being made available, overall they did not effectively inform the users about the likely uses of their personal information. In particular, more explicit information should have been made available at the first layer of the privacy policy. The user tools available to block or remove ads were also complex and not clearly available to users from the core pages they would be accessing. The controls were also limited in relation to political advertising.
  • The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) announced it “will be examining the experiences of Australian consumers, developers, suppliers and others in a new report scrutinising mobile app stores” according to the agency’s press release. The ACCC’s inquiry comes at the same time regulators in the United States and the European Union are investigating the companies for their app store practices, which could lead to enforcement actions. The ACCC is also looking to institute a code that would require Google and Facebook to pay Australian media outlets for content used on their platforms. The ACCC stated that “[i]ssues to be examined include the use and sharing of data by apps, the extent of competition between Google and Apple’s app stores, and whether more pricing transparency is needed in Australia’s mobile apps market.” The ACCC added:
    • Consumers are invited to share their experiences with buying and using apps through a short survey. The ACCC has also released an issues paper seeking views and feedback from app developers and suppliers.
    • In the issues paper, the ACCC explained “[p]otential outcomes” could be:
      • findings regarding structural, competitive or behavioural issues affecting the supply of apps
      • increased information about competition, pricing and other practices in the supply of apps and on app marketplaces
      • ACCC action to address any conduct that raises concerns under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and
      • recommendations to the Government for legislative reform to address systemic issues.
  • The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found an agency has implemented spotty, incomplete privacy measures in using facial recognition technology (FRT) at ports of entry.
    • The House Homeland Security and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs asked the GAO
      • to review United States (U.S.) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) facial recognition technology capabilities for traveler identity verification. This report addresses (1) the status of CBP’s testing and deployment of facial recognition technology at ports of entry, (2) the extent to which CBP’s use of facial recognition technology has incorporated privacy principles consistent with applicable laws and policies, (3) the extent to which CBP has assessed the accuracy and performance of its facial recognition capabilities at ports of entry, and (4) the status of TSA’s testing of facial recognition capabilities and the extent to which TSA’s facial recognition pilot tests incorporated privacy principles.
    • The GAO noted:
      • Most recently, in 2017, we reported that CBP had made progress in testing biometric exit capabilities, including facial recognition technology, but challenges continued to affect CBP’s efforts to develop and implement a biometric exit system, such as differences in the logistics and infrastructure among ports of entry. As we previously reported, CBP had tested various biometric technologies in different locations to determine which type of technology could be deployed on a large scale without disrupting legitimate travel and trade, while still meeting its mandate to implement a biometric entry-exit system. Based on the results of its testing, CBP concluded that facial recognition technology was the most operationally feasible and traveler-friendly option for a comprehensive biometric solution. Since then, CBP has prioritized testing and deploying facial recognition technology at airports (referred to as air exit), with seaports and land ports of entry to follow. These tests and deployments are part of CBP’s Biometric Entry-Exit Program.
      • As part of TSA’s mission to protect the nation’s transportation systems and to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce, TSA has been exploring facial recognition technology for identity verification at airport checkpoints. Since 2017, TSA has conducted a series of pilot tests—some in partnership with CBP—to assess the feasibility of using facial recognition technology to automate traveler identity verification at airport security checkpoints. In April 2018, TSA signed a policy memorandum with CBP on the development and implementation of facial recognition capabilities at airports.
    • The GAO made recommendations to CBP:
      • The Commissioner of CBP should ensure that the Biometric Entry-Exit Program’s privacy notices contain complete and current information, including all of the locations where facial recognition is used and how travelers can request to opt out as appropriate. (Recommendation 1)
      • The Commissioner of CBP should ensure that the Biometric Entry-Exit Program’s privacy signage is consistently available at all locations where CBP is using facial recognition. (Recommendation 2)
      • The Commissioner of CBP should direct the Biometric Entry-Exit Program to develop and implement a plan to conduct privacy audits of its commercial partners’, contractors’, and vendors’ use of personally identifiable information. (Recommendation 3)
      • The Commissioner of CBP should develop and implement a plan to ensure that the biometric air exit capability meets its established photo capture requirement. (Recommendation 4)
      • The Commissioner of CBP should develop a process by which Biometric Entry-Exit program officials are alerted when the performance of air exit facial recognition falls below established thresholds. (Recommendation 5)
  • The United States (U.S.) Agency for Global Media (USAGM) is being sued by an entity it funds and oversees because
    • Previously, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia enjoined USAGM from “taking any action to remove or replace any officers or directors of the OTF,” pending the outcome of the suit which is being expedited.
    • Additionally, USAGM CEO and Chair of the Board Michael Pack is being accused in two different letters of seeking to compromise the integrity and independence of two organizations he oversees. There have been media accounts of the Trump Administration’s remaking of USAGM in ways critics contend are threatening the mission and effectiveness of the Open Technology Fund (OTF), a U.S. government non-profit designed to help dissidents and endangered populations throughout the world. The head of the OTF has been removed, evoking the ire of Members of Congress, and other changes have been implemented that are counter to the organization’s mission. Likewise, there are allegations that politically-motivated policy changes seek to remake the Voice of America (VOA) into a less independent entity.
      • In a letter to Pack, OTF argued that a number of recent actions Pack has undertaken have violated “firewall protections” in the organization’s grant agreement. They further argue that Pack is conflicted and should turn over the investigation to the United States (U.S.) Department of State’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG). OTF alleged the following:
        • 1. Attempts to compromise and undermine OTF’s independence: USAGM has repeatedly attempted to undermine OTF’s independence over the past several months.
        • 2. Attempts to compromise and undermine integrity: USAGM has also attempted to undermine the integrity of OTF by publicly making numerous false and misleading claims about OTF to the internet freedom community, the general public, and even to Congress.
        • 3. Attempts to compromise and undermine security: USAGM has attempted to undermine the security of OTF, our staff, and our project partners -many of whom operate in highly sensitive environments -by
          • 1) attempting to gain unauthorized and unsupervised access to our office space and
          • 2) by requesting vast amounts of sensitive information and documentation with no apparent grant-related purpose, and no regard for the security of that information and documentation
        • 4. Attempts to compromise and undermine privacy: Closely related to USAGM’s attempts to undermine OTF’s security, USAGM has also attempted to undermine the privacy of OTF’s staff and partners by requesting that OTF provide Personally Identifiable Information(PII) without a clearly articulated grant-related purpose, and with no guarantee that the PII will be handled in a secure manner.
        • 5. Attempts to compromise and undermine effectiveness: USAGM’s actions have undermined the effectiveness of OTF by:
          • 1) freezing and subsequently withholding $19,181,791 in congressionally appropriated funding from OTF, forcing OTF to issue stop-work orders to 49 of our 60 internet freedom projects;
          • 2) providing unjustified, duplicative, overbroad, and unduly burdensome requests for information and documentation, without any clear grant-related purpose, and with clearly unreasonable deadlines;
          • 3) attempting to divert and redirect funding obligated by USAGM to OTF in an effort to duplicate OTF’s work; and
          • 4) threatening to terminate OTF’s Grant Agreement.
    • OTF asserted
      • These actions individually serve to seriously undermine OTF’s organizational and programmatic effectiveness. In their combined aggregate they threaten to dismantle OTF’s basic ability to effectively carry out its congressionally mandated mission to the detriment of USAGM and the cause of internet freedom globally
    • A group of VOA journalists wrote the entity’s acting director, asserting that Pack’s actions risk crippling programs and projects for some countries that are considered national security priorities.” They added:
      • He has ordered the firing of contract journalists, with no valid reason, by cancelling their visas, forcing them back to home countries where the lives of some of them may be in jeopardy. Now the purge appears to be expanding to include U.S. permanent residents and even U.S. citizens, with Mr. Pack recklessly expressing that being a journalist is “a great cover for a spy.
  • The Cyberspace Solarium Commission (CSC) issued its latest white paper to address a continuing problem for the United States’ government: how to attract or train a sufficient cyber workforce when private sector salaries are generally better. In “Growing A Stronger Federal Cyber Workforce,” the CSC claimed “Currently more than one in three public-sector cyber jobs sits open…[and] [f]illing these roles has been a persistent and intractable problem over the past decade, in large part due to a lack of coordination and leadership.” The CSC averred “[i]n the context of this pervasive challenge, the fundamental purpose of this paper is to outline the elements required for a coherent strategy that enables substantive and coordinated investment in cyber workforce development and calls for a sustained investment in that strategy.” The CSC then proceeds to lay out “five elements to guide development of a federal cyber workforce strategy:
    • Organize: Federal departments and agencies must have flexible tools for organizing and managing their workforce that can adapt to each organization’s individual mission while also providing coherence across the entirety of the federal government. To appropriately organize the federal cyber workforce, the CSC recommends properly identifying and utilizing cyber-specific occupational classifications to allow more tailored workforce policies, building a federal cyber service to provide clear and agile hiring authorities and other personnel management tools, and establishing coordination structures to provide clear leadership for federal workforce development e orts.
    • Recruit: Federal leaders must focus on the programs that make public service an attractive prospect to talented individuals. In many ways, the federal government’s greatest tool for recruitment is the mission and unique learning opportunities inherent in federal work. To capitalize on these advantages, the government should invest in existing programs such as CyberCorps: Scholarship for Service and the Centers of Academic Excellence, while also working to mitigate recruitment barriers that stem from the personnel security clearance process.
    • Develop: e federal government, like all cyber employers, cannot expect every new employee to have hands-on experience, a four-year degree, and a list of industry certifications. Rather, the federal government will be stronger if it draws from a broad array of educational backgrounds and creates opportunities for employees to gain knowledge and experience as they work. is e ort will call for many innovative approaches, among which the Commission particularly recommends apprenticeship programs and upskilling opportunities to support cyber employee development.
    • Retain: Federal leaders should take a nuanced view of retention, recognizing that enabling talent to move flexibly between the public and private sectors enables a stronger cyber workforce overall. However, federal employers can take steps to encourage their employees to increase the time they spend in public service. Improving pay flexibility is a major consideration, but continuing the development of career pathways and providing interesting career development opportunities like rotational and exchange programs also can be critical. Of particular note, federal employers can increase retention of underrepresented groups through the removal of inequities and barriers to advancement in the workplace.
    • Stimulate growth: e federal government cannot simply recruit a larger share of the existing national talent pool. Rather, leaders must take steps to grow the talent pool itself in order to increase the numbers of those available for federal jobs. To promote growth of the talent pool nationwide, the federal government must first coordinate government efforts working toward this goal. Executive branch and congressional leaders should also invest in measures to promote diversity across the national workforce and incentivize research to provide a greater empirical understanding of cyber workforce dynamics. Finally, federal leaders must work to increase the military cyber workforce, which has a significant impact on the national cyber workforce because it serves as both a source and an employer of cyber talent.

Further Reading

  • Oracle reportedly wins deal for TikTok’s US operations as ‘trusted tech partner’” By Tom Warren and Nick Statt – The Verge. ByteDance chose Oracle over Microsoft but not for buying its operations in the United States (U.S.), Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Now, Oracle is proposing to be TikTok’s trusted technology partner, which seems to be hosting TikTok’s operations in the U.S. and managing its data as a means of allaying the concerns of the U.S. government about access by the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
  • Why Do Voting Machines Break on Election Day?” By Adrianne Jeffries – The Markup. This piece seeks to debunk the hype by explaining that most voting issues are minor and easily fixed, which may well be a welcome message in the United States (U.S.) given the lies and fretting about the security and accuracy of the coming election. Nonetheless, the mechanical and systemic problems encountered by some Americans do speak to the need to update voting laws and standards. Among other problems are the high barriers to entry for firms making and selling voting machines.
  • Twitter steps up its fight against election misinformation” By Elizabeth Dwoskin – The Washington Post. Twitter and Google announced policy changes like Facebook did last week to help tamp down untrue claims and lies about voting and elections in the United States. Twitter will take a number of different approaches to handling lies and untrue assertions. If past is prologue, President Donald Trump may soon look to test the limits of this policy as he did shortly after Facebook announced its policy changes. Google will adjust searches on election day to place respected, fact oriented organizations at the top of search results.
  • China’s ‘hybrid war’: Beijing’s mass surveillance of Australia and the world for secrets and scandal” By Andrew Probyn and Matthew Doran – ABC News; “Zhenhua Data leak: personal details of millions around world gathered by China tech company” By Daniel Hurst in Canberra, Lily Kuo in Beijing and Charlotte Graham-McLay in Wellington – The Guardian. A massive database leaked to to an American shows the breadth and range of information collected by a company in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) alleged to be working with the country’s military and security services. Zhenhua Data is denying any wrongdoing or anything untoward, but the database contains information on 2.4 million people, most of whom live in western nations in positions of influence and power such as British and Australian prime Ministers Boris Johnson and Scott Morrison. Academics claim this sort of compilation of information from public and private sources is unprecedented and would allow the PRC to run a range of influence operations.
  • Europe Feels Squeeze as Tech Competition Heats Up Between U.S. and China” By Steven Erlanger and Adam Satariano – The New York Times. Structural challenges in the European Union (EU) and a lack of large technology companies have left the EU is a delicate position. It seeks to be the world’s de facto regulator but is having trouble keeping with the United States and the People’s Republic of China, the two dominant nations in technology.

© 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 PixelAnarchy from Pixabay

Pending Legislation In U.S. Congress, Part I: FY 2021 NDAA and FISA Reauthorization

Normally, a FISA reauthorization would be considered must pass like an NDAA, but this year may be different.   

As Congress returns from an eventful summer recess, it is possible technology focused and related legislation is passed or advances towards passage before the body leaves Washington in late September. However, it is just as likely, possibly even more, that Congress punts everything except for a measure to keep the government funded through the November election. This week, we will explore some of the bills that may become law. Today’s piece is on the FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the lapsed provisions in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

FY 2021 NDAA

Congress will almost certainly pass its annual policy and authorization bill for the Department of Defense (DOD) as it has done for every year since FY 1962. Any more, this bill is laden with technology provisions, most of which are oriented towards national security programs, but not always because the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is considered must-pass legislation, it attracts some legislation that is non-defense. For example, the revamp of how the United States government buys and develops information technology programs, the “Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act” (FITARA) (P.L. 113-291), was enacted as part of the FY 2015 NDAA.

The House and Senate have passed their respective bills: the “William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021” (H.R.6395) and the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021“ (S.4049) and have already started work on resolving differences between the two packages. However, over the last decade or so, the NDAA has been one of the last major bills passed each calendar year, and it is possible this legislation will not reach the President’s desk until late December.

The base bill put on the floor of the House contained a range of cybersecurity provisions. The DOD’s requirement that it must submit its cybersecurity and information technology (IT) budget would be broadened to include cyber mission force and a its new cyber operations force budgets. The Cyberspace Solarium Commission’s (CSC) structure would be changed and would be extended. The DOD would need to study and consider replicating an entity inside the Navy that has been researching and pioneering cyber warfare. The DOD’s Principal Cyber Advisor would be invested with the authority to manage the Pentagon’s role as the sector-specific agency (SSA) for the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) under Presidential Policy Directive- 21. The bill also increased the DOD’s reporting requirements to Congress regarding compromises of its system and exceptions to its IT policies with the goal of creating a baseline to help the Pentagon manage its cyber risks and tradeoffs. The DOD would determine whether a current public-private partnership on cybersecurity is working and should be extended.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would need to submit a report on the feasibility of an Integrated Cyber Center housed at its National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC). DHS would need to work with the DOD, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and National Security Agency (NSA) on whether it makes sense to create a joint collaboration environment to help shore up cybersecurity. The Pentagon would need to study and then implement a threat hunting program that would allow its personnel to go searching for vulnerabilities and cyber risks in the IT systems of DIB contractors. The DOD would be barred from contracting with entities that do not belong to the DIB threat intelligence sharing program. The bill would also permit the DOD to make grants to companies providing cybersecurity to small manufacturers in the U.S. The bill would establish a National Artificial Intelligence Initiative to support and foster a number of related activities including research and development, education, and training.

During floor consideration of H.R.6395, the House agreed to scores of amendments in two en bloc packages that contained most of the technology provisions made in order for consideration. Among the most notable of these provisions are the following, some of which have been considered by the House as standalone legislation:

The cybersecurity provisions in S.4049 would change, alter, or establish a range of programs and operations. The bill would modify the statutory duties of Department of Defense’s Principal Cyber Advisor to require that the person chosen for this role is a civilian at the Pentagon who holds a position requiring Senate confirmation. The DOD would need to develop and implement a framework for forward hunt operations (i.e. offensive cyber operations) to address some of the issues the committee’s oversight turned up. The focus on this exercise would be to get a better understanding on the utility and life span of intelligence gained through such operations. The Pentagon’s reporting duties after executing an offensive or defensive cyber operation would be expanded to include nations and entities with whom the United States is not at war. The Committee expanded the DOD’s required briefings on cyber operations, expressing frustration with the Department’s “unwillingness to keep the committee apprised of cyber operations conducted to gain access to adversary systems, including those conducted pursuant to standing military plans against military targets.”

There is language mandating that the DOD begin the process of harmonizing the Pentagon’s cyber capabilities and those provided by private sector contractors, much of which overlaps in the view of the committee. Cyber Command would receive expanded but necessarily acquisition authority as the service branches are to remain the entities undertaking large procurements. The Principal Cyber Advisor and head of Cyber Command would need to assess how well the DOD manages inter-agency conflict in the Pentagon and among Intelligence Community agencies in managing the process by which cyber operations are designed and executed, suggesting there is significant internal friction among the stakeholders. The DOD would need to conduct a pilot on the feasibility of adopting and using a commercial practice of speed-based cybersecurity metrics. The Pentagon would also need to better integrate its data collection and data analysis regarding potentially malicious or illegal activities by DOD employees and contractors (i.e. so-called insider threat).

The DOD would need “to develop a comprehensive plan, by February 1, 2021, for the deployment of commercial-off-the-shelf solutions on supplier networks to monitor the public-facing Internet attack surface of members of the defense industrial base (DIB)” that is intended to supplement the DOD’s new Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification and other DOD efforts to shore up the cybersecurity of its contractors. The bill would grant a DOD request to receive the authority to immediately react and respond to reported threats and penetrations to “operationally critical” DOD contractors’ systems and networks. The DOD would need “to conduct a baseline review of the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS) activity to determine whether the initiative should continue, but as a program of record, or should be replaced by an improved design and modern technology.” The DOD would also receive limited flexibility to use Operation and Maintenance (O&M) “for cyber operations-peculiar capability development projects.” The committee also conditioned the availability of certain Office of the Secretary of Defense travel on fulfilling a requirement in the current year’s NDAA to submit “a report for the structuring and manning of information operations capabilities and forces” in the DOD, develop “a strategy for operations in the information environment” and to “conduct an information operations posture review.”

The Cyberspace Solarium Commission (CSC) would have its mandate extended so it could monitor, assess, and report on the implementation of its 75 recommendations made in March 2020. The bill includes a number of CSC recommendations, including:

  • Adding “a force structure assessment of the Department of Defense’s Cyber Operations Forces to future cyber posture reviews.”
  • “a report to the congressional defense committees, detailing the actions that the Secretary will undertake to ensure that the Commander, U.S. Cyber Command, has enhanced authority, direction, and control of the Cyber Operations Forces and of the equipment budget that enables Cyber Operations Forces’ operations and readiness, beginning with fiscal year 2024 budget request.”
  • Assessing “options for establishing a cyber reserve force.”
  • A comprehensive plan for “[e]nsuring cyber resiliency of nuclear command and control system”
  • Requiring “the Secretary of Defense to establish policies and requirements for each major weapon system, and the priority critical infrastructure essential to the proper functioning of major weapon systems in broader mission areas, to be re-assessed for cyber vulnerabilities.”
  • Mandating that the Secretary of Defense “establish a threat intelligence sharing program to share threat intelligence with and obtain threat intelligence from the defense industrial base.”
  • Requiring the Pentagon “to conduct an assessment of the adequacy of threat hunting elements of the Cyber Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program and the need for continuous threat monitoring operations.”
  • Addressing “the risks to National Security Systems (NSSs) posed by quantum computing by requiring the Secretary of Defense to: (1) Complete an assessment of current and potential threats to critical NSSs and the standards used for quantum-resistant cryptography; and (2) Provide recommendations for research and development activities to secure NSSs.”
  • Study the feasibility of establishment of a National Cyber Director.

In terms of the provisions that were folded into the final Senate bill, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) succeeded in attached to the larger bill the “Cybersecurity Vulnerability Identification and Notification Act of 2019” (S.3045). S.3045 would expand the authority of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) to issue subpoenas to internet service providers to obtain the identity of owners and operators of critical infrastructure subject to be drafted procedures and limits on how any information collected from subpoena is used and retained. The House’s counterpart bill, H.R.5680, was added as an amendment to H.R.6395, meaning the substance of the legislation will almost certainly be in the final NDAA. Also, an amendment was adopted to stimulate semiconductor manufacturing in the United States by creating a grant and tax incentive program at the Department of Commerce

There were other technology provisions added to the bill during debate. The following amendments were adopted on 2 July en bloc by unanimous consent:

  • The Department of Homeland of Security “shall produce a report on the state of digital content forgery technology” within one year of enactment and then every five years
  • “[T]he Secretary of Defense, with appropriate representatives of the Armed Forces, shall brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the feasibility and the current status of assigning members of the Armed Forces on active duty to the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) of the Department of Defense.”
  • “[T]he Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a comprehensive review of the ability of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to fulfill–
    • the missions of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; and
    • the recommendations detailed in the report issued by the Cyberspace Solarium Commission”
  • The “Developing Innovation and Growing the Internet of Things Act” (DIGIT Act) (S.1611) that would require the Department of Commerce to “convene a working group of Federal stakeholders for the purpose of providing recommendations and a report to Congress relating to the aspects of the Internet of Things.”
  • “[T]he Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office and the Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, shall leverage, to the maximum extent practicable, the capabilities of United States industry, including through the use of commercial geospatial-intelligence services and acquisition of commercial satellite imagery.”
  • “[T]he Secretary of Defense is authorized to establish a pilot program to explore the use of consumption-based solutions to address software-intensive warfighting capability” per a re commendation made by the Section 809 Panel.
  • “[T]he Secretary of Defense shall complete a study on the cyberexploitation of the personal  information and accounts of members of the Armed Forces and their families.”
  • A modified version of the “Utilizing Strategic Allied (USA) Telecommunications Act” (S.3189) that “would reassert U.S. and Western leadership by encouraging competition with Huawei that capitalizes on U.S. software advantages, accelerating development of an open-architecture model (known as O-RAN) that would allow for alternative vendors to enter the market for specific network components, rather than having to compete with Huawei end-to-end” according to a press release.

Additionally, a deal was struck to add the “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021” (S.3905) to S.4049 but without a bill included in the package as reported out of the Senate Intelligence Committee: the “Foreign Influence Reporting in Elections Act” (FIRE Act) (S.2242).

FISA Reauthorization

At present, key surveillance authorities for new investigations have lapsed, and it does not appear Congress is close to a deal to restore and reform them, an unusual state of affairs, for since 11 September 2001, it has done so regularly. The House and Senate have both passed bills but have been unable to agree on the extent of reforms to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) programs given antipathy from the Trump Administration on proposed changes and opposition from some Democrats and Republicans who want to see more significant reforms. It is always possible a compromise package is agreed to and then tacked onto the FY 2021 NDAA, a continuing resolution, or an omnibus appropriations bill as has happened before.

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. 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.

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, which it did in May. Thereafter, reforms House Democratic leadership tried adding to the bill failed to please stakeholders, leaving the chamber to squelch plans to send a revised bill to the Senate and instead ask for a conference, which is where matters currently stand.

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.

In May, 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.

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. 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.

In late May, it appeared as if the House would bring 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 to send 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). The bill is being held at the desk in the Senate and Senate conferees have not been named, meaning the conference committee cannot formally begin.  

© 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 ArtTower from Pixabay

Coming and Recent Events (5 August)

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

Coming Events

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

Recent Past Events

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

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

Image by Bishnu Sarangi from Pixabay

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (30 July)

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

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

Coming Events

  • On 30 July, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee’s Security Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled “The China Challenge: Realignment of U.S. Economic Policies to Build Resiliency and Competitiveness” with these witnesses:
    • The Honorable Nazak Nikakhtar, Assistant Secretary for Industry and Analysis, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
    • Dr. Rush Doshi, Director of the Chinese Strategy Initiative, The Brookings Institution
    • Mr. Michael Wessel, Commissioner, U.S. – China Economic and Security Review Commission
  • On 30 July, the House Armed Services Committee’s Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled “Review of the Recommendations of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission” with these witnesses:
    • Senator Angus King (I-ME), Chairman, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
    • Representative Mike Gallagher (R-WI), Chairman, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
    • The Honorable Patrick Murphy, Commissioner, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
    • Mr. Frank Cilluffo, Commissioner, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
  • On 31 July, the House Intelligence Committee will mark up its Intelligence Authorization Act.
  • On 31 July the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress will hold a business meeting “to consider proposed recommendations.”
  • On 3 August the House Oversight and Reform Committee will hold a hearing on the tenth “Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act” (FITARA) scorecard on federal information technology.
  • On 4 August, the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing titled “Findings and Recommendations of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission” with these witnesses:
    • Senator Angus S. King, Jr. (I-ME), Co-Chair, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
    • Representative Michael J. Gallagher (R-WI), Co-Chair, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
    • Brigadier General John C. Inglis, ANG (Ret.), Commissioner, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
  • On 6 August, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an open meeting to likely consider the following items:
    • C-band Auction Procedures. The Commission will consider a Public Notice that would adopt procedures for the auction of new flexible-use overlay licenses in the 3.7–3.98 GHz band (Auction 107) for 5G, the Internet of Things, and other advanced wireless services. (AU Docket No. 20-25)
    • Radio Duplication Rules. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would eliminate the radio duplication rule with regard to AM stations and retain the rule for FM stations. (MB Docket Nos. 19-310. 17-105)
    • Common Antenna Siting Rules. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would eliminate the common antenna siting rules for FM and TV broadcaster applicants and licensees. (MB Docket Nos. 19-282, 17-105)
    • Telecommunications Relay Service. The Commission will consider a Report and Order to repeal certain TRS rules that are no longer needed in light of changes in technology and voice communications services. (CG Docket No. 03-123)
  • The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will hold the “Exploring Artificial Intelligence (AI) Trustworthiness: Workshop Series Kickoff Webinar,” “a NIST initiative involving private and public sector organizations and individuals in discussions about building blocks for trustworthy AI systems and the associated measurements, methods, standards, and tools to implement those building blocks when developing, using, and testing AI systems” on 6 August.
  • On 18 August, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will host the “Bias in AI Workshop, a virtual event to develop a shared understanding of bias in AI, what it is, and how to measure it.”

Other Developments

  • Senate Armed Services Committee Chair James Inhofe (R-OK) has publicly placed a hold on the re-nomination of Federal Communications Commission member over the agency’s April decision to permit Ligado to proceed with its plan “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.” This is the latest means of pressing the FCC Inhofe and allies on Capitol Hill and in the Trump Administration have taken. In the recently passed “National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021” (S.4049) there is language requiring “the Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct an independent technical review of the Order and Authorization adopted by the FCC on April 19, 2020 (FCC 20–48). The independent technical review would include a comparison of the two different approaches used for evaluation of potential harmful interference. The provision also would require the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to submit a report on the independent technical review.” This provision may make it into the final FY 2021 NDAA, which would stop Ligado from proceeding before the conclusion of the study.
  • Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has released yet another bill amending 47 USC 230 (aka Section 230), the “Behavioral Advertising Decisions Are Downgrading Services (BAD ADS) Act,” that “remove Section 230 immunity from Big Tech companies that display manipulative, behavioral ads or provide data to be used for them.” Considering that targeting advertising forms a significant part of the revenue stream for such companies, this seems to be of a piece with other bills of Hawley’s and others to pressure social media platforms. Hawley noted he “has been a leading critic of Section 230’s protection of Big Tech firms and recently called for Twitter to lose immunity if it chooses to editorialize on political speech.”
  • The United States National Counterintelligence and Security Center (US NCSC) issued a statement on election security on the 100th day before the 2020 Presidential Election. US NCSC Director William Evanina described the risks facing the US heading into November but did not detail US efforts to address and counter the efforts of foreign nations to influence and disrupt Presidential and Congressional elections this fall. The US NCSC explained it is working with other federal agencies and stakeholders, however.
    • US NCSC Director William Evanina explained the purpose of the press release is to “share insights with the American public about foreign threats to our election and offer steps to citizens across the country to build resilience and help mitigate these threats…[and] to update Americans on the evolving election threat landscape, while also safeguarding our intelligence sources and methods.” Evanina noted “Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has been providing robust intelligence-based briefings on election security to the presidential campaigns, political committees, and Congressional audiences.” Including the assertion “[i]n leading these classified briefings, I have worked to ensure fidelity, accountability, consistency and transparency with these stakeholders and presented the most timely and accurate information we have to offer” may be Evanina’s way of pushing back on concerns that the White House has placed people loyal to the President at the top of some IC entities who may lack independence. Top Democrats
    • The US NCSC head asserted “[e]lection security remains a top priority for the Intelligence Community and we are committed in our support to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), given their leadership roles in this area.”
    • Evanina claimed “[a]t this time, we’re primarily concerned with China, Russia and Iran — although other nation states and non-state actors could also do harm to our electoral process….[and] [o]ur insights and judgments will evolve as the election season progresses:
      • China is expanding its influence efforts to shape the policy environment in the United States, pressure political figures it views as opposed to China’s interests, and counter criticism of China. Beijing recognizes its efforts might affect the presidential race.
      • Russia’s persistent objective is to weaken the United States and diminish our global role. Using a range of efforts, including internet trolls and other proxies, Russia continues to spread disinformation in the U.S. that is designed to undermine confidence in our democratic process and denigrate what it sees as an anti-Russia “establishment” in America.
      • Iran seeks to undermine U.S. democratic institutions and divide the country in advance of the elections. Iran’s efforts center around online influence, such as spreading disinformation on social media and recirculating anti-U.S. content.
    • Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Mark Warner (D-VA) released their response to the NCSC statement:
      • The statement just released by NCSC Director William Evanina does not go nearly far enough in arming the American people with the knowledge they need about how foreign powers are seeking to influence our political process. The statement gives a false sense of equivalence to the actions of foreign adversaries by listing three countries of unequal intent, motivation and capability together. The statement, moreover, fails to fully delineate the goal, nature, scope and capacity to influence our election, information the American people must have as we go into November. To say without more, for example, that Russia seeks to ‘denigrate what it sees as an anti-Russia ‘establishment’ in America’ is so generic as to be almost meaningless. The statement omits much on a subject of immense importance.
      • “In our letter two weeks ago, we called on the FBI to provide a defensive briefing to the entire Congress about specific threats related to a concerted foreign disinformation campaign, and this is more important than ever.  But a far more concrete and specific statement needs to be made to the American people, consistent with the need to protect sources and methods.  We can trust the American people with knowing what to do with the information they receive and making those decisions for themselves. But they cannot do so if they are kept in the dark about what our adversaries are doing, and how they are doing it.  When it comes to American elections, Americans must decide.”
    • Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued their own statement:
      • We are disappointed by the statement from Senator Schumer, Senator Warner, Speaker Pelosi, and Representative Schiff about Bill Evanina, the Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. Evanina is a career law enforcement and intelligence professional with extensive experience in counterintelligence. His reputation as a straight-shooter immune from politics is well-deserved. It is for this reason that Evanina received overwhelming support from the Senate when he was confirmed to be Director of the NCSC and again when the Administration tapped him to lead the nation’s efforts to protect the 2020 elections from foreign interference.
      • We believe the statement baselessly impugns his character and politicizes intelligence matters. Their manufactured complaint undercuts Director Evanina’s nonpartisan public outreach to increase Americans’ awareness of foreign influence campaigns right at the beginning of his efforts.
      • Prior to their public statements, Director Evanina had previewed his efforts and already offered to provide another round of briefings to the Congress on the threat and steps the US government has taken over the last three and a half years to combat it. We believe the threat is real, and is more complex than many partisans may wish to admit. We welcome these briefings, and hope our colleagues will listen to the career professionals who have been given this mission.
      •  We will not discuss classified information in public, but we are confident that while the threat remains, we are far better prepared than four years ago. The intelligence community, law enforcement, election officials, and others involved in securing our elections are far better postured, and Congress dramatically better informed, than any of us were in 2016—and our Democrat colleagues know it.
  • The Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) and the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) issued “new Cloud Security Guidance co-designed with industry to support the secure adoption of cloud services across government and industry.” The agencies stated this new release “will guide organisations including government, Cloud Service Providers (CSP), and Information Security Registered Assessors Program (IRAP) assessors on how to perform a comprehensive assessment of a cloud service provider and its cloud services, so a risk-informed decision can be made about its suitability to handle an organisation’s data.” ACSC and DTA added “The Cloud Security Guidance is supported by forthcoming updates to the Australian Government Information Security Manual (ISM), the Attorney-General’s Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF), and the DTA’s Secure Cloud Strategy.”
  • The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) studied how well facial recognition technology and services could identify people wearing masks and, to no great surprise, the results were not good with respect to accuracy. NIST stressed that the facial recognition technology were not calibrated for masks in qualifying its results. In its Interagency Report NISTIR 8311, NIST found
    • Algorithm accuracy with masked faces declined substantially across the board. Using unmasked images, the most accurate algorithms fail to authenticate a person about 0.3% of the time. Masked images raised even these top algorithms’ failure rate to about 5%, while many otherwise competent algorithms failed between 20% to 50% of the time.
    • Masked images more frequently caused algorithms to be unable to process a face, technically termed “failure to enroll or template” (FTE). Face recognition algorithms typically work by measuring a face’s features — their size and distance from one another, for example — and then comparing these measurements to those from another photo. An FTE means the algorithm could not extract a face’s features well enough to make an effective comparison in the first place.
    • The more of the nose a mask covers, the lower the algorithm’s accuracy. The study explored three levels of nose coverage — low, medium and high — finding that accuracy degrades with greater nose coverage.
    • While false negatives increased, false positives remained stable or modestly declined. Errors in face recognition can take the form of either a “false negative,” where the algorithm fails to match two photos of the same person, or a “false positive,” where it incorrectly indicates a match between photos of two different people. The modest decline in false positive rates show that occlusion with masks does not undermine this aspect of security.
    • The shape and color of a mask matters. Algorithm error rates were generally lower with round masks. Black masks also degraded algorithm performance in comparison to surgical blue ones, though because of time and resource constraints the team was not able to test the effect of color completely.
    • NIST explained this report
      • is the first of a series of reports on the performance of face recognition algorithms on faces occluded by protective face masks [2] commonly worn to reduce inhalation of viruses or other contaminants. This study is being run under the Ongoing Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) executed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This report documents accuracy of algorithms to recognize persons wearing face masks. The results in this report apply to algorithms provided to NIST before the COVID-19 pandemic, which were developed without expectation that NIST would execute them on masked face images.
  • The United States National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) inside the White House announced the establishment of the Quantum Leap Challenges Institutes program and “$75 million for three new institutes designed to have a tangible impact in solving” problems associated with quantum information science and engineering. NSF added “Quantum Leap Challenge Institutes also form the centerpiece of NSF’s Quantum Leap, an ongoing, agency-wide effort to enable quantum systems research and development.” NSF and OSTP named the following institutes:
    • NSF Quantum Leap Challenge Institute for Present and Future Quantum Computing. Today’s quantum computing prototypes are rudimentary, error-prone, and small-scale. This institute, led by the University of California, Berkeley, plans to learn from these to design advanced, large-scale quantum computers, develop efficient algorithms for current and future quantum computing platforms, and ultimately demonstrate that quantum computers outperform even the best conceivable classical computers.
  • The United States Department of Energy (DOE) published its “Blueprint for the Quantum Internet” “that lays out a blueprint strategy for the development of a national quantum internet, bringing the United States to the forefront of the global quantum race and ushering in a new era of communications” and held an event to roll out the new document and approach. The Blueprint is part of the Administration’s effort to implement the “National Quantum Initiative Act” (P.L. 115-368), a bill “[t]o provide for a coordinated Federal program to accelerate quantum research and development for the economic and national security of the United States.” Under Secretary of Energy for Science Paul Dabbar explained in a blog post that “[t]he Blueprint lays out four priority research opportunities to make this happen:
    • Providing the foundational building blocks for Quantum Internet;
    • Integrating Quantum networking devices;
    • Creating repeating, switching, and routing technologies for Quantum entanglement;
    • Enabling error correction of Quantum networking functions.
  • The European Commission (EC) is requesting feedback until 10 September on its impact assessment for future European Union legislation on artificial intelligence (AI). The EC explained “the  overall  policy  objective  is  to  ensure  the  development  and  uptake  of lawful  and trustworthy  AI across the Single Market through the creation of an ecosystem of trust.” Earlier this year, as part of its Digital Strategy, the EC recently released a white paper earlier this year, “On Artificial Intelligence – A European approach to excellence and trust,” in which the Commission articulates its support for “a regulatory and investment oriented approach with the twin objective of promoting the uptake of AI and of addressing the risks associated with certain uses of this new technology.” The EC stated that “[t]he purpose of this White Paper is to set out policy options on how to achieve these objectives…[but] does not address the development and use of AI for military purposes.”

Further Reading

  • Google Takes Aim at Amazon. Again.” – The New York Times. For the fifth time in the last decade, Google will try to take on Amazon, in part, because the latter’s dominance in online retailing is threatening the former’s dominance in online advertising. Google is offering a suite of inducements for retailers to use its platform, Google Shopping. One wonders if Google gains traction whether Amazon would point to the competition as proof it is not engaged in anti-competitive practices to regulators.
  • Twitter’s security woes included broad access to user accounts” – Ad Age. This piece details the years long tension inside the social media giant between strengthening internal security and developing features to make more money. Not surprisingly, the latter consideration almost always trumped the former, a situation exacerbated by Twitter’s growing use of third-party contractors to handle back end functions, including security. Apparently, many contractors would spy on celebrities’ accounts, sometimes using workarounds to defeat Twitter’s security. Even though this article claims it was only contractors, one wonders if some Twitter employees were doing the same. Whatever the case, Twitter’s board has been warned about weak security for years and opted against heeding this advice, a factor that likely allowed the platform to get hacked a few weeks ago. Worse still, the incentives do not seem aligned to drive better security in the future. 
  • We’re in the middle of the COVID-19 crisis. Big Tech is already preparing for the next one.” – Protocol. For people who think large technology companies have not had a prominent enough role during the current pandemic, this news will be reassuring. The Consumer Technology Association (CTA), a non-profit organized under Section 501(c)(6) of United States’ tax laws, has commenced with a “Public Health Tech Initiative” “[t]o ensure an effective public sector response to future pandemics like COVID-19.” This group “will explore and create recommendations for the use of technology in dealing with and recovering from future public health emergencies.”
  • Car Companies Want to Monitor Your Every Move With Emotion-Detecting AI” – Vice’s Motherboard. A number of companies are selling auto manufacturers on a suite of technology that could record everything that happens in your car, including facial analysis algorithms, for a variety of purposes with financial motives such as behavioral advertising, setting insurance rates, and others. The United States does not have any laws that directly regulate such practices whereas the European Union does, suggesting such technology would be deployed less in Europe.
  • Russian Intelligence Agencies Push Disinformation on Pandemic” – The New York Times. United States (US) intelligence agencies declassified and share intelligence with journalists purporting to show how Russian Federation intelligence agencies have adapted their techniques in their nonstop disinformation campaign against the US, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and others. As Facebook, Twitter, and others have grown adept at locating and removing content from obvious Russian outlets like RT and Sputnik, Russian agencies are utilizing more subtle techniques, aiming at the same goal of undermining confidence among Americans and elsewhere in the government.

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

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (24 July)

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

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

Coming Events

  • On  27 July, the House Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law Subcommittee will hold its sixth hearing on “Online Platforms and Market Power” titled “Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google” that will reportedly have the heads of the four companies as witnesses.
  • On 28 July, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee’s Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled “The PACT Act and Section 230: The Impact of the Law that Helped Create the Internet and an Examination of Proposed Reforms for Today’s Online World.”
  • On 28 July the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee’s Investigations and Oversight and Research and Technology Subcommittees will hold a joint virtual hearing titled “The Role of Technology in Countering Trafficking in Persons” with these witnesses:
    • Ms. Anjana Rajan, Chief Technology Officer, Polaris
    • Mr. Matthew Daggett, Technical Staff, Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Systems Group, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    • Ms. Emily Kennedy, President and Co-Founder, Marinus Analytics
  •  On 28 July, the House Homeland Security Committee’s Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, & Innovation Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled “Secure, Safe, and Auditable: Protecting the Integrity of the 2020 Elections” with these witnesses:
    • Mr. David Levine, Elections Integrity Fellow, Alliance for Securing Democracy, German Marshall Fund of the United States
    • Ms. Sylvia Albert, Director of Voting and Elections, Common Cause
    • Ms. Amber McReynolds, Chief Executive Officer, National Vote at Home Institute
    • Mr. John Gilligan, President and Chief Executive Officer, Center for Internet Security, Inc.
  • On 30 July the House Oversight and Reform Committee will hold a hearing on the tenth “Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act” (FITARA) scorecard on federal information technology.
  • On 30 July, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee’s Security Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled “The China Challenge: Realignment of U.S. Economic Policies to Build Resiliency and Competitiveness” with these witnesses:
    • The Honorable Nazak Nikakhtar, Assistant Secretary for Industry and Analysis, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
    • Dr. Rush Doshi, Director of the Chinese Strategy Initiative, The Brookings Institution
    • Mr. Michael Wessel, Commissioner, U.S. – China Economic and Security Review Commission
  • On 4 August, the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing titled “Findings and Recommendations of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission” with these witnesses:
    • Senator Angus S. King, Jr. (I-ME), Co-Chair, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
    • Representative Michael J. Gallagher (R-WI), Co-Chair, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
    • Brigadier General John C. Inglis, ANG (Ret.), Commissioner, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
  • On 6 August, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an open meeting to likely consider the following items:
    • C-band Auction Procedures. The Commission will consider a Public Notice that would adopt procedures for the auction of new flexible-use overlay licenses in the 3.7–3.98 GHz band (Auction 107) for 5G, the Internet of Things, and other advanced wireless services. (AU Docket No. 20-25)
    • Radio Duplication Rules. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would eliminate the radio duplication rule with regard to AM stations and retain the rule for FM stations. (MB Docket Nos. 19-310. 17-105)
    • Common Antenna Siting Rules. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would eliminate the common antenna siting rules for FM and TV broadcaster applicants and licensees. (MB Docket Nos. 19-282, 17-105)
    • Telecommunications Relay Service. The Commission will consider a Report and Order to repeal certain TRS rules that are no longer needed in light of changes in technology and voice communications services. (CG Docket No. 03-123)

Other Developments

  • Slack filed an antitrust complaint with the European Commission (EC) against Microsoft alleging that the latter’s tying Microsoft Teams to Microsoft Office is a move designed to push the former out of the market. A Slack vice president said in a statement “Slack threatens Microsoft’s hold on business email, the cornerstone of Office, which means Slack threatens Microsoft’s lock on enterprise software.” While the filing of a complaint does not mean the EC will necessarily investigate, under its new leadership the EC has signaled in a number of ways its intent to address the size of some technology companies and the effect on competition.
  • The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has issued for comment NIST the 2nd Draft of NISTIR 8286, Integrating Cybersecurity and Enterprise Risk Management (ERM). NIST claimed this guidance document “promotes greater understanding of the relationship between cybersecurity risk management and ERM, and the benefits of integrating those approaches…[and] contains the same main concepts as the initial public draft, but their presentation has been revised to clarify the concepts and address other comments from the public.” Comments are due by 21 August 2020.
  • The United States National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) published its Second Quarter Recommendations, a compilation of policy proposals made this quarter. NSCAI said it is still on track to release its final recommendations in March 2021. The NSCAI asserted
    • The recommendations are not a comprehensive follow-up to the interim report or first quarter memorandum. They do not cover all areas that will be included in the final report. This memo spells out recommendations that can inform ongoing deliberations tied to policy, budget, and legislative calendars. But it also introduces recommendations designed to build a new framework for pivoting national security for the artificial intelligence (AI) era.
    • The NSCAI stated it “has focused its analysis and recommendations on six areas:
    • Advancing the Department of Defense’s internal AI research and development capabilities. The Department of Defense (DOD) must make reforms to the management of its research and development (R&D) ecosystem to enable the speed and agility needed to harness the potential of AI and other emerging technologies. To equip the R&D enterprise, the NSCAI recommends creating an AI software repository; improving agency- wide authorized use and sharing of software, components, and infrastructure; creating an AI data catalog; and expanding funding authorities to support DOD laboratories. DOD must also strengthen AI Test and Evaluation, Verification and Validation capabilities by developing an AI testing framework, creating tools to stand up new AI testbeds, and using partnered laboratories to test market and market-ready AI solutions. To optimize the transition from technological breakthroughs to application in the field, Congress and DOD need to reimagine how science and technology programs are budgeted to allow for agile development, and adopt the model of multi- stakeholder and multi-disciplinary development teams. Furthermore, DoD should encourage labs to collaborate by building open innovation models and a R&D database.
    • Accelerating AI applications for national security and defense. DOD must have enduring means to identify, prioritize, and resource the AI- enabled applications necessary to fight and win. To meet this challenge, the NSCAI recommends that DOD produce a classified Technology Annex to the National Defense Strategy that outlines a clear plan for pursuing disruptive technologies that address specific operational challenges. We also recommend establishing mechanisms for tactical experimentation, including by integrating AI-enabled technologies into exercises and wargames, to ensure technical capabilities meet mission and operator needs. On the business side, DOD should develop a list of core administrative functions most amenable to AI solutions and incentivize the adoption of commercially available AI tools.
    • Bridging the technology talent gap in government. The United States government must fundamentally re-imagine the way it recruits and builds a digital workforce. The Commission envisions a government-wide effort to build its digital talent base through a multi-prong approach, including: 1) the establishment of a National Reserve Digital Corps that will bring private sector talent into public service part-time; 2) the expansion of technology scholarship for service programs; and, 3) the creation of a national digital service academy for growing federal technology talent from the ground up.
    • Protecting AI advantages for national security through the discriminate use of export controls and investment screening. The United States must protect the national security sensitive elements of AI and other critical emerging technologies from foreign competitors, while ensuring that such efforts do not undercut U.S. investment and innovation. The Commission proposes that the President issue an Executive Order that outlines four principles to inform U.S. technology protection policies for export controls and investment screening, enhance the capacity of U.S. regulatory agencies in analyzing emerging technologies, and expedite the implementation of recent export control and investment screening reform legislation. Additionally, the Commission recommends prioritizing the application of export controls to hardware over other areas of AI-related technology. In practice, this requires working with key allies to control the supply of specific semiconductor manufacturing equipment critical to AI while simultaneously revitalizing the U.S. semiconductor industry and building the technology protection regulatory capacity of like-minded partners. Finally, the Commission recommends focusing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) on preventing the transfer of technologies that create national security risks. This includes a legislative proposal granting the Department of the Treasury the authority to propose regulations for notice and public comment to mandate CFIUS filings for investments into AI and other sensitive technologies from China, Russia and other countries of special concern. The Commission’s recommendations would also exempt trusted allies and create fast tracks for vetted investors.
    • Reorienting the Department of State for great power competition in the digital age. Competitive diplomacy in AI and emerging technology arenas is a strategic imperative in an era of great power competition. Department of State personnel must have the organization, knowledge, and resources to advocate for American interests at the intersection of technology, security, economic interests, and democratic values. To strengthen the link between great power competition strategy, organization, foreign policy planning, and AI, the Department of State should create a Strategic Innovation and Technology Council as a dedicated forum for senior leaders to coordinate strategy and a Bureau of Cyberspace Security and Emerging Technology, which the Department has already proposed, to serve as a focal point and champion for security challenges associated with emerging technologies. To strengthen the integration of emerging technology and diplomacy, the Department of State should also enhance its presence and expertise in major tech hubs and expand training on AI and emerging technology for personnel at all levels across professional areas. Congress should conduct hearings to assess the Department’s posture and progress in reorienting to address emerging technology competition.
    • Creating a framework for the ethical and responsible development and fielding of AI. Agencies need practical guidance for implementing commonly agreed upon AI principles, and a more comprehensive strategy to develop and field AI ethically and responsibly. The NSCAI proposes a “Key Considerations” paradigm for agencies to implement that will help translate broad principles into concrete actions.
  • The Danish Defence Intelligence Service’s Centre for Cyber Security (CFCS) released its fifth annual assessment of the cyber threat against Denmark and concluded:
    • The cyber threat pose a serious threat to Denmark. Cyber attacks mainly carry economic and political consequences.
    • Hackers have tried to take advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic. This constitutes a new element in the general threat landscape.
    • The threat from cyber crime is VERY HIGH. No one is exempt from the threat. There is a growing threat from targeted ransomware attacks against Danish public authorities and private companies.  The threat from cyber espionage is VERY HIGH.
    • The threat is especially directed against public authorities dealing with foreign and security policy issues as well as private companies whose knowledge is of interest to foreign states. 
    • The threat from destructive cyber attacks is LOW. It is less likely that foreign states will launch destructive cyber attacks against Denmark. Private companies and public authorities operating in conflict-ridden regions are at a greater risk from this threat. 
    • The threat from cyber activism is LOW. Globally, the number of cyber activism attacks has dropped in recent years,and cyber activists rarely focus on Danish public authorities and private companies. The threat from cyber terrorism is NONE. Serious cyber attacks aimed at creating effects similar to those of conventional terrorism presuppose a level of technical expertise and organizational resources that militant extremists, at present, do not possess. Also, the intention remains limited. 
    • The technological development, including the development of artificial intelligence and quantum computing, creates new cyber security possibilities and challenges.

Further Reading

  • Accuse, Evict, Repeat: Why Punishing China and Russia for Cyberattacks Fails” – The New York Times. This piece points out that the United States (US) government is largely using 19th Century responses to address 21st Century conduct by expelling diplomats, imposing sanctions, and indicting hackers. Even a greater use of offensive cyber operations does not seem to be deterring the US’s adversaries. It may turn out that the US and other nations will need to focus more on defensive measures and securing its valuable data and information.
  • New police powers to be broad enough to target Facebook” – Sydney Morning Herald. On the heels of a 2018 law that some argue will allow the government in Canberra to order companies to decrypt users communications, Australia is considering the enactment of new legislation because of concern among the nation’s security services about end-to-end encryption and dark browsing. In particular, Facebook’s proposed changes to secure its networks is seen as fertile ground of criminals, especially those seeking to prey on children sexually.
  • The U.S. has a stronger hand in its tech battle with China than many suspect” – The Washington Post. A national security writer makes the case that the cries that the Chinese are coming may prove as overblown as similar claims made about the Japanese during the 1980s and the Russian during the Cold War. The Trump Administration has used some levers that may appear to impede the People’s Republic of China’s attempt to displace the United States. In all, this writer is calling for more balance in viewing the PRC and some of the challenges it poses.
  • Facebook is taking a hard look at racial bias in its algorithms” – Recode. After a civil rights audit that was critical of Facebook, the company is assembling and deploying teams to try to deal with the biases in its algorithms on Facebook and Instagram. Critics doubt the efforts will turn out well because economic incentives are aligned against rooting out such biases and the lack of diversity at the company.
  • Does TikTok Really Pose a Risk to US National Security?” – WIRED. This article asserts TikTok is probably no riskier than other social media apps even with the possibility that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) may have access to user data.
  • France won’t ban Huawei, but encouraging 5G telcos to avoid it: report” – Reuters. Unlike the United States, the United Kingdom, and others, France will not outright ban Huawei from their 5G networks but will instead encourage their telecommunications companies to use European manufacturers. Some companies already have Huawei equipment on the networks and may receive authorization to use the company’s equipment for up to five more years. However, France is not planning on extending authorizations past that deadline, which will function a de facto sunset. In contrast, authorizations for Ericsson or Nokia equipment were provided for eight years. The head of France’s cybersecurity agency stressed that France was not seeking to move against the People’s Republic of China (PRC) but is responding to security concerns.

© 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.

House Hearing On CSC Recommendations

On the same day another committee was considering amendments to the FY 2021 NDAA, a committee looked at recommendations to change US cyber policy

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.

One of the committees with jurisdiction over a number of the recommendations made by the Cyberspace Solarium Commission (CSC) held a virtual hearing to examine some of the panel’s policy and statutory suggestions to improve the cybersecurity of the United States. The hearing was chaired by one of the CSC members and all four witnesses were on the CSC. Those facts taken together with the timing of the hearing (i.e. right before the House is set to amendments embodying the CSC recommendations to the “William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021” (H.R.6395)) suggested the audience is House Democratic leadership, Senate Republican leadership, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and other stakeholders.

The House Homeland Security Committee’s Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, & Innovation Subcommittee held a virtual hearing on 17 July titled “Cyberspace Solarium Commission Recommendations” with the following witnesses:

  • Senator Angus King (I-ME), Co-Chair, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
  • Representative Michael Gallagher (R-WI), Co-Chair, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
  • Hon. Suzanne Spaulding, Commissioner, Cyberspace Solarium Commission
  • Ms. Samantha Ravich, Ph.D., Commissioner, Cyberspace Solarium Commission

Consequently, given the subcommittee’s jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the latter’s responsibility for helping non-defense civilian agencies secure their networks and systems, the subcommittee spent a fair amount of time discussing how to improve both entities.

Representative James Langevin (D-RI) chaired the hearing even though Representative Cedric Richmond (D-LA) is chair of the subcommittee. As mentioned, Langevin served on the CSC and has offered a number of amendments to be debated when the House considers the FY 2021 NDAA this week. In his opening statement, Langevin asserted

  • The realities of 2020 make clear that a comprehensive, whole-of-nation approach to cybersecurity is a necessity, but we do not yet have one. We lack a clear leader in the White House whose mission it is to focus on cybersecurity. We lack clear understanding of roles and responsibilities, both within government and between government and the private sector. We lack clear metrics to measure our progress.
  • The Cyberspace Solarium Commission report cannot fix all the challenges we have in cyberspace. But it does chart a bold course, and it does not shy away from the tradeoffs we will need to make to decisively improve our cybersecurity posture. The report makes clear that everyone – from government to private sector companies to Congress itself –needs to make meaningful changes.
  • We need to expect more from government: closer coordination across agencies, stronger collaboration with critical infrastructure, and, critically, a greater emphasis on planning. And we need to strengthen government agencies – in particular CISA – to do so.
  • We also need to expect more from the private sector. We need companies to truly accept the risks they take in cyberspace by accepting the consequences of failing to protect their data and networks.
  • We also need technology companies – what the report calls “cybersecurity enablers” – to do more to make the secure choice the default choice. Too often, we see a rush to be first to market, not secure to market. Too often, we see entities like ISPs not protecting their small and medium sized customers because they don’t believe it’s their job.
  • Most importantly, where the public and private intersect, at the nexus of critical infrastructure that this committee is charged with protecting, we need to ensure the private sector is doing its part to protect itself while acknowledging that they can’t go it alone.

Ranking Member John Katko (R-NY)

  • The recommendations I am most interested in hearing about today are, strengthening the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and its workforce, evaluating CISA’s facilities needs, strengthening the CISA Director position and making the Assistant Directors career, the National Cyber Director, authorizing CISA to threat hunt on the .gov domain, securing email, developing a strategy to secure email, and modernizing the digital infrastructure of state and local governments and small and mid-sized businesses.
  • As Ranking Member on the Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation Subcommittee, my top priority among the Commission’s recommendations is strengthening and clarifying the CISA’s authority and vastly increasing its funding to allow it to carry out its role as the Nation’s risk manager coordinating the protection of critical infrastructure and federal agencies and departments from cyber threats.  I introduced this recommendation as a bill, which requires CISA to assess what additional resources are necessary to fulfill its mission.  This assessment should examine CISA’s workforce composition and future demands and report to Congress on the findings.
  • Under the bill, CISA would also evaluate its current facilities and future needs including accommodating integration of personnel, critical infrastructure partners, and other department and agency personnel and make recommendations to the General Services Administration (GSA).  GSA must evaluate CISA’s recommendations and report to Congress within 30 days on how best to accommodate CISA’s mission and goals with commensurate facilities.  The facilities evaluation dovetails with the Commission’s recommendation for an integrated cyber center within CISA.
  • I reintroduced my bill elevating and strengthening the CISA Director position to reflect the significance of the role, making the position the equivalent of an Assistant Secretary or military service secretary.  My bill limits the term of the CISA Director to 2, 5-year terms, which ensures the agency has stable leadership. It also depoliticizes the Assistant Director positions by making them a career.
  • A related legislative proposal that I am working with colleagues to pass, clarifies CISA’s authority to conduct continuous threat hunting across the .gov domain.  This will increase CISA’s ability to protect federal networks and allow CISA to provide relevant threat information to critical infrastructure.
  • Finally, the recommendation to establish a National Cyber Director within the White House is another legislative proposal I am cosponsoring.  This Presidentially-nominated and Senate-confirmed National Cyber Director would be the principle cybersecurity advisor of the President, tasked with developing, counseling the President on, and supervising the implementation of a National Cyber Strategy. This leadership will bring focus to our Nation’s cybersecurity as a top strategic priority.

Committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) explained

  • Although there are many well-intentioned, capable people working hard to advance sound cybersecurity policy throughout the executive branch, the lack of consistent leadership from the White House has stunted progress. Over two years ago, for example, the White House green-lighted the elimination of its Cyber Security Coordinator. The result is a lack of effective coordination among Federal agencies who compete for cybersecurity authorities, responsibilities, and associated budgets – and Federal agencies approaching Congress with conflicting priorities. The time has come for that to stop.
  • Toward that end, I appreciate and support the Commission’s recommendation that Congress establish a National Cyber Director. I understand Congressman Langevin has authored legislation to implement that recommendation and has also submitted it as an amendment to the NDAA. I fully support both efforts.
  • I similarly appreciate the Commission’s recommendations regarding strengthening the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and more clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of CISA and sector risk management agencies. Right-sizing CISA’s budget and equipping it with the authorities necessary to carry out its mission to secure Federal networks, while also supporting critical infrastructure, has been a bipartisan priority of Committee Members.
  • I am particularly interested in hearing Ms. Spaulding’s thoughts on these recommendations given her perspective as the former Under Secretary of the National Protection and Programs Directorate.
  • Additionally, I am interested in discussing Commission recommendations related to implementing a “carrot and stick” approach to encourage private sector collaboration with the Federal government’s cybersecurity and defense efforts, particularly the proposed codification of “systemically important critical infrastructure.”
  • Finally, I would be remiss if I did not address the Commission’s observation that Congress’ fractured jurisdiction over cybersecurity frustrates efforts to achieve a comprehensive, cohesive approach to cybersecurity. I agree. And while I disagree with the Commission’s recommendation on that point, rest assured that I am working to address the underlying problem.

In a joint statement, CSC Members

  • Ultimately, the Commission developed a strategic approach of “layered cyber deterrence” with the objectives of actively shaping behavior in cyberspace, denying benefits to adversaries who exploit this domain, and imposing real costs against those who target America’s economic and democratic institutions in and through cyberspace. Our critical infrastructure–the systems, assets, and entities that underpin our national security, economic security, and public health and safety—are increasingly threatened by malicious cyber actors. Effective critical infrastructure security and resilience requires reducing the consequences of disruption, minimizing vulnerability, and disrupting adversary operations that seek to hold our assets at risk. We believe the future of the U.S. economy and our national security requires both the executive branch and Congress work in tandem to prioritize and grant the following recommendations.
    • First and foremost, the Commission found that the federal government lacks consistent and institutionalized leadership, as well as a cohesive, clear strategic vision on cybersecurity. As a result, we recommend that Congress establish a National Cyber Director in the Executive Office of the President to centralize and coordinate the cybersecurity mission at the national level. The National Cyber Director would work with federal departments and agencies to bring coherence in the development of cybersecurity policy and strategy and in its execution. The position would provide clear leadership in the White House and signal cybersecurity as an enduring priority in U.S. national security strategy.
    • Second, the government must continue to improve the resourcing, authorities, and organization of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in its role as the primary federal agency responsible for critical infrastructure protection, security, and resilience. We recommend empowering CISA with tools to strengthen public-private partnership. Of particular value would be the authorities needed to aid in responding to attempted attacks on critical infrastructure from a variety of actors ranging from nation-states to criminals. Currently, the U.S. government’s authorities are limited exclusively to certain criminal contexts, where evidence of a compromise exists, and do not address instances in which critical infrastructure systems are vulnerable to a cyberattack. To address this gap, Congress should grant CISA subpoena authority in support of their threat and asset response activities, while ensuring appropriate liability protections for cooperating private-sector network owners.
    • Third, elements of the U.S. government and the private sector often lack the tools necessary for successful collaboration to counter and mitigate a malicious nation-state cyber campaign. To address this shortcoming, the executive branch should establish a Joint Cyber Planning Office under CISA to coordinate cybersecurity planning and readiness across the federal government and between the public and private sectors for significant cyber incidents and malicious cyber campaigns. Within a similar vein, Congress should also direct the U.S. government to plan and execute a national-level cyber table-top exercise on a biennial basis that involves senior leaders from the executive branch, Congress, state governments, and the private sector, as well as international partners, to build muscle memory for key decision makers and develop new solutions and strengthen our collective defense.
    • Fourth, the United States must take immediate steps to ensure our critical infrastructure sectors can withstand and quickly respond to and recover from a significant cyber incident. Resilience against such attacks is critical in reducing benefits that our adversaries can expect from their operations–whether disruption, intellectual property theft, or espionage. Congress should direct the executive branch to develop a Continuity of the Economy Plan. This plan should include the federal government, SLTT entities and private stakeholders who can collectively identify the resources and authorities needed to rapidly restart our economy after a major disruption. In addition, the Commission recommends establishing a Cyber State of Distress tied to a Cyber Response and Recovery Fund , giving the government greater flexibility to scale up and augment its own capacity to aid the private sector when a significant cyber incident occurs. These changes will ensure the infrastructure that supports our most critical national functions can continue to operate amidst disruption or crisis.
    • Fifth, the Commission recommends two relevant initiatives to reshape the cyber ecosystem toward greater security for all Americans. The first, the creation of a National Cybersecurity Certification and Labeling Authority, would help create standards and transparency that will allow consumers of technology products and services to use the power of their purses over time to demand more security and less vulnerability in the technologies they buy. Furthermore, Congress should appropriate funds to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in partnership with the Department of Energy, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and the Department of Defense (DoD), to competitively select, designate, and fund up to three Critical Technology Security Centers in order to centralize efforts directed towards evaluating and testing security of devices and technologies that underpin our networks and critical infrastructure.
    • Sixth, the U.S. Intelligence Community is not currently resourced or aligned to adequately support the private sector in cyber defense and security. While the intelligence community is formidable in informing security operations in instances when the U.S. government is the defender, its policies and procedures are not aligned to intelligence collection on behalf of private entities, which constitutes around 85% of our critical infrastructure. To that end, Congress should direct the executive branch to conduct a six-month comprehensive review of intelligence policies, procedures, and resources to identify and address key limitations in order to improve the intelligence community’s ability to provide intelligence support to the private sector.

© 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 ThisIsEngineering from Pexels