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

Further Reading

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

Other Developments

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

Coming Events

  • The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Gina Raimondo to be the Secretary of Commerce on 26 January.
  • On 27 July, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold PrivacyCon 2021.

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

Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay

ePrivacy Exception Proposed

Late last month, a broad exception to the EU’s privacy regulations became effective.

My apologies. The first version of this post erroneously asserted the derogation to the ePrivacy Directive had been enacted. It has not, and this post has been re-titled and updated to reflect this fact.

As the European Union (EU) continues to work on enacting a modernized ePrivacy Directive (Directive 2002/58/EC) to complement the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it proposed an exemption to manage a change in another EU law to sweep “number-independent interpersonal communications services” into the current regulatory structure of electronics communication. The policy justification for allowing a categorical exemption to the ePrivacy Directive is for combatting child sexual abuse online. This derogation of EU law is limited to at most five years and quite possibly less time if the EU can enact a successor to the ePrivacy Directive, an ePrivacy Regulation. However, it is unclear when this derogation will be agreed upon and enacted.

In September 2020, the European Commission (EC) issued “a Proposal for a Regulation on a temporary derogation from certain provisions of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC as regards the use of technologies by number-independent interpersonal communicationsservice providers for the processing of personal and other data for the purpose of combatting child sexual abuse online.” The final regulation took effect on 21 December 2020. However, the EC has also issued a draft of compromise ePrivacy Regulation, the results of extensive communications. The GDPR was enacted with an update of the ePrivacy Directive in mind.

In early December, an EU Parliament committee approved the proposed derogation but the full Parliament has not yet acted upon the measure. The Parliament needs to reach agreement with the Presidency of the Council and the European Commission. In its press release, the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs explained:

The proposed regulation will provide for limited and temporary changes to the rules governing the privacy of electronic communications so that over the top (“OTT”) communication interpersonal services, such as web messaging, voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), chat and web-based email services, can continue to detect, report and remove child sexual abuse online on a voluntary basis.

Article 1 sets out the scope and aim of the temporary regulation:

This Regulation lays down temporary and strictly limited rules derogating from certain obligations laid down in Directive 2002/58/EC, with the sole objective of enabling providers of number-independent interpersonal communications services to continue the use of technologies for the processing of personal and other data to the extent necessary to detect and report child sexual abuse online and remove child sexual abuse material on their services.

The EC explained the legal and policy background for the exemption to the ePrivacy Directive:

  • On 21 December 2020, with the entry into application of the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC), the definition of electronic communications services will be replaced by a new definition, which includes number-independent interpersonal communications services. From that date on, these services will, therefore, be covered by the ePrivacy Directive, which relies on the definition of the EECC. This change concerns communications services like webmail messaging services and internet telephony.
  • Certain providers of number-independent interpersonal communications services are already using specific technologies to detect child sexual abuse on their services and report it to law enforcement authorities and to organisations acting in the public interest against child sexual abuse, and/or to remove child sexual abuse material. These organisations refer to national hotlines for reporting child sexual abuse material, as well as organisations whose purpose is to reduce child sexual exploitation, and prevent child victimisation, located both within the EU and in third countries.
  • Child sexual abuse is a particularly serious crime that has wide-ranging and serious life-long consequences for victims. In hurting children, these crimes also cause significant and long- term social harm. The fight against child sexual abuse is a priority for the EU. On 24 July 2020, the European Commission adopted an EU strategy for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse, which aims to provide an effective response, at EU level, to the crime of child sexual abuse. The Commission announced that it will propose the necessary legislation to tackle child sexual abuse online effectively including by requiring relevant online services providers to detect known child sexual abuse material and oblige them to report that material to public authorities by the second quarter of 2021. The announced legislation will be intended to replace this Regulation, by putting in place mandatory measures to detect and report child sexual abuse, in order to bring more clarity and certainty to the work of both law enforcement and relevant actors in the private sector to tackle online abuse, while ensuring respect of the fundamental rights of the users, including in particular the right to freedom of expression and opinion, protection of personal data and privacy, and providing for mechanisms to ensure accountability and transparency.

The EC baldly asserts the problem of child online sexual abuse justifies a loophole to the broad prohibition on violating the privacy of EU persons. The EC did note that the fight against this sort of crime is a political priority for the EC, one that ostensibly puts the EU close to the views of the Five Eyes nations that have been pressuring technology companies to end the practice of making apps and hardware encrypted by default.

The EC explained:

The present proposal therefore presents a narrow and targeted legislative interim solution with the sole objective of creating a temporary and strictly limited derogation from the applicability of Articles 5(1) and 6 of the ePrivacy Directive, which protect the confidentiality of communications and traffic data. This proposal respects the fundamental rights, including the rights to privacy and protection of personal data, while enabling providers of number-independent interpersonal communications services to continue using specific technologies and continue their current activities to the extent necessary to detect and report child sexual abuse online and remove child sexual abuse material on their services, pending the adoption of the announced long- term legislation. Voluntary efforts to detect solicitation of children for sexual purposes (“grooming”) also must be limited to the use of existing, state-of-the-art technology that corresponds to the safeguards set out. This Regulation should cease to apply in December 2025.

The EC added “[i]n case the announced long-term legislation is adopted and enters into force prior to this date, that legislation should repeal the present Regulation.”

In November, the European Data Protections Supervisor (EDPS) Wojciech Wiewiorówski published his opinion on the temporary, limited derogation from the EU’s regulation on electronics communication and privacy. Wiewiorówski cautioned that a short-term exception, however well-intended, would lead to future loopholes that would ultimately undermine the purpose of the legislation. Moreover, Wiewiorówski found that the derogation was not sufficiently specific guidance and safeguards and is not proportional. Wiewiorówski argued:

  • In particular, he notes that the measures envisaged by the Proposal would constitute an interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and data protection of all users of very popular electronic communications services, such as instant messaging platforms and applications. Confidentiality of communications is a cornerstone of the fundamental rights to respect for private and family life. Even voluntary measures by private companies constitute an interference with these rights when the measures involve the monitoring and analysis of the content of communications and processing of personal data.
  • The EDPS wishes to underline that the issues at stake are not specific to the fight against child abuse but to any initiative aiming at collaboration of the private sector for law enforcement purposes. If adopted, the Proposal, will inevitably serve as a precedent for future legislation in this field. The EDPS therefore considers it essential that the Proposal is not adopted, even in the form a temporary derogation, until all the necessary safeguards set out in this Opinion are integrated.
  • In particular, in the interest of legal certainty, the EDPS considers that it is necessary to clarify whether the Proposal itself is intended to provide a legal basis for the processing within the meaning of the GDPR, or not. If not, the EDPS recommends clarifying explicitly in the Proposal which legal basis under the GDPR would be applicable in this particular case.
  • In this regard, the EDPS stresses that guidance by data protection authorities cannot substitute compliance with the requirement of legality. It is insufficient to provide that the temporary derogation is “without prejudice” to the GDPR and to mandate prior consultation of data protection authorities. The co-legislature must take its responsibility and ensure that the proposed derogation complies with the requirements of Article 15(1), as interpreted by the CJEU.
  • In order to satisfy the requirement of proportionality, the legislation must lay down clear and precise rules governing the scope and application of the measures in question and imposing minimum safeguards, so that the persons whose personal data is affected have sufficient guarantees that data will be effectively protected against the risk of abuse.
  • Finally, the EDPS is of the view that the five-year period as proposed does not appear proportional given the absence of (a) a prior demonstration of the proportionality of the envisaged measure and (b) the inclusion of sufficient safeguards within the text of the legislation. He considers that the validity of any transitional measure should not exceed 2 years.

The Five Eyes nations (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States) issued a joint statement in which their ministers called for quick action.

In this statement, we highlight how from 21 December 2020, the ePrivacy Directive, applied without derogation, will make it easier for children to be sexually exploited and abused without detection – and how the ePrivacy Directive could make it impossible both for providers of internet communications services, and for law enforcement, to investigate and prevent such exploitation and abuse. It is accordingly essential that the European Union adopt urgently the derogation to the ePrivacy Directive as proposed by the European Commission in order for the essential work carried out by service providers to shield endangered children in Europe and around the world to continue.

Without decisive action, from 21 December 2020 internet-based messaging services and e-mail services captured by the European Electronic Communications Code’s (EECC) new, broader definition of ‘electronic communications services’ are covered by the ePrivacy Directive. The providers of electronic communications services must comply with the obligation to respect the confidentiality of communications and the conditions for processing communications data in accordance with the ePrivacy Directive. In the absence of any relevant national measures made under Article 15 of that Directive, this will have the effect of making it illegal for service providers operating within the EU to use their current tools to protect children, with the impact on victims felt worldwide.

As mentioned, this derogation comes at a time when the EC and the EU nations are trying to finalize and enact an ePrivacy Regulation. In the original 2017 proposal, the EC stated:

The ePrivacy Directive ensures the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, in particular the respect for private life, confidentiality of communications and the protection of personal data in the electronic communications sector. It also guarantees the free movement of electronic communications data, equipment and services in the Union.

The ePrivacy Regulation is intended to work in concert with the GDPR, and the draft 2020 regulation contains the following passages explaining the intended interplay of the two regulatory schemes:

  • Regulation (EU) 2016/679 regulates the protection of personal data. This Regulation protects in addition the respect for private life and communications. The provisions of this Regulation particularise and complement the general rules on the protection of personal data laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/679. This Regulation therefore does not lower the level of protection enjoyed by natural persons under Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The provisions particularise Regulation (EU) 2016/679 as regards personal data by translating its principles into specific rules. If no specific rules are established in this Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should apply to any processing of data that qualify as personal data. The provisions complement Regulation (EU) 2016/679 by setting forth rules regarding subject matters that are not within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, such as the protection of the rights of end-users who are legal persons. Processing of electronic communications data by providers of electronic communications services and networks should only be permitted in accordance with this Regulation. This Regulation does not impose any obligations on the end-user End-users who are legal persons may have rights conferred by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to the extent specifically required by this Regulation
  • While the principles and main provisions of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council remain generally sound, that Directive has not fully kept pace with the evolution of technological and market reality, resulting in an inconsistent or insufficient effective protection of privacy and confidentiality in relation to electronic communications. Those developments include the entrance on the market of electronic communications services that from a consumer perspective are substitutable to traditional services, but do not have to comply with the same set of rules. Another development concerns new techniques that allow for tracking of online behaviour of end-users, which are not covered by Directive 2002/58/EC. Directive 2002/58/EC should therefore be repealed and replaced by this Regulation.

© 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.

Photo by Guillaume Périgois on Unsplash

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

Further Reading

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

Other Developments

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

Coming Events

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

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

Image by Judith Scharnowski from Pixabay

New Cybersecurity Law and Strategy Unveiled

The EU is revising and replacing a 2016 regime to govern cybersecurity across the bloc.

The European Union (EU) is floating a proposal to reform its 2016 law on cybersecurity throughout the European Union to address gaps the current regime is not addressing. This proposal was released in concert with a new cybersecurity strategy and a statutory proposal to address physical (i.e. non-cyber) infrastructure. These proposals are the latest in a line of policy changes put forth by the EU’s new leadership to make this decade the EU’s Digital Decade. It may, however, take years for these proposals to become laws. For example, the successor to the ePrivacy Directive has been held up in negotiations for the last few years.

New European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen spelled out her vision for the EU for the years of 2019 through 2024, including “A Europe fit for the digital age.” In its February 2020 “Communication: Shaping Europe’s digital future,” the EC spelled out more how von der Leyen’s vision would be effectuated:

A European cybersecurity strategy, including the establishment of a joint Cybersecurity Unit, a Review of the Security of Network and Information Systems (NIS) Directive and giving a push to the single market for cybersecurity.

To this end, in mid-December 2020, the EC and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy unveiled a new EU Cybersecurity Strategy and “proposals to address both cyber and physical resilience of critical entities and networks: a Directive on measures for high common level of cybersecurity across the Union (revised NIS Directive or ‘NIS 2′), and a new Directive on the resilience of critical entities.”

Let us turn to the NIS 2 first. This proposal would replace the 2016 “Directive on security of network and information systems (NIS Directive)” ((EU) 2016/1148) currently in effect throughout the EU. NIS 2 would impose new obligations and responsibilities on EU member states and essential and important entities. The nations of the EU would need to draft and implement cybersecurity frameworks/strategies, which includes setting up vulnerability disclosure programs, voluntary cybersecurity information sharing programs, a policy to address information and communications technology (ICT) supply chain risk, and cybersecurity standards for publicly bought and used ICT. EU nations would also need to name “competent” national authorities to enforce NIS 2, for the EC identified lax or non-existent enforcement of existing cybersecurity laws as a rationale for the new proposal. Consequently, such authorities must be empowered to issue binding directives, if necessary, warnings, or instructions to cease certain conduct. These authorities must also work with data protection authorities in the event of data breaches. NIS 2 also provides for administrative fines and penalties to be established in the laws of EU nations.

Additionally, all EU nations should have computer security incident response teams (CSIRTs). NIS 2 would apply to a number of public and private entities in certain sectors, which are deemed “essential:” energy; transport; banking; financial market infrastructures; health, drinking water; waste water; digital infrastructure; public administration and space. Some public and private entities would be “important” entities and subject to the NIS 2 in these sectors: postal and courier services; waste management; manufacture, production and distribution of chemicals; food production, processing and distribution; manufacturing and digital providers. Micro and small entities would largely not be swept up into NIS 2 even if they are part of one of the aforementioned sectors. However, “providers of electronic communications networks or of publicly available electronic communications services, trust service providers, Top-level domain name (TLD) name registries and public administration, and certain other entities” would be governed by NIS 2 regardless of their size.

The EU would also establish a Cooperation Group that would be tasked with helping EU nations work more harmoniously under the NIS 2. However, this new body, unlike, say the General Data Protection Regulation’s created European Data Protection Board (EDPB), would not have power to compel its members to comply with NIS 2.

Notably, NIS 2 would require that: “Member States shall ensure that essential and important entities shall take appropriate and proportionate technical and organisational measures to manage the risks posed to the security of network and information systems which those entities use in the provision of their services.” The law lists a number of elements that must go into these measures. Moreover, “essential and important entities notify, without undue delay, the competent authorities or the CSIRT…of any incident having a significant impact on the provision of their services.” The NIS 2 lays out broad criteria as to what constitutes a “significant impact:”

  • the incident has caused or has the potential to cause substantial operational disruption or financial losses for the entity concerned;
  • the incident has affected or has the potential to affect other natural or legal persons by causing considerable material or non-material losses.

In order to address ICT supply chain risk, EU countries may elect to “require essential and important entities to certify certain ICT products, ICT services and ICT processes under specific European cybersecurity certification schemes adopted ” under the legislation that created the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA).

As noted earlier, EU nations must establish systems for essential and important entities to share information but need not compel them to do so. Article 26 provides that nation “shall ensure that essential and important entities may exchange relevant cybersecurity information among themselves including information relating to cyber threats, vulnerabilities, indicators of compromise, tactics, techniques and procedures, cybersecurity alerts and configuration tools.” EU countries must also have a system for any non-essential, non-important entities or those from sectors not covered by NIS 2 can also voluntarily submit information.

The EC argued that the NIS Directive is now outdated and is in desperate need of revision to reflect current realities:

Notwithstanding its notable achievements, the NIS Directive, which paved the way for a significant change in mind-set, in relation to the institutional and regulatory approach to cybersecurity in many Member States, has also proven its limitations. The digital transformation of society (intensified by the COVID-19 crisis) has expanded the threat landscape and is bringing about new challenges which require adapted and innovative responses. The number of cyber-attacks continues to rise, with increasingly sophisticated attacks coming from a wide range of sources inside and outside the EU.

The EC highlighted some of the limitations in how the NIS Directive has been implemented by EU member states and its failure to drive the adoption of better cyber practices by EU businesses:

The evaluation on the functioning of the NIS Directive, conducted for the purposes of the Impact Assessment, identified the following issues: (1) the low level of cyber resilience of businesses operating in the EU; (2) the inconsistent resilience across Member States and sectors; and (3) the low level of joint situational awareness and lack of joint crisis response. For example, certain major hospitals in a Member State do not fall within the scope of the NIS Directive and hence are not required to implement the resulting security measures, while in another Member State almost every single healthcare provider in the country is covered by the NIS security requirements.

The EC explained how the NIS 2 relates to a proposal released the same day to address physical infrastructure in the EU:

The proposal is therefore closely aligned with the proposal for a Directive on the resilience of critical entities, which aims at enhancing the resilience of critical entities against physical threats in a large number of sectors. The proposal aims to ensure that competent authorities under both legal acts take complementary measures and exchange information as necessary regarding cyber and non-cyber resilience, and that particularly critical operators in the sectors considered to be ‘essential’ per the proposal at hand are also subject to more general resilience-enhancing obligations with an emphasis on non-cyber risks.

The EC’s impact assessment on how well the NIS Directive is working shows limitations in scope and application, some of which may be attributed to changes in the EU and the world:

  • The scope of the NIS Directive is too limited in terms of the sectors covered, mainly due to: (i) increased digitisation in recent years and a higher degree of interconnectedness, (ii) the scope of the NIS Directive no longer reflecting all digitised sectors providing key services to the economy and society as a whole.
  • The NIS Directive is not sufficiently clear when it comes to the scope for operators of essential services and its provisions do not provide sufficient clarity regarding national competence over digital service providers. This has led to a situation in which certain types of entities have not been identified in all Member States and are therefore not required to put in place security measures and report incidents.
  • The NIS Directive allowed wide discretion to the Member States when laying down security and incident reporting requirements for operators of essential services (hereinafter called ‘OES(s)’). The evaluation shows that in some instances Member States have implemented these requirements in significantly different ways, creating additional burden for companies operating in more than one Member State.
  • The supervision and enforcement regime of the NIS Directive is ineffective. For example, Member States have been very reluctant to apply penalties to entities failing to put in place security requirements or report incidents. This can have negative consequences for the cyber resilience of individual entities.
  • The financial and human resources set aside by Member States for fulfilling their tasks (such as OES identification or supervision), and consequently the different levels of maturity in dealing with cybersecurity risks, vary greatly. This further exacerbates the differences in cyber resilience between Member States.
  • Member States do not share information systematically with one another, with negative consequences in particular for the effectiveness of the cybersecurity measures and for the level of joint situational awareness at EU level. This is also the case for information sharing among private entities, and for the engagement between the EU level cooperation structures and private entities.

The EC’s proposal contains a summary of what the new law would do:

  • The Directive, in particular: (a) lays down obligations for the Member States to adopt a national cybersecurity strategy, designate competent national authorities, single points of contact and CSIRTs; (b) provides that Member States shall lay down cybersecurity risk management and reporting obligations for entities referred to as essential entities in Annex I and important entities in Annex II; (c) provides that Member States shall lay down obligations on cybersecurity information sharing.
  • It applies to certain public or private essential entities operating in the sectors listed in Annex I (energy; transport; banking; financial market infrastructures; health, drinking water; waste water; digital infrastructure; public administration and space) and certain important entities operating in the sectors listed in Annex II (postal and courier services; waste management; manufacture, production and distribution of chemicals; food production, processing and distribution; manufacturing and digital providers). Micro and small entities within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 are excluded from the scope of the Directive, except for providers of electronic communications networks or of publicly available electronic communications services, trust service providers, Top-level domain name (TLD) name registries and public administration, and certain other entities, such as the sole provider of a service in a Member State.

The EC also released “The EU’s Cybersecurity Strategy for the Digital Decade” alongside the NIS 2 “to ensure a global and open Internet with strong guardrails to address the risks to the security and fundamental rights and freedoms of people in Europe.” The EC spelled out its dramatic plan to remake how the bloc regulates, invests in, and structures policies around cybersecurity. The EC claimed “[a]s a key component of Shaping Europe’s Digital Future, the Recovery Plan for Europe  and the EU Security Union Strategy, the Strategy will bolster Europe’s collective resilience against cyber threats and help to ensure that all citizens and businesses can fully benefit from trustworthy and reliable services and digital tools.” If the EU follows through, this strategy may have significant effects in the EU and around the world.

The EC further explained:

  • Following the progress achieved under the previous strategies, it contains concrete proposals for deploying three principal instruments –regulatory, investment and policy instruments – to address three areas of EU action – (1) resilience, technological sovereignty and leadership, (2) building operational capacity to prevent, deter and respond, and (3) advancing a global and open cyberspace. The EU is committed to supporting this strategy through an unprecedented level of investment in the EU’s digital transition over the next seven years – potentially quadrupling previous levels – as part of new technological and industrial policies and the recovery agenda
  • Cybersecurity must be integrated into all these digital investments, particularly key technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI), encryption and quantum computing, using incentives, obligations and benchmarks. This can stimulate the growth of the European cybersecurity industry and provide the certainty needed to ease the phasing out of legacy systems. The European Defence Fund (EDF) will support European cyber defence solutions, as part of the European defence technological and industrial base. Cybersecurity is included in external financial instruments to support our partners, notably the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument. Preventing the misuse of technologies, protecting critical infrastructure and ensuring the integrity of supply chains also enables the EU’s adherence to the UN norms, rules and principles of responsible state behavior.

Per the EC’s press release, the ”Directive on the resilience of critical entities” “expands both the scope and depth of the 2008 European Critical Infrastructure directive.” The EC added:

Ten sectors are now covered: energy, transport, banking, financial market infrastructures, health, drinking water, waste water, digital infrastructure, public administration and space. Under the proposed directive, Member States would each adopt a national strategy for ensuring the resilience of critical entities and carry out regular risk assessments. These assessments would also help identify a smaller subset of critical entities that would be subject to obligations intended to enhance their resilience in the face of non-cyber risks, including entity-level risk assessments, taking technical and organisational measures, and incident notification. The Commission, in turn, would provide complementary support to Member States and critical entities, for instance by developing a Union-level overview of cross-border and cross-sectoral risks, best practice, methodologies, cross-border training activities and exercises to test the resilience of critical entities.

© 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 Prawny from Pixabay

UK and EU Defer Decision On Data Flows

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically, the TCA provides

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

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

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

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

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

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

The TCA also affirms:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image by succo from Pixabay


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

New Google Antitrust Suits Filed

Two new suits filed against Google by state attorneys general. If the content detailed isn’t illegal behavior, get ready for even more shocking conduct from technology companies to stymie competitors and extract the maximum of any and all rents.

Last month, two new suits were filed against Google, arguing that the company’s dominance in the search engine and online advertising markets. One suit is led by Colorado’s attorney general and the other by Texas’ attorney general. The two suits have overlapping but different foci, and it is possible these new suits get folded into the suit against Google filed by the United States (U.S.) Department of Justice (DOJ). There are also media reports that some of the states that brought these suits may be preparing yet another antitrust action against Google over allegedly anti-monopolistic behavior in how it operates its Google Play app store.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Phil Weiser and 38 other state attorneys general[1] filed their antitrust suit in the District Court of the District of Columbia “under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, to restrain Google from unlawfully restraining trade and maintaining monopolies in markets that include general search services, general search text advertising, and general search advertising in the United States, and to remedy the effects of this conduct.” They are asking the court for a range of relief, including but not limited to permanent injunctions to stop ongoing and future anti-competitive conduct and a ;possible breakup of the company.

Weiser and his counterparts framed their argument this way:

Google, one of the largest companies in the world, has methodically undertaken actions to entrench and reinforce its general search services and search-related advertising monopolies by stifling competition. As the gateway to the internet, Google has systematically degraded the ability of other companies to access consumers. In doing so, just as Microsoft improperly maintained its monopoly through conduct directed at Netscape, Google has improperly maintained and extended its search-related monopolies through exclusionary conduct that has harmed consumers, advertisers, and the competitive process itself. Google, moreover, cannot establish business justifications or procompetitive benefits sufficient to justify its exclusionary conduct in any relevant market.

They summed up their legal argument of three forms of anticompetitive conduct of Google:

  • First, Google uses its massive financial resources to limit the number of consumers who use a Google competitor. For example, according to public estimates Google pays Apple between $8 and $12 billion per year to ensure that Google is enthroned as the default search engine on Apple devices, and it limits general search competition on Android devices with a web of restrictive contracts. Google pursues similar strategies with other devices, such as voice assistants and internet-connected cars.
  • Second, Google’s Search Ads 360 (“SA360”) service, a search advertising marketing tool used by many of the world’s most sophisticated advertisers, has long pledged to offer advertisers a “neutral” means for purchasing and comparing the performance of not only Google’s search advertising, but also that of its closest competitors. But, in reality, Google operates SA360—the single largest such tool used by advertisers—to severely limit the tool’s interoperability with a competitor, thereby disadvantaging SA360 advertisers.
  • Third, Google throttles consumers from bypassing its general search engine and going directly to their chosen destination, especially when those destinations threaten Google’s monopoly power. Google acknowledges its [REDACTED] because of the proliferation of services offered by specialized vertical providers. Specialized vertical providers, like an online travel agency who offer consumers the ability to complete a transaction then and there, do not compete in Google’s search-related markets. Nevertheless, they pose a threat to Google’s monopoly power in those markets because their success would both strengthen general search rivals with whom they partner and lower the artificially high barriers to expansion and entry that protect Google’s monopolies.

In summary, Weiser and his colleagues argued:

  • Google has willfully maintained, abused, and extended its monopoly power in general search services through (a) anticompetitive and exclusionary distribution agreements that lock up the present default positions for search access points on browsers, mobile devices, computers, and other devices as well as emerging device technology; require preinstallation and prominent placement of Google’s apps; and tie Google’s search access points to Google Play and Google APIs; (b) operation of SA360 to limit the tool’s interoperability with a competitor, disadvantaging SA360 advertisers; (c) discriminatory treatment towards specialized vertical providers in certain commercial segments that hinders consumers’ ability to find responsive information; and (d) other restrictions that drive queries to Google at the expense of search rivals.
  • Google has willfully maintained, abused, and extended its monopoly power in general search advertising through (a) anticompetitive and exclusionary distribution agreements that lock up the present default positions for search access points on browsers, mobile devices, computers, and other devices as well as emerging device technology; require preinstallation and prominent placement of Google’s apps; and tie Google’s search access points to Google Play and Google APIs; (b) operation of SA360 to limit the tool’s interoperability with a competitor, disadvantaging SA360 advertisers; (c) discriminatory treatment towards specialized vertical providers in certain commercial segments that hinders consumers’ ability to find responsive information; and (d) other restrictions that drive queries to Google at the expense of search rivals.
  • Google has willfully maintained, abused, and extended its monopoly power in general search text advertising through (a) anticompetitive and exclusionary distribution agreements that lock up the present default positions for search access points on browsers, mobile devices, computers, and other devices as well as emerging device technology; require preinstallation and prominent placement of Google’s apps; and tie Google’s search access points to Google Play and Google APIs; (b) operation of SA360 to limit the tool’s interoperability with a competitor, disadvantaging SA360 advertisers; (c) discriminatory treatment towards specialized vertical providers in certain commercial segments that hinders consumers’ ability to find responsive information; and (d) other restrictions that drive queries to Google at the expense of search rivals.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and nine other attorneys general[2] filed their antitrust action in the Eastern District of Texas and dropped a bomb: they allege Google and Facebook conspired to monopolize the online advertising market after publishers have devised a system to blunt Google’s dominance. However, Paxton and his colleagues argue that Google’s illegal actions have essentially taxed Americans through higher prices and lower quality products and services because companies are forced to pay a premium to Google to advertise online.

Paxton and the attorneys general summarized their suit and the relief they think appropriate in light of Google’s conduct:

As a result of Google’s anticompetitive conduct, including its unlawful agreement with Facebook, Google has violated and continues to violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2. Plaintiff States bring this action to remove the veil of Google’s secret practices and end Google’s abuse of its monopoly power in online advertising markets. Plaintiff States seek to restore free and fair competition to these markets and to secure structural, behavioral, and monetary relief to prevent Google from ever again engaging in deceptive trade practices and abusing its monopoly power to foreclose competition and harm consumers.

They summed up the harm they think Google has wrought:

Plaintiff States have sustained antitrust injury as a direct and proximate cause of Google’s unlawful conduct, in at least the following ways: (1) substantially foreclosing competition in the market for publisher ad servers, and using market power in the publisher ad server market to harm competition in the exchange market; (2) substantially foreclosing competition in the exchange market by denying rivals’ access to publisher inventory and to advertiser demand; (3) substantially foreclosing competition in the market for demand-side buying tools by creating information asymmetry and unfair auctions by virtue of Google’s market dominance in the publisher ad serving tools and exchange markets; (4) increasing barriers to entry and competition in publisher ad server, exchange, and demand-side buying tools markets; (5) harming innovation, which would otherwise benefit publishers, advertisers and competitors; (6) harming publishers’ ability to effectively monetize their content, reducing publishers’ revenues, and thereby reducing output and harming consumers; (7) reducing advertiser demand and participation in the market by maintaining opacity on margins and selling process, harming rival exchanges and buying tools; (8) increasing advertisers’ costs to advertise and reducing the effectiveness of their advertising, and thereby harming businesses’ return on the investment in delivering their products and services, reducing output, and harming consumers; (9) protecting Google’s products from competitive pressures, thereby allowing it to continue to extract high margins while shielded from significant pressure to innovate.

With regard to another possible antitrust action against Google, the suit Epic Games brought against the tech giant for taking 30% of in-app purchases as a condition of being allowed in the Play Store may shed light on what such a suit may look like.  In August Epic Games filed a suit against Google on substantially the same grounds as it is bringing against Apple. Google acted after Apple did to remove Fortnite from its Play Store once Epic Games started offering users a discounted price to buy directly from them as opposed to through Google. Epic asserted:

  • Epic brings claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and under California law to end Google’s unlawful monopolization and anti-competitive restraints in two separate markets: (1) the market for the distribution of mobile apps to Android users and (2) the market for processing payments for digital content within Android mobile apps. Epic seeks to end Google’s unfair, monopolistic and anti-competitive actions in each of these markets, which harm device makers, app developers, app distributors, payment processors, and consumers.
  • Epic does not seek monetary compensation from this Court for the injuries it has suffered. Epic likewise does not seek a side deal or favorable treatment from Google for itself. Instead, Epic seeks injunctive relief that would deliver Google’s broken promise: an open, competitive Android ecosystem for all users and industry participants. Such injunctive relief is sorely needed.
  • Google has eliminated competition in the distribution of Android apps using myriad contractual and technical barriers. Google’s actions force app developers and consumers into Google’s own monopolized “app store”—the Google Play Store. Google has thus installed itself as an unavoidable middleman for app developers who wish to reach Android users and vice versa. Google uses this monopoly power to impose a tax that siphons monopoly profits for itself every time an app developer transacts with a consumer for the sale of an app or in-app digital content. And Google further siphons off all user data exchanged in such transactions, to benefit its own app designs and advertising business.
  • If not for Google’s anti-competitive behavior, the Android ecosystem could live up to Google’s promise of open competition, providing Android users and developers with competing app stores that offer more innovation, significantly lower prices and a choice of payment processors. Such an open system is not hard to imagine. Two decades ago, through the actions of courts and regulators, Microsoft was forced to open up the Windows for PC ecosystem. As a result, PC users have multiple options for downloading software unto their computers, either directly from developers’ websites or from several competing stores. No single entity controls the ecosystem or imposes a tax on all transactions. And Google, as the developer of software such as the Chrome browser, is a direct beneficiary of this competitive landscape. Android users and developers likewise deserve free and fair competition.

In late October, the DOJ and a number of states filed a long awaited antitrust suit against Google that has been rumored to be coming since late summer 2020. This anti-trust action centers on Google’s practices of making Google the default search engine on Android devices and paying browsers and other technology entities to make Google the default search engine. The DOJ and eleven state attorneys general are following in the footsteps of the European Union’s (EU) €4.34 billion fine of Google in 2018 for imposing “illegal restrictions on Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators to cement its dominant position in general internet search.” The European Commission (EC or Commission) claimed the offending behavior included:

  • has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google’s app store (the Play Store);
  • made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and
  • has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called “Android forks”).

The EC said its “decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system.”

And, of course, this is only the latest anti-trust case Google has faced in the EU with the €2.42 billion fine in June 2017 “for abusing its dominance as a search engine by giving an illegal advantage to Google’s own comparison shopping service.”

Google’s antitrust and anticompetitive issues are not confined to the United States and the EU. In 2019, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) announced a legal action against Google “alleging they engaged in misleading conduct and made false or misleading representations to consumers about the personal location data Google collects, keeps and uses” according to the agency’s press release. In its initial filing, the ACCC is claiming that Google mislead and deceived the public in contravention of the Australian Competition Law and Android users were harmed because those that switched off Location Services were unaware that their location information was still be collected and used by Google for it was not readily apparent that Web & App Activity also needed to be switched off.

© 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 Hebi B. from Pixabay


[1] The following states are parties to the suit: Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona, Iowa, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming; the Commonwealths of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and Virginia; the Territory of Guam; and the District of Columbia.

[2] These states sued Google: Texas, Arkansas  Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi,  Missouri,  North Dakota,  South Dakota, Utah, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

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

Further Reading

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

Other Developments

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

Coming Events

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

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

Image by Free-Photos from Pixabay

Further Reading, Other Development, and Coming Events (4 January 2021)

Further Reading

  • Microsoft Says Russian Hackers Viewed Some of Its Source Code” By Nicole Perlroth — The New York Times. The Sluzhba vneshney razvedki Rossiyskoy Federatsii’s (SVR) hack keeps growing and growing with Microsoft admitting its source code was viewed through an employee account. It may be that authorized Microsoft resellers were one of the vectors by which the SVR accessed SolarWinds, FireEye, and ultimately a number of United States (U.S.) government agencies. Expect more revelations to come about the scope and breadth of entities and systems the SVR compromised.
  • In 2020, we reached peak Internet. Here’s what worked — and what flopped.” By Geoffrey Fowler — The Washington Post. The newspaper’s tech columnist reviews the technology used during the pandemic and what is likely to stay with us when life returns to some semblance of normal.
  • Facebook Says It’s Standing Up Against Apple For Small Businesses. Some Of Its Employees Don’t Believe It.” By Craig Silverman and Ryan Mac — BuzzFeed News. Again, two of the best-sourced journalists when it comes to Facebook have exposed employee dissent within the social media and advertising giant, and this time over the company’s advertising blitz positioning it as the champion of small businesses that allegedly stand to be hurt when Apple rolls out iOS 14 that will allow users to block the type of tracking across apps and the internet Facebook thrives on. The company’s PR campaign stands in contrast to the anecdotal stories about errors that harmed and impeded small companies in using Facebook to advertise and sell products and services to cusstomers.
  • SolarWinds hack spotlights a thorny legal problem: Who to blame for espionage?” By Tim Starks — cyberscoop. This piece previews possible and likely inevitable litigation to follow from the SolarWinds hack, including possible securities action on the basis of fishy dumps of stock by executive, breach of contract, and negligence for failing to patch and address vulnerabilities in a timely fashion. Federal and state regulators will probably get on the field, too. But this will probably take years to play out as Home Depot settled claims arising from its 2014 breach with state attorneys general in November 2020.
  • The Tech Policies the Trump Administration Leaves Behind” By Aaron Boyd — Nextgov. A look back at the good, the bad, and the ugly of the Trump Administration’s technology policies, some of which will live on in the Biden Administration.

Other Developments

  • In response to the SolarWinds hack, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) issued a joint statement indicating that the process established in Pursuant to Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 41, an Obama Administration policy has been activated and a Cyber Unified Coordination Group (UCG) has been formed “to coordinate a whole-of-government response to this significant cyber incident.” The agencies explained “[t]he UCG is intended to unify the individual efforts of these agencies as they focus on their separate responsibilities.”
    • In PPD-41 it is explained that a UCG “shall serve as the primary method for coordinating between and among Federal agencies in response to a significant cyber incident as well as for integrating private sector partners into incident response efforts, as appropriate.” Moreover, “[t]he Cyber UCG is intended to result in unity of effort and not to alter agency authorities or leadership, oversight, or command responsibilities.”
  • Following the completion of its “in-depth” investigation, the European Commission (EC) cleared Google’s acquisition of Fitbit with certain conditions, removing a significant hurdle for the American multinational in buying the wearable fitness tracker company. In its press release, the EC explained that after its investigation, “the Commission had concerns that the transaction, as initially notified, would have harmed competition in several markets.” To address and allay concerns, Google bound itself for ten years to a set of commitments that can be unilaterally extended by the EC and will be enforced, in part, by the appointment of a trustee to oversee compliance.
    • The EC was particularly concerned about:
      • Advertising: By acquiring Fitbit, Google would acquire (i) the database maintained by Fitbit about its users’ health and fitness; and (ii) the technology to develop a database similar to that of Fitbit. By increasing the already vast amount of data that Google could use for the personalisation of ads, it would be more difficult for rivals to match Google’s services in the markets for online search advertising, online display advertising, and the entire “ad tech” ecosystem. The transaction would therefore raise barriers to entry and expansion for Google’s competitors for these services to the detriment of advertisers, who would ultimately face higher prices and have less choice.
      • Access to Web Application Programming Interface (‘API’) in the market for digital healthcare: A number of players in this market currently access health and fitness data provided by Fitbit through a Web API, in order to provide services to Fitbit users and obtain their data in return. The Commission found that following the transaction, Google might restrict competitors’ access to the Fitbit Web API. Such a strategy would come especially at the detriment of start-ups in the nascent European digital healthcare space.
      • Wrist-worn wearable devices: The Commission is concerned that following the transaction, Google could put competing manufacturers of wrist-worn wearable devices at a disadvantage by degrading their interoperability with Android smartphones.
    • As noted, Google made a number of commitments to address competition concerns:
      • Ads Commitment:
        • Google will not use for Google Ads the health and wellness data collected from wrist-worn wearable devices and other Fitbit devices of users in the EEA, including search advertising, display advertising, and advertising intermediation products. This refers also to data collected via sensors (including GPS) as well as manually inserted data.
        • Google will maintain a technical separation of the relevant Fitbit’s user data. The data will be stored in a “data silo” which will be separate from any other Google data that is used for advertising.
        • Google will ensure that European Economic Area (‘EEA’) users will have an effective choice to grant or deny the use of health and wellness data stored in their Google Account or Fitbit Account by other Google services (such as Google Search, Google Maps, Google Assistant, and YouTube).
      • Web API Access Commitment:
        • Google will maintain access to users’ health and fitness data to software applications through the Fitbit Web API, without charging for access and subject to user consent.
      • Android APIs Commitment:
        • Google will continue to license for free to Android original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) those public APIs covering all current core functionalities that wrist-worn devices need to interoperate with an Android smartphone. Such core functionalities include but are not limited to, connecting via Bluetooth to an Android smartphone, accessing the smartphone’s camera or its GPS. To ensure that this commitment is future-proof, any improvements of those functionalities and relevant updates are also covered.
        • It is not possible for Google to circumvent the Android API commitment by duplicating the core interoperability APIs outside the Android Open Source Project (AOSP). This is because, according to the commitments, Google has to keep the functionalities afforded by the core interoperability APIs, including any improvements related to the functionalities, in open-source code in the future. Any improvements to the functionalities of these core interoperability APIs (including if ever they were made available to Fitbit via a private API) also need to be developed in AOSP and offered in open-source code to Fitbit’s competitors.
        • To ensure that wearable device OEMs have also access to future functionalities, Google will grant these OEMs access to all Android APIs that it will make available to Android smartphone app developers including those APIs that are part of Google Mobile Services (GMS), a collection of proprietary Google apps that is not a part of the Android Open Source Project.
        • Google also will not circumvent the Android API commitment by degrading users experience with third party wrist-worn devices through the display of warnings, error messages or permission requests in a discriminatory way or by imposing on wrist-worn devices OEMs discriminatory conditions on the access of their companion app to the Google Play Store.
  • The United States (U.S.) Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has proposed a major rewrite of the regulations governing medical privacy in the U.S. As the U.S. lacks a unified privacy regime, the proposed changes would affect on those entities in the medical sector subject to the regime, which is admittedly many such entities. Nevertheless, it is almost certain the Biden Administration will pause this rulemaking and quite possibly withdraw it should it prove crosswise with the new White House’s policy goals.
    • HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking “to modify the Standards for the Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information (Privacy Rule) under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH Act).”
      • HHS continued:
        • The Privacy Rule is one of several rules, collectively known as the HIPAA Rules, that protect the privacy and security of individuals’ medical records and other protected health information (PHI), i.e., individually identifiable health information maintained or transmitted by or on behalf of HIPAA covered entities (i.e., health care providers who conduct covered health care transactions electronically, health plans, and health care clearinghouses).
        • The proposals in this NPRM support the Department’s Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care (Regulatory Sprint), described in detail below. Specifically, the proposals in this NPRM would amend provisions of the Privacy Rule that could present barriers to coordinated care and case management –or impose other regulatory burdens without sufficiently compensating for, or offsetting, such burdens through privacy protections. These regulatory barriers may impede the transformation of the health care system from a system that pays for procedures and services to a system of value-based health care that pays for quality care.
    • In a press release, OCR asserted:
      • The proposed changes to the HIPAA Privacy Rule include strengthening individuals’ rights to access their own health information, including electronic information; improving information sharing for care coordination and case management for individuals; facilitating greater family and caregiver involvement in the care of individuals experiencing emergencies or health crises; enhancing flexibilities for disclosures in emergency or threatening circumstances, such as the Opioid and COVID-19 public health emergencies; and reducing administrative burdens on HIPAA covered health care providers and health plans, while continuing to protect individuals’ health information privacy interests.
  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has used its powers to compel selected regulated entities to provide requested information in asking that “nine social media and video streaming companies…provide data on how they collect, use, and present personal information, their advertising and user engagement practices, and how their practices affect children and teens.” The TFTC is using its Section 6(b) authority to compel the information from Amazon.com, Inc., ByteDance Ltd., which operates the short video service TikTok, Discord Inc., Facebook, Inc., Reddit, Inc., Snap Inc., Twitter, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., and YouTube LLC. Failure to respond can result in the FTC fining a non-compliant entity.
    • The FTC claimed in its press release it “is seeking information specifically related to:
      • how social media and video streaming services collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information;
      • how they determine which ads and other content are shown to consumers;
      • whether they apply algorithms or data analytics to personal information;
      • how they measure, promote, and research user engagement; and
      • how their practices affect children and teens.
    • The FTC explained in its sample order:
      • The Commission is seeking information concerning the privacy policies, procedures, and practices of Social Media and Video Streaming Service providers, Including the method and manner in which they collect, use, store, and disclose Personal Information about consumers and their devices. The Special Report will assist the Commission in conducting a study of such policies, practices, and procedures.
  • The United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) supplemented its Emergency Directive 21-01 to federal civilian agencies in response to the Sluzhba vneshney razvedki Rossiyskoy Federatsii’s (SVR) hack via SolarWinds. In an 18 December update, CISA explained:
    • This section provides additional guidance on the implementation of CISA Emergency Directive (ED) 21-01, to include an update on affected versions, guidance for agencies using third-party service providers, and additional clarity on required actions.
    •  In a 30 December update, CISA stated:
      • Specifically, all federal agencies operating versions of the SolarWinds Orion platform other than those identified as “affected versions” below are required to use at least SolarWinds Orion Platform version 2020.2.1HF2. The National Security Agency (NSA) has examined this version and verified that it eliminates the previously identified malicious code. Given the number and nature of disclosed and undisclosed vulnerabilities in SolarWinds Orion, all instances that remain connected to federal networks must be updated to 2020.2.1 HF2 by COB December 31, 2020. CISA will follow up with additional supplemental guidance, to include further clarifications and hardening requirements.
  • Australia’s Attorney-General’s Department published an unclassified version of the four volumes of the “Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community,” an “examination of the legislative framework underpinning the National Intelligence Community (NIC)…the first and largest since the Hope Royal Commissions considered the Australian Intelligence Community (AIC) in the 1970s and 1980s.” Ultimately, the authors of the report concluded:
    • We do not consider the introduction of a common legislative framework, in the form of a single Act governing all or some NIC agencies, to be a practical, pragmatic or proportionate reform. It would be unlikely that the intended benefits of streamlining and simplifying NIC legislation could be achieved due to the diversity of NIC agency functions—from intelligence to law enforcement, regulatory and policy—and the need to maintain differences in powers, immunities and authorising frameworks. The Review estimates that reform of this scale would cost over $200million and take up to 10years to complete. This would be an impractical and disproportionate undertaking for no substantial gain. In our view, the significant costs and risks of moving to a single, consolidated Act clearly outweigh the limited potential benefits.
    • While not recommending a common legislative framework for the entire NIC, some areas of NIC legislation would benefit from simplification and modernisation. We recommend the repeal of the TIA Act, Surveillance Devices Act 2004(SD Act) and parts of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act), and their replacement with a single new Act governing the use of electronic surveillance powers—telecommunications interception, covert access to stored communications, computers and telecommunications data, and the use of optical, listening and tracking devices—under Commonwealth law.
  • The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released additional materials to supplement a major rewrite of a foundational security guidance document. NIST explained “[n]ew supplemental materials for NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-53 Revision 5, Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations, are available for download to support the December 10, 2020 errata release of SP 800-53 and SP 800-53B, Control Baselines for Information Systems and Organizations.” These supplemental materials include:
    • A comparison of the NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 controls and control enhancements to Revision 4. The spreadsheet describes the changes to each control and control enhancement, provides a brief summary of the changes, and includes an assessment of the significance of the changes.  Note that this comparison was authored by The MITRE Corporation for the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and is being shared with permission by DNI.
    • Mapping of the Appendix J Privacy Controls (Revision 4) to Revision 5. The spreadsheet supports organizations using the privacy controls in Appendix J of SP 800-53 Revision 4 that are transitioning to the integrated control catalog in Revision 5.
    • Mappings between NIST SP 800-53 and other frameworks and standards. The mappings provide organizations a general indication of SP 800-53 control coverage with respect to other frameworks and standards. When leveraging the mappings, it is important to consider the intended scope of each publication and how each publication is used; organizations should not assume equivalency based solely on the mapping tables because mappings are not always one-to-one and there is a degree of subjectivity in the mapping analysis.
  • Via a final rule, the Department of Defense (DOD) codified “the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) in regulation…[that] establishes requirements for the protection of classified information disclosed to or developed by contractors, licensees, grantees, or certificate holders (hereinafter referred to as contractors) to prevent unauthorized disclosure.” The DOD stated “[i]n addition to adding the NISPOM to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this rule incorporates the requirements of Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) 3, “Reporting Requirements for Personnel with Access to Classified Information or Who Hold a Sensitive Position.” The DOD stated “SEAD 3 requires reporting by all contractor cleared personnel who have been granted eligibility for access to classified information.”
    • The DOD added “[t]his NISPOM rule provides for a single nation-wide implementation plan which will, with this rule, include SEAD 3 reporting by all contractor cleared personnel to report specific activities that may adversely impact their continued national security eligibility, such as reporting of foreign travel and foreign contacts.”
    • The DOD explained “NISP Cognizant Security Agencies (CSAs) shall conduct an analysis of such reported activities to determine whether they pose a potential threat to national security and take appropriate action.”
    • The DOD added that “the rule also implements the provisions of Section 842 of Public Law 115-232, which removes the requirement for a covered National Technology and Industrial Base (NTIB) entity operating under a special security agreement pursuant to the NISP to obtain a national interest determination as a condition for access to proscribed information.”
  • An advisory committee housed at the United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is calling for the White House to quickly “operationalize intelligence in a classified space with senior executives and cyber experts from most critical entities in the energy, financial services, and communications sectors working directly with intelligence analysts and other government staff.” In their report, the President’s National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) proposed the creation of a Critical Infrastructure Command Center (CICC) to “provid[e] real-time collaboration between government and industry…[and] take direct action and provide tactical solutions to mitigate, remediate,  and deter threats.” NIAC urged the President to “direct relevant federal agencies to support the private sector in executing the concept, including identifying the required government staff…[and] work with Congress to ensure the appropriate authorities are established to allow the CICC to fully realize its operational functionality.” NIAC recommended “near-term actions to implement the CICC concept:
    • 1.The President should direct the relevant federal agencies to support the private sector in rapidly standing up the CICC concept with the energy, financial services, and communications sectors:
      • a. Within 90 days the private sector will identify the executives who will lead execution of the CICC concept and establish governing criteria (including membership, staffing and rotation, and other logistics).
      • b. Within 120 days the CICC sector executives will identify and assign the necessary CICC staff from the private sector.
      • c. Within 90 days an appropriate venue to house the operational component will be identified and the necessary agreements put in place.
    • 2. The President should direct the Intelligence Community and other relevant government agencies to identify and co-locate the required government staff counterparts to enable the direct coordination required by the CICC. This staff should be pulled from the IC, SSAs, and law enforcement.
    • 3. The President, working with Congress, should establish the appropriate authorities and mission for federal agencies to directly share intelligence with critical infrastructure companies, along with any other authorities required for the CICC concept to be fully successful (identified in Appendix A).
    • 4. Once the CICC concept is fully operational (within 180 days), the responsible executives should deliver a report to the NSC and the NIAC demonstrating how the distinct capabilities of the CICC have been achieved and the impact of the capabilities to date. The report should identify remaining gaps in resources, direction, or authorities.

Coming Events

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

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

Image by opsa from Pixabay

EC Finally Unveils Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act

The EU releases its proposals to remake digital markets.

The European Commission (EC) has released its draft proposals to remake how the European Union (EU) regulates digital markets and digital services, the latest in the bloc’s attempts to rein in what it sees as harms and abuses to people and competition in Europe and the world. At the earliest, these proposals would take effect in 2022 and are sure to be vigorously opposed by large United States (U.S.) multinationals like Google and Facebook and will also likely faced more restrained pushback from the U.S. government.

The Digital Markets Act would allow the EU to designate certain core platform services as gatekeepers subject to certain quanitative metrics or on a case-by-case basis. Once a company is deemed a gatekeeper, it would be subject to much greater regulation by the EU and violations of the new act could result in fines of 10% of worldwide revenue.

In its press release, the EC asserted:

European values are at the heart of both proposals. The new rules will better protect consumers and their fundamental rights online, and will lead to fairer and more open digital markets for everyone. A modern rulebook across the single market will foster innovation, growth and competitiveness and will provide users with new, better and reliable online services. It will also support the scaling up of smaller platforms, small and medium-sized enterprises, and start-ups, providing them with easy access to customers across the whole single market while lowering compliance costs. Furthermore, the new rules will prohibit unfair conditions imposed by online platforms that have become or are expected to become gatekeepers to the single market. The two proposals are at the core of the Commission’s ambition to make this Europe’s Digital Decade.

In the Digital Markets Act, the EC explained the problem with large platforms dominating certain digital markets. The EC discussed the harm to people and medium and small businesses as some large companies control certain markets and use their size and dominance to extract unfair prices for inferior services and products. The EC listed the core platform services that might be regulated:

  • online intermediation services (incl. for example marketplaces, app stores and online intermediation services in other sectors like mobility, transport or energy)
  • online search engines,
  • social networking
  • video sharing platform services,
  • number-independent interpersonal electronic communication services,
  • operating systems,
  • cloud services and
  • advertising services, including advertising networks, advertising exchanges and any other advertising intermediation services, where these advertising services are being related to one or more of the other core platform services mentioned above.

Clearly, a number of major American firms could easily be considered “core platform services” including Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, WhatsApp, Microsoft, and others. Whether they would be deemed gatekeepers would hinge on whether they meet the quantitative metrics the EU will put in place, and this will be a rebuttable presumption such that if a firm meets the standards, it may present evidence to the contrary and argue it is not a gatekeeper.

The EC detailed the quantitative metrics in Article 3. A company may qualify if it meets all three of the following criteria subject to further metrics:

A provider of core platform services shall be designated as gatekeeper if:

(a) it has a significant impact on the internal market;

(b) it operates a core platform service which serves as an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and

(c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position in its operations or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.

The other metrics include €6.5 billion in revenue over the last three years or a €65 billion market capitalization and the provision of core platform services in at least three member states to show a “significant impact on internal market.” For the second category listed above, a company would need to provide a core platform service to 45 million or more people in the EU and 10,000 or more businesses in the EU. And, for the last category, passing the 45 million user and 10,000 business threshold for three consecutive years would suffice. The act reads:

A provider of core platform services shall be presumed to satisfy:

(a) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (a) where the undertaking to which it belongs achieves an annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 6.5 billion in the last three financial years, or where the average market capitalisation or the equivalent fair market value of the undertaking to which it belongs amounted to at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year, and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States;

(b) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (b) where it provides a core platform service that has more than 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and more than 10,000 yearly active business users established in the Union in the last financial year; for the purpose of the first subparagraph, monthly active end users shall refer to the average number of monthly active end users throughout the largest part of the last financial year;

(c) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (c) where the thresholds in point (b) were met in each of the last three financial years.

The EU would also be able to label a provider of core platform services a gatekeeper on a case-by-case basis:

Provision should also be made for the assessment of the gatekeeper role of providers of core platform services which do not satisfy all of the quantitative thresholds, in light of the overall objective requirements that they have a significant impact on the internal market, act as an important gateway for business users to reach end users and benefit from a durable and entrenched position in their operations or it is foreseeable that it will do so in the near future.

It bears note that a company would be found to be a gatekeeper if it is merely foreseeable that it will satisfy these criteria soon. This flexibility could allow the EU to track companies and flag them as gatekeepers before they, in fact, achieve the sort of market dominance this regulation is intended to stop.

Among the relevant excerpts from the “Reasons for and objectives of the proposal” section of the act are:

  • Large platforms have emerged benefitting from characteristics of the sector such as strong network effects, often embedded in their own platform ecosystems, and these platforms represent key structuring elements of today’s digital economy, intermediating the majority of transactions between end users and business users. Many of these undertakings are also comprehensively tracking and profiling end users. A few large platforms increasingly act as gateways or gatekeepers between business users and end users and enjoy an entrenched and durable position, often as a result of the creation of conglomerate ecosystems around their core platform services, which reinforces existing entry barriers.
  • As such, these gatekeepers have a major impact on, have substantial control over the access to, and are entrenched in digital markets, leading to significant dependencies of many business users on these gatekeepers, which leads, in certain cases, to unfair behaviour vis-à-vis these business users. It also leads to negative effects on the contestability of the core platform services concerned. Regulatory initiatives by Member States cannot fully address these effects; without action at EU level, they could lead to a fragmentation of the Internal Market.
  • Unfair practices and lack of contestability lead to inefficient outcomes in the digital sector in terms of higher prices, lower quality, as well as less choice and innovation to the detriment of European consumers. Addressing these problems is of utmost importance in view of the size of the digital economy (estimated at between 4.5% to 15.5% of global GDP in 2019 with a growing trend) and the important role of online platforms in digital markets with its societal and economic implications.
  • Weak contestability and unfair practices in the digital sector are more frequent and pronounced in certain digital services than others. This is the case in particular for widespread and commonly used digital services and infrastructures that mostly directly intermediate between business users and end users.
  • The enforcement experience under EU competition rules, numerous expert reports and studies and the results of the OPC show that there are a number of digital services that have the following features: (i) highly concentrated multi-sided platform services, where usually one or very few large digital platforms set the commercial conditions with considerable autonomy; (ii) a few large digital platforms act as gateways for business users to reach their customers and vice-versa; and (iii) gatekeeper power of these large digital platforms is often misused by means of unfair behaviour vis-à-vis economically dependent business users and customers.
  • The proposal is therefore further limited to a number of ‘core platform services’ where the identified problems are most evident and prominent and where the presence of a limited number of large online platforms that serve as gateways for business users and end users has led or is likely to lead to weak contestability of these services and of the markets in which these intervene. These core platform services include: (i) online intermediation services (incl. for example marketplaces, app stores and online intermediation services in other sectors like mobility, transport or energy) (ii) online search engines, (iii) social networking (iv)video sharing platform services, (v) number-independent interpersonal electronic communication services, (vi) operating systems, (vii) cloud services and (viii) advertising services, including advertising networks, advertising exchanges and any other advertising intermediation services, where these advertising services are being related to one or more of the other core platform services mentioned above.
  • The fact that a digital service qualifies as a core platform service does not mean that issues of contestability and unfair practices arise in relation to every provider of these core platform services. Rather, these concerns appear to be particularly strong when the core platform service is operated by a gatekeeper. Providers of core platform providers can be deemed to be gatekeepers if they: (i) have a significant impact on the internal market, (ii) operate one or more important gateways to customers and (iii) enjoy or are expected to enjoy an entrenched and durable position in their operations.
  • Such gatekeeper status can be determined either with reference to clearly circumscribed and appropriate quantitative metrics, which can serve as rebuttable presumptions to determine the status of specific providers as a gatekeeper, or based on a case-by-case qualitative assessment by means of a market investigation.

The Digital Services Act would add new regulation on top of Directive 2000/31/EC (aka the e-Commerce Directive) by “[b]uilding on the key principles set out in the e-Commerce Directive, which remain valid today.” This new scheme “seeks to ensure the best conditions for the provision of innovative digital services in the internal market, to contribute to online safety and the protection of fundamental rights, and to set a robust and durable governance structure for the effective supervision of providers of intermediary services.”

The Digital Services Act is focused mostly on the information and misinformation present all over the online world and the harms it wreaks on EU citizens. However, the EC is also seeking to balance fundamental EU rights in more tightly regulating online platforms. Like the Digital Markets Act, this regulation would focus on the largest online content, product and services providers, which, as a practical matter, would likely be Facebook, Amazon, Google, Spotify, and a handful of other companies. Once a company has 10% of more of the EU’s population using its offerings, then the requirements of the Digital Services Act would be triggered.

Additionally, the Digital Services Act unites two online issues not usually considered together in the United States (U.S.): harmful online content and harmful online products. Even though it seems logical to consider these online offerings in tandem, there is clear bifurcation in the U.S. in how these two issues are regulated to the extent they are at the federal and state levels.

The Digital Services Act “will introduce a series of new, harmonised EU-wide obligations for digital services, carefully graduated on the basis of those services’ size and impact, such as:

  • Rules for the removal of illegal goods, services or content online;
  • Safeguards for users whose content has been erroneously deleted by platforms;
  • New obligations for very large platforms to take risk-based action to prevent abuse of their systems;
  • Wide-ranging transparency measures, including on online advertising and on the algorithms used to recommend content to users;
  • New powers to scrutinize how platforms work, including by facilitating access by researchers to key platform data;
  • New rules on traceability of business users in online market places, to help track down sellers of illegal goods or services;
  • An innovative cooperation process among public authorities to ensure effective enforcement across the single market.”

The EC explained

new and innovative business models and services, such as online social networks and marketplaces, have allowed business users and consumers to impart and access information and engage in transactions in novel ways. A majority of Union citizens now uses those services on a daily basis. However, the digital transformation and increased use of those services has also resulted in new risks and challenges, both for individual users and for society as a whole.

The EC spelled out what the Digital Services Act would do:

This Regulation lays down harmonised rules on the provision of intermediary services in the internal market. In particular, it establishes:

(a) a framework for the conditional exemption from liability of providers of intermediary services;

(b) rules on specific due diligence obligations tailored to certain specific categories of providers of intermediary services;

(c) rules on the implementation and enforcement of this Regulation, including as regards the cooperation of and coordination between the competent authorities.

The EC explained the purpose of the act:

  • this proposal seeks to ensure the best conditions for the provision of innovative digital services in the internal market, to contribute to online safety and the protection of fundamental rights, and to set a robust and durable governance structure for the effective supervision of providers of intermediary services.
  • The proposal defines clear responsibilities and accountability for providers of intermediary services, and in particular online platforms, such as social media and marketplaces. By setting out clear due-diligence obligations for certain intermediary services, including notice-and-action procedures for illegal content and the possibility to challenge the platforms’ content moderation decisions, the proposal seeks to improve users’ safety online across the entire Union and improve the protection of their fundamental rights. Furthermore, an obligation for certain online platforms to receive, store and partially verify and publish information on traders using their services will ensure a safer and more transparent online environment for consumers.
  • Recognising the particular impact of very large online platforms on our economy and society, the proposal sets a higher standard of transparency and accountability on how the providers of such platforms moderate content, on advertising and on algorithmic processes. It sets obligations to assess the risks their systems pose to develop appropriate risk management tools to protect the integrity of their services against the use of manipulative techniques.

The EC summarized how the act will work:

  • The operational threshold for service providers in scope of these obligations includes those online platforms with a significant reach in the Union, currently estimated to be amounting to more than 45 million recipients of the service. This threshold is proportionate to the risks brought by the reach of the platforms in the Union; where the Union’s population changes by a certain percentage, the Commission will adjust the number of recipients considered for the threshold, so that it consistently corresponds to 10 % of the Union’s population. Additionally, the Digital Services Act will set out a co-regulatory backstop, including building on existing voluntary initiatives.
  • This proposal should constitute the appropriate basis for the development of robust technologies to prevent the reappearance of illegal information, accompanied with the highest safeguards to avoid that lawful content is taken down erroneously; such tools could be developed on the basis of voluntary agreements between all parties concerned and should be encouraged by Member States; it is in the interest of all parties involved in the provision of intermediary services to adopt and implement such procedures; the provisions of this Regulation relating to liability should not preclude the development and effective operation, by the different interested parties, of technical systems of protection and identification and of automated recognition made possible by digital technology within the limits laid down by Regulation 2016/679.
  • Union citizens and others are exposed to ever-increasing risks and harms online – from the spread of illegal content and activities, to limitations to express themselves and other societal harms. The envisaged policy measures in this legislative proposal will substantially improve this situation by providing a modern, future-proof governance framework, effectively safeguarding the rights and legitimate interests of all parties involved, most of all Union citizens. The proposal introduces important safeguards to allow citizens to freely express themselves, while enhancing user agency in the online environment, as well as the exercise of other fundamental rights such as the right to an effective remedy, non-discrimination, rights of the child as well as the protection of personal data and privacy online.
  • The proposed Regulation will mitigate risks of erroneous or unjustified blocking speech, address the chilling effects on speech, stimulate the freedom to receive information and hold opinions, as well as reinforce users’ redress possibilities. Specific groups or persons may be vulnerable or disadvantaged in their use of online services because of their gender, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. They can be disproportionately affected by restrictions and removal measures following from (unconscious or conscious) biases potentially embedded in the notification systems by users and third parties, as well as replicated in automated content moderation tools used by platforms. The proposal will mitigate discriminatory risks, particularly for those groups or persons and will contribute to the protection of the rights of the child and the right to human dignity online. The proposal will only require removal of illegal content and will impose mandatory safeguards when users’ information is removed, including the provision of explanatory information to the user, complaint mechanisms supported by the service providers as well as external out-of-court dispute resolution mechanism. Furthermore, it will ensure EU citizens are also protected when using services provided by providers not established in the Union but active on the internal market, since those providers are covered too.
  • With regard to service providers’ freedom to conduct a business, the costs incurred on businesses are offset by reducing fragmentation across the internal market. The proposal introduces safeguards to alleviate the burden on service providers, including measures against repeated unjustified notices and prior vetting of trusted flaggers by public authorities. Furthermore, certain obligations are targeted to very large online platforms, where the most serious risks often occur and which have the capacity absorb the additional burden.
  • The proposed legislation will preserve the prohibition of general monitoring obligations of the e-Commerce Directive, which in itself is crucial to the required fair balance of fundamental rights in the online world. The new Regulation prohibits general monitoring obligations, as they could disproportionately limit users’ freedom of expression and freedom to receive information, and could burden service providers excessively and thus unduly interfere with their freedom to conduct a business. The prohibition also limits incentives for online surveillance and has positive implications for the protection of personal data and privacy.

© 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 Sambeet D from Pixabay

Privacy Shield Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image by Dooffy Design from Pixabay