Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (21 September)

Coming Events

  • The United States’ Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) announced that its third annual National Cybersecurity Summit “will be held virtually as a series of webinars every Wednesday for four weeks beginning September 16 and ending October 7:”
    • September 16: Key Cyber Insights
    • September 23: Leading the Digital Transformation
    • September 30: Diversity in Cybersecurity
    • October 7: Defending our Democracy
    • One can register for the event here.
  • On 22 September, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold a public workshop “to examine the potential benefits and challenges to consumers and competition raised by data portability.” The agency has released its agenda and explained:
    • The workshop will also feature four panel discussions that will focus on: case studies on data portability rights in the European Union, India, and California; case studies on financial and health portability regimes; reconciling the benefits and risks of data portability; and the material challenges and solutions to realizing data portability’s potential.
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Intellectual Property Subcommittee will hold a hearing on 23 September titled “Examining Threats to American Intellectual Property: Cyber-attacks and Counterfeits During the COVID-19 Pandemic” with these witnesses:
    • Adam Hickey, Deputy Assistant Attorney General National Security Division, Department of Justice
    • Clyde Wallace, Deputy Assistant Director Cyber Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation
    • Steve Francis, Assistant Director, HSI Global Trade Investigations Division Director, National Intellectual Property Rights Center, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security
    • Bryan S. Ware, Assistant Director for Cybersecurity Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security
  • On 23 September, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will hold a hearing titled “Revisiting the Need for Federal Data Privacy Legislation,” with these witnesses:
    • The Honorable Julie Brill, Former Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
    • The Honorable William Kovacic, Former Chairman and Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
    • The Honorable Jon Leibowitz, Former Chairman and Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
    • The Honorable Maureen Ohlhausen, Former Commissioner and Acting Chairman, Federal Trade Commission
  • The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee will hold a virtual hearing “Mainstreaming Extremism: Social Media’s Role in Radicalizing America” on 23 September with these witnesses:
    • Marc Ginsburg, President, Coalition for a Safer Web
    • Tim Kendall, Chief Executive Officer, Moment
    • Taylor Dumpson, Hate Crime Survivor and Cyber-Harassment Target
    • John Donahue, Fellow, Rutgers University Miler Center for Community Protection and Resiliency, Former Chief of Strategic Initiatives, New York City Police Department
  • On 23 September, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing to consider the nomination of Chad Wolf to be the Secretary of Homeland Security.
  • The Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a closed briefing on 24 September “on Department of Defense Cyber Operations in Support of Efforts to Protect the Integrity of U.S. National Elections from Malign Actors” with:
    • Kenneth P. Rapuano, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security
    • General Paul M. Nakasone, Commander, U.S. Cyber Command and Director, National Security Agency / Chief, Central Security Service
  • On 24 September, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing on “Threats to the Homeland” with:
    • Christopher A. Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
    • Christopher Miller, Director, National Counterterrorism Center
    • Kenneth Cuccinelli, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Competition Policy & Consumer Rights Subcommittee will hold a hearing on 30 September titled “Oversight of the Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws” with Federal Trade Commission Chair Joseph Simons and United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division Assistant Attorney General Makan Delhrahim.
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an open meeting on 30 September and has made available its agenda with these items:
    • Facilitating Shared Use in the 3.1-3.55 GHz Band. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would remove the existing non-federal allocations from the 3.3-3.55 GHz band as an important step toward making 100 megahertz of spectrum in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band available for commercial use, including 5G, throughout the contiguous United States. The Commission will also consider a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would propose to add a co-primary, non-federal fixed and mobile (except aeronautical mobile) allocation to the 3.45-3.55 GHz band as well as service, technical, and competitive bidding rules for flexible-use licenses in the band. (WT Docket No. 19-348)
    • Expanding Access to and Investment in the 4.9 GHz Band. The Commission will consider a Sixth Report and Order that would expand access to and investment in the 4.9 GHz (4940-4990 MHz) band by providing states the opportunity to lease this spectrum to commercial entities, electric utilities, and others for both public safety and non-public safety purposes. The Commission also will consider a Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would propose a new set of licensing rules and seek comment on ways to further facilitate access to and investment in the band. (WP Docket No. 07-100)
    • Improving Transparency and Timeliness of Foreign Ownership Review Process. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would improve the timeliness and transparency of the process by which it seeks the views of Executive Branch agencies on any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns related to certain applications filed with the Commission. (IB Docket No. 16-155)
    • Promoting Caller ID Authentication to Combat Spoofed Robocalls. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would continue its work to implement the TRACED Act and promote the deployment of caller ID authentication technology to combat spoofed robocalls. (WC Docket No. 17-97)
    • Combating 911 Fee Diversion. The Commission will consider a Notice of Inquiry that would seek comment on ways to dissuade states and territories from diverting fees collected for 911 to other purposes. (PS Docket Nos. 20-291, 09-14)
    • Modernizing Cable Service Change Notifications. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would modernize requirements for notices cable operators must provide subscribers and local franchising authorities. (MB Docket Nos. 19-347, 17-105)
    • Eliminating Records Requirements for Cable Operator Interests in Video Programming. The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would eliminate the requirement that cable operators maintain records in their online public inspection files regarding the nature and extent of their attributable interests in video programming services. (MB Docket No. 20-35, 17-105)
    • Reforming IP Captioned Telephone Service Rates and Service Standards. The Commission will consider a Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would set compensation rates for Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS), deny reconsideration of previously set IP CTS compensation rates, and propose service quality and performance measurement standards for captioned telephone services. (CG Docket Nos. 13-24, 03-123)
    • Enforcement Item. The Commission will consider an enforcement action.

Other Developments

  • The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled for the first time on the European Union’s (EU) open internet access rules, Regulation 2015/2120, “which enshrines the fundamental principle of an open internet (more colloquially known as ‘net neutrality’)” according to the court’s summary of its decision. The CJEU found that a zero rating plan offered by a Hungarian telecommunications carrier that provided preference to certain apps and websites even when users had exhausted their data allowances was counter to these regulations. Moreover, the CJEU found it is not necessary to show that other apps and websites are being harmed or effected in order to punish a violator. This ruling puts the EU at odds with the United States in terms of policy, for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rescinded Obama Administration net neutrality regulations and tried to preempt state net neutrality measures. However, a Biden Administration FCC may reinstall such regulations.  
  • The United States Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released an alert finding that:
    • Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS)-affiliated cyber threat actors use open-source information to plan and conduct cyber operations.
    • Chinese MSS-affiliated cyber threat actors use readily available exploits and exploit toolkits to quickly engage target networks.
    • Maintaining a rigorous patching cycle continues to be the best defense against the most frequently used attacks.
    • If critical vulnerabilities remain unpatched, cyber threat actors can carry out attacks without the need to develop custom malware and exploits or use previously unknown vulnerabilities to target a network.
    • This Advisory identifies some of the more common—yet most effective— tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) employed by cyber threat actors, including Chinese MSS-affiliated cyber threat actors.
    • CISA and the FBI added:
      • The continued use of open-source tools by Chinese MSS-affiliated cyber threat actors highlights that adversaries can use relatively low-complexity capabilities to identify and exploit target networks. In most cases, cyber operations are successful because misconfigurations and immature patch management programs allow actors to plan and execute attacks using existing vulnerabilities and known exploits. Widespread implementation of robust configuration and patch management programs would greatly increase network security. It would also reduce the speed and frequency of opportunistic attacks by forcing threat actors to dedicate time and funding to research unknown vulnerabilities and develop custom exploitation tools.
  • As requested by the chair and ranking members of the House Oversight Committee and its Government Operations Subcommittee, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigated and reported on “essential mission-critical information technology (IT) acquisitions across the federal government and determine their key attributes.” The GAO noted “[e]leven of the 16 selected acquisitions were rebaselined during their development, meaning that the project’s cost, schedule, or performance goals were modified to reflect new circumstances.” The GAO stated “[t]en agencies reported delays in defining the cost, schedule, and scope; one agency reported budget cuts and hiring freezes; four agencies reported technical challenges; and five agencies reported changes in development approach as a cause for rebaselining.” The GAO reported “[t]he amount agencies expect to spend on the selected acquisitions vary greatly depending on their scope and complexity, as well as the extent of transformation and modernization that agencies envision once the acquisitions are fully deployed.” The GAO stated “[a]gencies reported potential cost savings associated with 13 of the 16 mission-critical acquisitions after deployment.”
    • The GAO added
      • In general, these agencies reported that they expect cost savings and cost avoidance due to a number of factors. Six agencies reported expected cost savings as a result of multiple legacy systems being shut down, and two agencies reported expected cost savings from the use of cloud-based capabilities. Seven agencies cited improved efficiencies in streamlined processes as an expected savings in costs, while three agencies cited the elimination of physical paper processing as the source of expected cost savings. Three agencies also reported that they expected cost savings through improving security, monitoring, and management.
  • The United Kingdom announced a “National Data Strategy” that “will put data at the heart of the country’s recovery from the pandemic so companies and organisations can use it to drive digital transformation, innovate and boost growth across the economy.” The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport explained the new strategy “asks fundamental questions about what data should and should not be made available…[and] sets out how to maintain a regulatory regime that is not too burdensome for smaller business and supports responsible innovation…through five priority missions:
    • Unlocking the value of data across the economy
    • Securing a pro-growth and trusted data regime
    • Transforming government’s use of data to drive efficiency and improve public services
    • Ensuring the security and resilience of the infrastructure on which data relies
    • Championing the international flow of data
  • The United States Department of Homeland Security’s the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), with contributions from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), issued an alert titled “Iran-Based Threat Actor Exploits VPN Vulnerabilities” regarding “an Iran-based malicious cyber actor targeting several U.S. federal agencies and other U.S.-based networks.” The agencies stated
    • Analysis of the threat actor’s indicators of compromise (IOCs) and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) indicates a correlation with the group known by the names, Pioneer Kitten and UNC757. This threat actor has been observed exploiting several publicly known Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) dealing with Pulse Secure virtual private network (VPN), Citrix NetScaler, and F5 vulnerabilities. This threat actor used these vulnerabilities to gain initial access to targeted networks and then maintained access within the successfully exploited networks for several months using multiple means of persistence.
  • Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) released a statement after big technology companies responded to his letter “asking each company to justify anti-conservative bias in their content moderation process.” Lee asserted:
    • The responses received from the tech companies about bias against conservatives at their firms were completely unpersuasive. I continue to be concerned about the ideological discrimination going on at these firms and I believe further oversight will be necessary in order to obtain the facts and answers that the American people deserve.
  • The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in response to a provision in the “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2019” (P.L. 115-232) on defense “contractors’ independent R&D projects fit into the [Department of Defense’s] technology goals.” The report was sent to the chairs and ranking members of the Armed Services Committees and Appropriations Committees’ Defense Subcommittees. The GAO concluded:
    • DOD’s investments in research and development, particularly science and technology, are key to maintaining our military’s technological superiority over potential adversaries. However, the growing capability needs of the military departments, coupled with modest increases in DOD’s science and technology budget, threaten to erode this superiority. DOD has taken initial steps to confront this imbalance, including strategic planning to identify its top modernization priorities. Nonetheless, the DOD instruction that guides this planning does not require DOD to account for the billions of dollars that industry invests in IR&D projects annually at industry’s own discretion—nor the innovation outcomes that industry obtains from these IR&D projects. Although the Independent Research and Development (IR&D) statute and policy prohibit DOD from requiring what IR&D projects contractors undertake, they require DOD to communicate its science and technology needs to industry. Correspondingly, our analysis of IR&D project data covering a single year showed that industry has responded to the modernization priorities DOD set forth in 2018 by investing almost 40 percent of its IR&D funding on related technologies. However, the extent to which this will continue in future years is not something we can forecast. DOD can achieve this visibility by initiating its own annual reviews of IR&D project data. Such assessments would provide DOD with important information needed to develop more comprehensive strategic plans for defense science and technology investment.
    • At the same time, the primary tool DOD relies on for IR&D project data—the DTIC IR&D database—has several limitations in terms of the data it captures. For instance, it does not identify, whether the IR&D project is linked to a DOD modernization priority or if it constitutes disruptive or incremental innovation. However, capturing additional data could place burdens on contractors. Determining whether to collect additional information on the billions of dollars contractors spend annually on IR&D projects falls squarely within OUSD (R&E)’s responsibility to oversee DOD’s strategic planning process for science and technology investments.
    • The GAO made two recommendations:
      • The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering revise its IR&D instruction to require USD (R&E) personnel to annually review defense industry IR&D investments to inform DOD’s science and technology strategic planning efforts. (Recommendation 1)
      • The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Administrator, Defense Technical Information Center, assess and determine whether the DTIC IR&D database should require contractors to include additional information on IR&D projects, such as:
        • (a) The IR&D project’s linkage, if any, to DOD’s modernization priorities;
        • (b) The allowable category (basic research, applied research, technology development, or concept study) to which the IR&D project belongs;
        • (c) The nature of the project as either potentially disruptive or potentially incremental research and development; and
        • (d) The actual IR&D project costs when the project is completed. (Recommendation 2)

Further Reading

  • The Huawei Ban Could Crush U.S. Overseas Aid Efforts” By Colum Lynch — Foreign Policy. A possible unintended consequence to the ban on Huawei, ZTE, and other People’s Republic of China (PRC) in Section 889 of the “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2019” (P.L. 115-232) is that United States foreign aid organizations may not be able to disburse funds or provide grants to organizations throughout the world using PRC technology. Given that much of Africa already has Huawei technology, organizations like United States Agency for International Development (USAID) were granted a waiver last month along with the Department of Defense by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The DNI is said to be considering another such waiver, and it may turn out Congress will revisit this requirement, making an explicit carveout for international aid work. Of course the proponents of a Huawei/ZTE ban may reasonably argue will bring out all sorts of private sector entities with their own cases as to why they, too, should be exempted.
  • Exclusive: Top Huawei executives had close ties to company at center of U.S. criminal case” By Steve Stecklow and Marcelo Rochabrun — Reuters. The news outlet has turned up even more evidence that Huawei controlled a company that sold United States (U.S.) telecommunications equipment to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions between 2007 and 2014. This case is the one that caused Canada to detain Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou at U.S. request. Reuters has discovered documents filed in Sao Paulo, Brazil showing that high ranking Huawei officials continued to have control over Skycom Tech, the entity it claims was sold in 2007.  These documents say otherwise, and it was this company that sold the U.S. gear in violations of sanctions.
  • It’s Impossible for You to Know Which Apps Sell Your Location Data to Trump” By Jason Koebler and Joseph Cox — Vice’s Motherboard. The Trump reelection campaign’s app is hoovering up the data of those who download and install it but also from all their contacts. This way, when combined with data from other sources, the Trump campaign can reach even more potentially supportive voters and target them with ads. The truly disturbing practice of the company they are working with is that this entity bids on and loses an advertising campaign, it still gets access to the people the campaign is targeting. There are legitimate concerns that given the fungibility of personal data, the Trump Administration is harvesting and processing data along the same lines as Cambridge Analytica in 2016
  • Labeled “Research” Chemicals, Doping Drugs Sold Openly on Amazon.com” By Annie Gilbertson and Jon Keegan — The Markup. The massive online marketplace removed potentially unsafe, illegal substances used for doping in athletics only after this media outlet presented evidence it was being sold. This article follows a string of articles on how Amazon is not policing the third-party sellers on its platform that may be selling defective, unsafe, or illegal goods. Nonetheless, Amazon has asserted Section 230 protects it from claims regarding items offered by third party sellers even though the provision pertains to moderation of online content and speech. The company may face defective productive suits in the future if a recent California state case is any indication.
  • US technology embargo list gives China a blueprint for home-grown innovation over the next decade, top science official says” By Frank Tang — South China Morning Post. The People’s Republic of China is asserting that the United States’ (U.S.) list of items banned for export is providing a roadmap to developing the technology necessary to surpass the U.S.

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

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

10th Federal IT Scorecard Released

I’m on holiday, so just a short post.

On 3 August, the House Oversight and Reform Committee’s Government Operations Subcommittee held its most recent biannual hearing on how United States government agencies are faring in meeting the metrics as laid out in a few key statutes on information technology (IT) development, security, transparency, and other related areas. However, the subcommittee, for reasons that are not immediately clear, did not release the actual scorecard (aka the FITARA Scorecard), and so I’m posting a version of it released by a trade publication.

As for the substance, you can compare to the last scorecard released in December 2019 and see that things mostly remain the same. I think the incentive structure for federal agencies (and probably companies providing these products and services to the federal government) will need to change further before greater gains are made with with the more than $90 billion spent annually in Washington on IT. A big part of the problem is that agencies are still not following the requirements of the “Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act” (FITARA) (P.L. 113-291) regarding the authority of Chief Information Officers (CIO) to manage and acquire IT. These officials should be deciding these matters, and it is not happening in agencies, likely because more CIO authority means less authority elsewhere over significant funding and programs. Hence, good old institutional resistance and warring over turf is part of the problem. There are others, as have been chewed over, and were discussed at the hearing.

Anyway, I just wanted to make the FITARA Scorecard available for those interested but unable to find it.

And, I’ll be back to posting regularly next week.

© 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 Michael Schwarzenberger from Pixabay

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (31 July)

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

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

Coming Events

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

Other Developments

  • The European Commission (EC) released a report on the status of efforts across the European Union (EU) to implement the EU Toolbox on 5G Cybersecurity, the bloc’s approach to navigating security issues presented by equipment and services offered by companies from the People’s Republic of China such as Huawei. The EC concluded
    • All  Member  States  reported  that  concrete  steps  have  been  taken  to  implement  the  Toolbox.  Most  Member  States  carried  out  a  gap  analysis  and  launched  a  process  to  review  and  upgrade  existing security measures and enforcement mechanisms. Many Member States have already adopted or are well advanced in the preparation of more advanced security measures on 5G cybersecurity.
    • However,  work  is  still  ongoing  in  many  Member  States  on  defining  the  content  and  scope  of  the  measures and in some cases, political decisions still need to be made in this regard. In addition, even where  measures  are  in  progress  or  being  planned,  not  all  Member  States  have  shared  detailed information about every measure, due to diverse stages in the national implementation processor for national security reasons. Nevertheless, a number of findings can be formulated based on the analysis presented  in  this  report as  regards  the  implementation  of  the  Toolbox  and  areas  where  specific  attention  is  needed  in  the  next  phases  of  the  implementation  of  the  Toolbox  at  national  and/or  EU  level.
  • The United States (US) and Australia released this joint statement after this week’s Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) after the heads of their defense and foreign ministries met in Washington DC. The two countries listed a number of steps and initiatives designed to counter the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Among other developments:
    • The US and Australia signed a classified Statement of Principles on Alliance Defense Cooperation and Force Posture Priorities in the Indo-Pacific.
    • The two nations “plan to continue to counter these threats vigorously, including through collaboration with international partners, and through a new working group between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of State, which will monitor and respond to disinformation efforts.”
    • The US and Australia “expressed deep concern that the targeting of intellectual property and sensitive business information, including information relating to the development of vaccines and treatments for pandemic response, presents an increasing threat to the global economy, and they committed to holding malicious actors accountable.”
    • The countries “noted the role of 5G network security best practices, such as the Prague Proposals, and expressed their intent to work with like-minded partners to develop end-to-end technical solutions for 5G that use trusted vendors….[and] [a]cknowledging that 5G is only the starting point, the two nations also reaffirm their commitment to lifting the security of critical and emerging technologies that will be vital to our nations’ prosperity.”
    • The US and Australia “welcomed the announcement that Lynas has signed a Phase 1 contract with the U.S. Department of Defense for an engineering and market feasibility study for the design of a heavy rare earth separation facility in the United States” and “the continued development of a U.S.-Australia Critical Minerals Plan of Action to improve the security of critical minerals in the United States and Australia.” 
  • The United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) has issued a report titled “The Cyber Threat to Sports Organisations” “to demystify the cyber threat to sports organisations by highlighting the cyber security issues that affect the sector on a daily basis: business email compromise, digital fraud, and venue security.” The NCSC asserted
    • cyber attacks against sports organisations are very common, with 70% of those surveyed experiencing at least one attack per annum. This is significantly higher than the average across UK business.
    • The primary cyber threat comes from cyber criminals with a financial motive. Criminal attacks typically take advantage of poor implementation of technical controls and normal human traits such as trust and ineffective password policies.
    • There have been a small number of Hostile Nation-state attacks against sports organisations; typically, these attacks have exploited the same vulnerabilities used by criminals.
    • The most common outcome of cyber attacks is unauthorised access to email accounts (Business Email Compromise) leading to fraud. Ransomware is also a significant issue in the sector.
  • Top Republicans on one of the committees with jurisdiction over technology have written Google and Apple regarding their “app store and the policies you have in place to ensure apps are appropriately vetted, particularly those with close ties to China and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).” House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Greg Walden (R-OR) and Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) are asking the companies to respond by 12 August to a series of questions. They asserted
    • As with any crisis, there are those that seek to exploit opportunities for their own malicious intent. We believe that bad actors may be taking advantage of the American people’s trust in your brand, which likely extends to apps available through your store. While we want an open and transparent marketplace that does not limit innovators outside your company, we know there are those that seek to use apps as a means to push through pop-up ads or hijack devices to make it a tool for eavesdropping.
    • The level of permissions that these apps require may include access to camera, microphone, and contacts, as well as functionality to load other malware for bad actors to control a device even after the original app has been removed. This is especially alarming when it comes from companies with direct or indirect links to the CCP.
  • A Washington DC think tank published a report written in part with Representatives Robin Kelly (D-IL) and Will Hurd (R-TX) titled “AI and the Workforce.” The Bipartisan Policy Center explained that “[b]ased on our discussions with stakeholders, we have identified the following key principles:
    • 1. The United States should embrace and take a leadership role in the AI-driven economy by filling the AI talent gap and preparing the rest of the workforce for the jobs of the future. However, in doing so, policymakers should make inclusivity and equal opportunity a priority.
    • 2. Closing the AI talent gap requires a targeted approach to training, recruiting, and retaining skilled workers. This AI talent should ideally have a multi-disciplinary skill set that includes ethics.
    • 3. The AI talent gap is not the only challenge of the AI-driven economy, so the federal government should focus more broadly on the jobs of the future and skills that are complemented by AI technology. Additionally, encouraging workers to develop basic AI and technological literacy can help them better determine how to complement AI systems.
    • 4. The educational system from kindergarten through post-college is not yet designed for the AI-driven economy and should be modernized.
    • 5. The skills that will be in demand in the future will continuously change, so lifelong learning and ways to help displaced and mid-career workers transition into new jobs is critical for the workforce of the future.
    • In September 2018, Kelly and Hurd released a white paper detailing the “lessons learned from the Subcommittee’s oversight and hearings on AI and sets forth recommendations for moving forward.” 
  • The National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) updated its “Mobile Device Guidance” regarding “Windows 10, Android and VPNs. The NCSC stated “[o]ver the next few months, we’ll be bringing our Chrome OS and Ubuntu Linux guidance up to date and into the new format.”
  • Cybersecurity company FireEye released a report on a new type of Russian disinformation campaign where hackers are gaining access to legitimate news sources and planting fake stories that are subsequently amplified on social media.
    • FireEye explained it
      • has tied together several information operations that we assess with moderate confidence comprise part of a broader influence campaign, ongoing since at least March 2017, aligned with Russian security interests. The operations have primarily targeted audiences in Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland with narratives critical of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) presence in Eastern Europe, occasionally leveraging other themes such as anti-U.S. and COVID-19-related narratives as part of this broader anti-NATO agenda. We have dubbed this campaign “Ghostwriter.”
    • FireEye added
      • Many, though not all, of the incidents we suspect to be part of the Ghostwriter campaign appear to have leveraged website compromises or spoofed email accounts to disseminate fabricated content, including falsified news articles, quotes, correspondence and other documents designed to appear as coming from military officials and political figures in the target countries. This falsified content has been referenced as source material in articles and op-eds authored by at least 14 inauthentic personas posing as locals, journalists, and analysts within those countries.

Further Reading

  • Rite Aid deployed facial recognition systems in hundreds of U.S. stores” by Jeffrey Dastin– Reuters. A major United States retailer was using facial recognition technology mostly at stores in poorer, more ethnically diverse areas that seems connected to a company in the People’s Republic of China. Rite Aid has ceased use of this system that was implemented to address shoplifting and other crime and guards and other personnel were supposed to act when the system turned up a hit on a person in the store who had committed a crime or made trouble in another location. Given the accuracy of this sort of technology, there were a range of false positives. Additionally, locations in New York City that had similar crime profiles in majority white, affluent areas were much less likely to have this system. The company, DeepCamLLC, providing the technology appears intimately connected to a Chinese firm, Shenzhen Shenmu, that appears funded by a Beijing run venture capital/investment fund.
  • Facebook Wins Temporary Halt to EU Antitrust Data Demands” by Stephanie Bodoni – Bloomberg. In a setback for the European Commission’s (EC) investigation, the European Union General Court has temporarily blocked data and document requests in a pair of rulings. The court ruled for Facebook in finding the EC’s request “may unavoidably include personal information” and so “it is important to ensure that confidential treatment of such information is safeguarded, especially when the information does, at first sight, not appear to have any link with the subject matter of the commission’s investigation.” A Facebook attorney claimed the requests were going to net “highly sensitive personal information such as employees’ medical information, personal financial documents, and private information about family members of employees.” The court is expected to issue a final decision on the data requests, which has obvious implications for the EC’s investigation of Facebook.
  • Google’s Top Search Result? Surprise! It’s Google” By Adrianne Jeffries and Leon Yin – The Markup. Google’s search results have changed tremendously over the last 15 years from showing the top organic results to now reserving the 50% of the page for Google results and products. As a result a number of online businesses that compete with Google products have withered and some have died. Google denies abusing its market power, but competitors and possibly some regulators think otherwise, possibly foreshadowing future anti-competitive enforcement actions.
  • Five Eyes alliance could expand in scope to counteract China” by Patrick Wintour – The Guardian. The United States, United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia may expand both the scope of heir Five Eyes arrangement and the membership as a means of pushing back on Chinese policies and actions. Japan could possibly join the alliance and perhaps it serves as the basis for a trade agreement to address Beijing.
  • Huawei to double down on HSBC as legal battle over extradition of Meng Wanzhou intensifies” by Zhou Xin – South China Morning Post. As the daughter of Huawei’s founder continues to be held in Canada facing possible extradition to the United States (US) to be tried on charges of violating US sanctions on Iran. Meng Wanzhou’s lawyers are focusing on the evidence provided by Hong Kong based bank HSBC to the US Department of Justice as being deficient in a number of ways. The People’s Republic of China is still holding two Canadians incommunicado who were arrested and charged with espionage after Meng was detained in British Columbia.

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

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

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

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

Coming Events

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

Other Developments

  • Senate Armed Services Committee Chair James Inhofe (R-OK) has publicly placed a hold on the re-nomination of Federal Communications Commission member over the agency’s April decision to permit Ligado to proceed with its plan “to deploy a low-power terrestrial nationwide network in the 1526-1536 MHz, 1627.5-1637.5 MHz, and 1646.5-1656.5 MHz bands that will primarily support Internet of Things (IoT) services.” This is the latest means of pressing the FCC Inhofe and allies on Capitol Hill and in the Trump Administration have taken. In the recently passed “National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021” (S.4049) there is language requiring “the Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct an independent technical review of the Order and Authorization adopted by the FCC on April 19, 2020 (FCC 20–48). The independent technical review would include a comparison of the two different approaches used for evaluation of potential harmful interference. The provision also would require the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to submit a report on the independent technical review.” This provision may make it into the final FY 2021 NDAA, which would stop Ligado from proceeding before the conclusion of the study.
  • Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has released yet another bill amending 47 USC 230 (aka Section 230), the “Behavioral Advertising Decisions Are Downgrading Services (BAD ADS) Act,” that “remove Section 230 immunity from Big Tech companies that display manipulative, behavioral ads or provide data to be used for them.” Considering that targeting advertising forms a significant part of the revenue stream for such companies, this seems to be of a piece with other bills of Hawley’s and others to pressure social media platforms. Hawley noted he “has been a leading critic of Section 230’s protection of Big Tech firms and recently called for Twitter to lose immunity if it chooses to editorialize on political speech.”
  • The United States National Counterintelligence and Security Center (US NCSC) issued a statement on election security on the 100th day before the 2020 Presidential Election. US NCSC Director William Evanina described the risks facing the US heading into November but did not detail US efforts to address and counter the efforts of foreign nations to influence and disrupt Presidential and Congressional elections this fall. The US NCSC explained it is working with other federal agencies and stakeholders, however.
    • US NCSC Director William Evanina explained the purpose of the press release is to “share insights with the American public about foreign threats to our election and offer steps to citizens across the country to build resilience and help mitigate these threats…[and] to update Americans on the evolving election threat landscape, while also safeguarding our intelligence sources and methods.” Evanina noted “Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has been providing robust intelligence-based briefings on election security to the presidential campaigns, political committees, and Congressional audiences.” Including the assertion “[i]n leading these classified briefings, I have worked to ensure fidelity, accountability, consistency and transparency with these stakeholders and presented the most timely and accurate information we have to offer” may be Evanina’s way of pushing back on concerns that the White House has placed people loyal to the President at the top of some IC entities who may lack independence. Top Democrats
    • The US NCSC head asserted “[e]lection security remains a top priority for the Intelligence Community and we are committed in our support to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), given their leadership roles in this area.”
    • Evanina claimed “[a]t this time, we’re primarily concerned with China, Russia and Iran — although other nation states and non-state actors could also do harm to our electoral process….[and] [o]ur insights and judgments will evolve as the election season progresses:
      • China is expanding its influence efforts to shape the policy environment in the United States, pressure political figures it views as opposed to China’s interests, and counter criticism of China. Beijing recognizes its efforts might affect the presidential race.
      • Russia’s persistent objective is to weaken the United States and diminish our global role. Using a range of efforts, including internet trolls and other proxies, Russia continues to spread disinformation in the U.S. that is designed to undermine confidence in our democratic process and denigrate what it sees as an anti-Russia “establishment” in America.
      • Iran seeks to undermine U.S. democratic institutions and divide the country in advance of the elections. Iran’s efforts center around online influence, such as spreading disinformation on social media and recirculating anti-U.S. content.
    • Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Mark Warner (D-VA) released their response to the NCSC statement:
      • The statement just released by NCSC Director William Evanina does not go nearly far enough in arming the American people with the knowledge they need about how foreign powers are seeking to influence our political process. The statement gives a false sense of equivalence to the actions of foreign adversaries by listing three countries of unequal intent, motivation and capability together. The statement, moreover, fails to fully delineate the goal, nature, scope and capacity to influence our election, information the American people must have as we go into November. To say without more, for example, that Russia seeks to ‘denigrate what it sees as an anti-Russia ‘establishment’ in America’ is so generic as to be almost meaningless. The statement omits much on a subject of immense importance.
      • “In our letter two weeks ago, we called on the FBI to provide a defensive briefing to the entire Congress about specific threats related to a concerted foreign disinformation campaign, and this is more important than ever.  But a far more concrete and specific statement needs to be made to the American people, consistent with the need to protect sources and methods.  We can trust the American people with knowing what to do with the information they receive and making those decisions for themselves. But they cannot do so if they are kept in the dark about what our adversaries are doing, and how they are doing it.  When it comes to American elections, Americans must decide.”
    • Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued their own statement:
      • We are disappointed by the statement from Senator Schumer, Senator Warner, Speaker Pelosi, and Representative Schiff about Bill Evanina, the Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. Evanina is a career law enforcement and intelligence professional with extensive experience in counterintelligence. His reputation as a straight-shooter immune from politics is well-deserved. It is for this reason that Evanina received overwhelming support from the Senate when he was confirmed to be Director of the NCSC and again when the Administration tapped him to lead the nation’s efforts to protect the 2020 elections from foreign interference.
      • We believe the statement baselessly impugns his character and politicizes intelligence matters. Their manufactured complaint undercuts Director Evanina’s nonpartisan public outreach to increase Americans’ awareness of foreign influence campaigns right at the beginning of his efforts.
      • Prior to their public statements, Director Evanina had previewed his efforts and already offered to provide another round of briefings to the Congress on the threat and steps the US government has taken over the last three and a half years to combat it. We believe the threat is real, and is more complex than many partisans may wish to admit. We welcome these briefings, and hope our colleagues will listen to the career professionals who have been given this mission.
      •  We will not discuss classified information in public, but we are confident that while the threat remains, we are far better prepared than four years ago. The intelligence community, law enforcement, election officials, and others involved in securing our elections are far better postured, and Congress dramatically better informed, than any of us were in 2016—and our Democrat colleagues know it.
  • The Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) and the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) issued “new Cloud Security Guidance co-designed with industry to support the secure adoption of cloud services across government and industry.” The agencies stated this new release “will guide organisations including government, Cloud Service Providers (CSP), and Information Security Registered Assessors Program (IRAP) assessors on how to perform a comprehensive assessment of a cloud service provider and its cloud services, so a risk-informed decision can be made about its suitability to handle an organisation’s data.” ACSC and DTA added “The Cloud Security Guidance is supported by forthcoming updates to the Australian Government Information Security Manual (ISM), the Attorney-General’s Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF), and the DTA’s Secure Cloud Strategy.”
  • The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) studied how well facial recognition technology and services could identify people wearing masks and, to no great surprise, the results were not good with respect to accuracy. NIST stressed that the facial recognition technology were not calibrated for masks in qualifying its results. In its Interagency Report NISTIR 8311, NIST found
    • Algorithm accuracy with masked faces declined substantially across the board. Using unmasked images, the most accurate algorithms fail to authenticate a person about 0.3% of the time. Masked images raised even these top algorithms’ failure rate to about 5%, while many otherwise competent algorithms failed between 20% to 50% of the time.
    • Masked images more frequently caused algorithms to be unable to process a face, technically termed “failure to enroll or template” (FTE). Face recognition algorithms typically work by measuring a face’s features — their size and distance from one another, for example — and then comparing these measurements to those from another photo. An FTE means the algorithm could not extract a face’s features well enough to make an effective comparison in the first place.
    • The more of the nose a mask covers, the lower the algorithm’s accuracy. The study explored three levels of nose coverage — low, medium and high — finding that accuracy degrades with greater nose coverage.
    • While false negatives increased, false positives remained stable or modestly declined. Errors in face recognition can take the form of either a “false negative,” where the algorithm fails to match two photos of the same person, or a “false positive,” where it incorrectly indicates a match between photos of two different people. The modest decline in false positive rates show that occlusion with masks does not undermine this aspect of security.
    • The shape and color of a mask matters. Algorithm error rates were generally lower with round masks. Black masks also degraded algorithm performance in comparison to surgical blue ones, though because of time and resource constraints the team was not able to test the effect of color completely.
    • NIST explained this report
      • is the first of a series of reports on the performance of face recognition algorithms on faces occluded by protective face masks [2] commonly worn to reduce inhalation of viruses or other contaminants. This study is being run under the Ongoing Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) executed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This report documents accuracy of algorithms to recognize persons wearing face masks. The results in this report apply to algorithms provided to NIST before the COVID-19 pandemic, which were developed without expectation that NIST would execute them on masked face images.
  • The United States National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) inside the White House announced the establishment of the Quantum Leap Challenges Institutes program and “$75 million for three new institutes designed to have a tangible impact in solving” problems associated with quantum information science and engineering. NSF added “Quantum Leap Challenge Institutes also form the centerpiece of NSF’s Quantum Leap, an ongoing, agency-wide effort to enable quantum systems research and development.” NSF and OSTP named the following institutes:
    • NSF Quantum Leap Challenge Institute for Present and Future Quantum Computing. Today’s quantum computing prototypes are rudimentary, error-prone, and small-scale. This institute, led by the University of California, Berkeley, plans to learn from these to design advanced, large-scale quantum computers, develop efficient algorithms for current and future quantum computing platforms, and ultimately demonstrate that quantum computers outperform even the best conceivable classical computers.
  • The United States Department of Energy (DOE) published its “Blueprint for the Quantum Internet” “that lays out a blueprint strategy for the development of a national quantum internet, bringing the United States to the forefront of the global quantum race and ushering in a new era of communications” and held an event to roll out the new document and approach. The Blueprint is part of the Administration’s effort to implement the “National Quantum Initiative Act” (P.L. 115-368), a bill “[t]o provide for a coordinated Federal program to accelerate quantum research and development for the economic and national security of the United States.” Under Secretary of Energy for Science Paul Dabbar explained in a blog post that “[t]he Blueprint lays out four priority research opportunities to make this happen:
    • Providing the foundational building blocks for Quantum Internet;
    • Integrating Quantum networking devices;
    • Creating repeating, switching, and routing technologies for Quantum entanglement;
    • Enabling error correction of Quantum networking functions.
  • The European Commission (EC) is requesting feedback until 10 September on its impact assessment for future European Union legislation on artificial intelligence (AI). The EC explained “the  overall  policy  objective  is  to  ensure  the  development  and  uptake  of lawful  and trustworthy  AI across the Single Market through the creation of an ecosystem of trust.” Earlier this year, as part of its Digital Strategy, the EC recently released a white paper earlier this year, “On Artificial Intelligence – A European approach to excellence and trust,” in which the Commission articulates its support for “a regulatory and investment oriented approach with the twin objective of promoting the uptake of AI and of addressing the risks associated with certain uses of this new technology.” The EC stated that “[t]he purpose of this White Paper is to set out policy options on how to achieve these objectives…[but] does not address the development and use of AI for military purposes.”

Further Reading

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

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

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

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

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

Coming Events

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

Other Developments

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

Further Reading

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

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

National Cyber Director Hearing

The primary committee of jurisdiction over a bill to create a White House Cyber Director held a hearing on the ramifications of creating just such a position.  

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

On 14 July, the House Oversight and Reform Committee held a virtual hearing to discuss the recently introduced “National Cyber Director Act” (H.R.7331) that would implement one of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission’s (CSC) most significant recommendations. Representative James Langevin (D-RI), who served on the CSC, introduced the bill a few weeks ago when it appeared clear that neither Armed Services Committee will include the CSC’s recommendation that a position be established inside the Executive Office of the President of a National Cyber Director to coordinate much of the United States’ cyber policy that would need to be confirmed by the Senate. Langevin and a number of others submitted an amendment to the House Rules Committee for consideration of the “William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021” (H.R.6395) that would add H.R.7331 to the House’s FY 2021 NDAA. It is possible this amendment is made in order and will be debated on the House floor when the chamber turns to H.R.6395, which could happen as soon as next week.

The holding of this hearing is likely part of an effort to convince House Democratic Leadership and the House Rules and Armed Services Committees of the support for H.R.7331 so that it can be debated during consideration of the FY 2021 NDAA. The chair of the House Oversight and Reform Committee cosponsored Langevin’s amendment as did a number of Republicans, demonstrating its bipartisan nature. Also, having held a hearing at which a number of witnesses endorsed the idea will lend further weight to it being allowed to be offered to the annual Department of Defense policy package.

The Senate’s NDAA does not include language establishing a National Cyber Director position. Rather, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021“ (S.4049) would require “the  Secretary  of  Defense,  in  coordination  with  the Secretary  of  Homeland  Security,  shall  seek  to  enter  into  an  agreement  with  an  independent  organization  with  relevant expertise in cyber policy and governmental organization  to  conduct  and  complete  an  assessment  of  the  feasibility and advisability of establishing a National Cyber Director.” It is possible that CSC co-chair Senator Angus King (I-ME) succeeds in getting this recommendation included in the Senate’s FY 2021 NDAA when the body continues with debate next week.

Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) stated

Cyberattacks are a critical, complex, prevalent, and growing threat to the nation’s safety and economic security, touching nearly every aspect of our lives. This assessment was upheld by recent findings from the U.S. Cyberspace Solarium Commission, which was established by the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act to review the state of our cybersecurity posture and develop bipartisan solutions for defending America against cyberthreats.  This commission of Congressional, Executive Branch, and private sector cybersecurity leaders sounded the alarm that, in addition to millions of intrusions that disrupt operations in America on a daily basis, we remain vulnerable to catastrophic attacks on critical infrastructure and economic systems that could cause widespread damage and death.

Maloney noted “[a] number of the commission’s recommendations fall within the legislative jurisdiction of this Committee…[and] [t]his includes one that has sparked a high level of interest on both sides of the aisle—the recommendation for a centralized cybersecurity position at the White House to develop and streamline the federal government’s strategy, coordination, and response to cyberthreats.” She said that “[t]his role was first formalized during the George W. Bush Administration, and then elevated and expanded during the Obama Administration…[b]ut in 2018, then-National Security Adviser John Bolton eliminated the role, reportedly to cut “another layer of bureaucracy.”

Maloney said that “we will review H.R. 7331, which would implement the Commission’s recommendation to establish a National Cyber Director in the Executive Office of the President.” She said that “[t]his new position would restore that cyber coordination and planning function at the White House…[and] [i]n addition, for the first time, it would be backed with resources and statutory authority to lead strategic planning efforts, review cybersecurity budgets, and coordinate national incident response.” Maloney stated “[a] challenge as complex and pervasive as cybersecurity requires that our government be strategic, organized, and ready…[and] Democrats and Republicans agree we need a National Cyber Director to ensure we are fully prepared for, and coordinated in, our response to cyberattacks as our nation fights this silent war.” She explained “[o]ur mission today is to gain a detailed understanding of the threats we face, and to thoroughly examine H.R. 7331 as the vehicle for preparing our country against those threats.”

Ranking Member James Comer (R-KY) said the federal cyber domain is dispersed with varying jurisdictions and expertise among agencies organized to fight cyber-crime, defend national security, and support the private sector’s critical cyber infrastructure. He noted the increasingly reliance in the US on technology and growing inter-connected nature of the American economy. Comer said foreign actors, terrorist groups, domestic agitators, and criminal enterprises all have a vested interest in exploiting US networks. Comer said the remote operations of the pandemic have created new cyber vulnerabilities that malicious actors are taking advantage of. He added the same threats face private sector and state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. Comer stressed that fostering relationships across the private sector and state and local partners, vital cyber threat information can be shared that helps secure critical infrastructure.

Comer noted the witnesses have vast experience in combatting cyber threats from nations like the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that has historically hacked into agencies like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, stolen intellectual property, and paid professors and researchers for research and development information. He stated he would welcome the opportunity to work with Democrats to hold the PRC accountable for these bad acts as well as their deceptive tactics over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Comer said the present hearing would, instead, examine a proposal to create a National Cyber Director. He stressed that Members have a duty to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars and not create more bureaucracy. Comer commended the Trump’s Administration’s performance in fending off threats to medical and health facilities and to teleworkers during the pandemic.

Comer asked whether it is truly necessary to establish a new position to coordinate cybersecurity, and, if so, would this official actually have the authority necessary to execute her responsibilities. Moreover, will other stakeholders fall in line and work in harmony, he asked. Comer said it is already he case the multiple federal agencies have cybersecurity jurisdiction and wondered whether another official would help the US government’s cyber posture. He expressed his concern that the bill may create a duplicative, bureaucratic layer of government that will hinder future responses to cyber-attacks.

Representatives and CSC Members James Langevin (D-RI) and Mike Gallagher (R-WI) claimed

First and foremost, the Executive Branch must establish a National Cyber Director to centralize and coordinate the cybersecurity mission at the national level. The National Cyber Director would work among Federal departments and agencies to bring coherence in both in the development of cybersecurity policy and strategy and in its execution. The position would provide clear leadership in the White House and signal cybersecurity is an enduring priority in U.S. national security strategy.

Langevin and Gallagher stated “[l]ooking at the history and the current structure of the Executive Branch, four clear institutional challenges emerge:

  • First, the Federal government lacks consistent, institutionalized leadership in the White House on cybersecurity strategy and policy.
  • Second, due to the absence of a consistent advocate, cybersecurity is inconsistently prioritized in the context of national security.
  • Third, the United States lacks a coordinated, cohesive, and clear strategic vision for cyber.
  • Fourth, the lack of centralized Executive Branch leadership complicates and prevents effective congressional oversight. In the March 2020 Commission report, the Commission recognized the need for a single individual at the highest level in the Federal government to take on these responsibilities.

Langevin and Gallagher explained

On the issue of whether to recommend the creation of new Executive Branch structures, or strengthen the existing structures, the Commission explored several different options. These models included the creation of a new cabinet department for cyber led by a Secretary, an independent agency for cyber led by a Director reporting to an existing cabinet department, an equivalent to a Homeland Security Advisor for cyber within the National Security Council, or a new office within the White House Executive Office of the President (EOP) led by a Director. Ultimately, the Commission decided that the Federal government would be better served by strengthening existing department and agency efforts in cybersecurity, including strengthening CISA and Sector-Specific Agencies, rather than the creation of a new department. While the creation of a new cabinet department or independent agency would give the position gravitas, the Commission recognized the protracted development of a new department would prevent, or even eliminate, much-needed near-term progress.

Cyber Threat Alliance President and Chief Executive Officer Michael Daniel claimed “we have reached the point where making more than incremental progress will prove difficult unless we address at least four impediments:

  • First, cybersecurity’s cross-cutting nature does not fit with the US government’s bureaucratic structure, making the issue difficult to deal with during policy development. 
  • Second, agencies are not incentivized to sustain the degree of coordination required for effective cybersecurity over the long term. 
  • Third, a lack of central coordination hinders effective incident response actions. 
  • Fourth, cybersecurity’s complexity and unusual nature make it tough for the President and other senior leaders to tackle without access to expertise. 

Daniel stated “[a]ddressing these impediments would be challenging under normal circumstances, but this Administration has chosen to take a step backward by eliminating the cybersecurity coordinator position at the White House, which makes it even harder.” He said that “[c]learly, no single policy action will solve these problems…[and] [t]hey are too complicated for a one-shot solution.” Daniel said “[t]hat said, creating a position like a National Cyber Director along the lines the Cyberspace Solarium Commission recommends or that Representative Langevin has proposed is a necessary part of the solution.”

Daniel asserted

  • Cybersecurity is a strategic, national level problem that defies easy categorization.  Cyberspace and the Internet are permanent features of our society, economy, public safety, and national security.  We will not “solve” our cybersecurity problems; cyber threats are now a permanent feature in society and international relations.  Instead, we will manage and mitigate the threat.  Thus, we need a strategic level leader focused on this problem with a government-wide perspective.  Moreover, we will need a national cyber director for the long-term. 
  • The EOP is the only part of the executive branch with a sufficiently broad scope to look across all the different aspects of cybersecurity.  It is the only part of the executive branch that can overcome the “you’re not the boss of me” effect and incentivize agencies to engage in regular, sustained, and intense coordination. It is the logical place to organize a cyber crisis response because it can serve as a neutral, inter-agency hub and activate resources across the entire Federal government. Finally, it is the primary organization for direct Presidential advisors.

Daniel said that “[a]s Congress debates this issue, I would urge it to consider certain parameters in crafting the position: The NCD Office should be big enough to run effective processes, but not so big that it tries to be operational.” He claimed “[i]f we want the office to succeed, then it cannot be so small that the staff do not have time to do anything right…[and] [o]n the other hand, it should not be so large that its staff are tempted to try to run operations directly.” Daniel stated that “[t]he NCD Office should integrate tightly with OMB’s budget process and NSC’s policy process, otherwise it will be irrelevant.”

Daniel stated

  • The NCD Office should have insight into and a policy oversight role for all Federal government cyber functions, including military, intelligence, or law enforcement activities; this insight must extend to offensive cyber operations. We cannot exclude those activities from the NCD’s purview and expect the position to succeed. For the record, I strongly support the independence of indictment and prosecutorial decisions from the White House, but that separation does not mean the NCD should not understand what law enforcement operations are occurring or influence our strategic level policy toward cybercrime. If the NCD only has oversight and coordination roles for network defense activities and working with the private sector, then the position would largely duplicate the CISA director, which we do not need.
  • NCD staff should not participate in policy execution. Law enforcement agencies investigates and prosecutes crime, intelligence agencies collect information, the military conducts offensive cyber operations, and the sector specific agencies work with their industries. Policy execution should remain the domain of the departments and agencies.
  • The office will need a clear relationship with the Federal Chief Information Security Officer (CISO). This existing office has worked hard to improve the security of Federal networks. The NCD’s office will need to work closely with the Federal CISO to ensure that Federal agencies are following the general guidance and advice the government gives the private sector. We must walk our talk.

Tenable Chairman and CEO Amit Yoran stated

Beyond the authorities already included in H.R. 7331, I recommend additional authorities for the National Cyber Director that would improve the nation’s cybersecurity risk management for both the public and private sectors. These additional authorities include developing a national encryption policy, managing the Vulnerabilities Equities Process (VEP), coordinating with regulatory entities, driving cybersecurity workforce development, and leading all international cybersecurity efforts, to include the development of international cyber strategies and international engagement.

Yoran added that

The Cyberspace Solarium Report also included recommendations on how to further strengthen the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in order to ensure the national resilience of critical infrastructure, promote a more secure cyber ecosystem and serve as the central civilian authority to support federal, state, local and private sector cybersecurity efforts. CISA has established information sharing capabilities across the government, provides technical assistance to cybersecurity operators in the public and private sectors, and engages stakeholders both inside and outside the federal government. However, CISA’s role has clear limitations:

  • CISA’s convening power is not widely understood or consistently recognized.
  • CISA does not have jurisdiction over law enforcement, the Department of Defense or federal intelligence agencies, which are all critical pieces of a unified approach to U.S. cyber defense, nor are these organizations required to collaborate and share their activities with CISA.
  • CISA does not have the budget or the analytic capacity to assess, plan for and lead a unified effort to mitigate national systemic cyber risk.

Yoran said that “[t]he creation of the National Cybersecurity Director role should be done in conjunction with efforts to empower and appropriately resource CISA as a critical player to improve the nation’s cybersecurity.” He contended “[t]o strengthen CISA, Congress should elevate the Director position as recommended by the Cyberspace Solarium Commission and provide additional funding and program support that will enable the organization to enhance current operations.” Yoran stated that “[a]n expanded budget would also allow CISA to increase funding for the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) program in order to meet surge capacity to protect .gov networks, support state and local cybersecurity networks and systems, and expand other programs that support the private sector, including many of the public-private operations that comprise the U.S. critical infrastructure.”

George Mason University’s National Security Institute Founder & Executive Director Jamil Jaffer stated

  • Given the general agreement that such [cyber] coordination is advisable, and indeed, necessary, one needs wonder why the Commission’s approach might be controversial.  The first and most obvious issue that would likely trouble any White House—regardless of political party and relationship with Congress—is the idea of having yet another Senate-confirmed appointee in the White House Office. 
  • The challenge, of course, with a National Cyber Director, particularly as it relates to a position in the White House Office and as described in H.R. 7331, is that this individual would have responsibilities that are generally understood by Presidents to be squarely in their control, namely matters related to the execution of the President’s textual Commander-in-Chief responsibilities. And while Congress may certainly argue that it has a number of textual commitments in this area also, like the declaration of war authority and the provisioning of the armed forces, the reality is that Presidents have long taken the view that matters of national security decisionmaking, particularly in the White House, are firmly committed to their discretion.  Thus, it is likely that any President, regardless of party or relationship with Congress, would be strongly opposed to Senate-confirmation of such an individual and, if such confirmation was ultimately required, it may actually undermine rather than buttress the individual position’s influence and role within the White House.
  • Moreover, making such a position Senate-confirmed essentially seeks to elevate it to an Assistant to the President role, namely a principal officer inside the White House Office. The challenge with doing so, of course, is that the vast majority of issues such an individual would deal with likely also fall squarely within the ambit of the existing responsibilities of the Assistant to the President for National Security (i.e., the National Security Advisor). 
  • The legislation clearly envisions the former approach—that is, direct advice to the President—which could very well create its own set of coordination and integration challenges within the White House and with the interagency. This challenge is enhanced, in particular, when it comes to areas of clear overlap between existing White House officials like the National Security Advisor (e.g., in the case of offensive and defensive cyber operations), as well as the Director of OMB (e.g., in the case of budgetary authority). Where the situation becomes even more problematic, however, is where the NCD’s assigned authorities appear to directly conflict with the authorities of another cabinet-level official. 
  • Finally, the size of the office likewise presents its own challenges.  While it is true that the USTR has an office of over 200 individuals and OMB has nearly 500, even at 75 authorized individuals, when one adds in the authority for other outside experts, consultants, and other government agency personnel in support, this number is likely to be viewed as too high for the mission.  This is particularly the case given that such an office would be roughly1/3 the size of the entire National Security Council staff, which itself is currently seen as fairly bloated (even after the Trump-directed staff reductions in 2019)

© 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.

Hearing On National Cyber Director Act To Be Held This Week

Members of a Congressional cybersecurity commission introduce legislation to establish a statutory cyber position in the White House after neither NDAA has this policy change.

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

This week, the House Oversight and Reform Committee is holding a hearing to examine the “National Cyber Director Act” (H.R.7331), a bill to implement one of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission’s key recommendations.

When it became clear that neither FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would include a CSC to create a statutory position in the White House to coordinate United States’ (US) cyber policy, some CSC members and other key stakeholders introduced a bill to effectuate the recommendation that the US needs a National Cyber Director. This new position would be along the lines of a position created during the Obama Administration (i.e. White House Cybersecurity Coordinator) that was eliminated by former National Security Advisor John Bolton in 2018. However, this position would have a statutory basis and authority, which would institutionalize the position in this and future Administrations.

The bill was sponsored by CSC Member Representative James Langevin (D-RI) and cosponsored by CSC co-chair Representative Mike Gallagher (R-WI), House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), the Homeland Security Committee’s Cybersecurity, Infrastructure and Innovation Subcommittee Ranking Member John Katko (R-NY), and Representatives C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) and Will Hurd (R-TX). Langevin has been advocating for this concept for a decade, beginning with the introduction of “Executive Cyberspace Authorities Act of 2010” (H.R.5247) that would have created a National Cyberspace Office inside the Executive Office of the President.

In terms of strategy for enactment, the sponsors could try to offer the bill as an amendment to either NDAA during floor consideration, but, depending on the procedural approach to consideration in either chamber, they may not be able to actually get a vote. Moreover, the chairs and ranking members of the Armed Services Committees who typically manage the bills on the floor may successfully argue this is an idea that is premature and should be studied. This sort of argument is often persuasive since these Members are usually respected for their expertise. Alternatively, the sponsors may try to pass the bill as a standalone measure.

The “National Cyber Director Act” (H.R.7331) would establish an Office National Cyber Director (NCD) in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) headed by a Senate-confirmed NCD, much like some of the other offices in the EOP like the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Immediately beneath the NCD would be two new officials: Deputy National Cyber Director for Strategy, Capabilities, and Budget and Deputy National Cyber Director for Plans and Operations whose responsibilities are presumably spelled out in their titles for the bill does not explain on their portfolios. The NCD would be added to the statute establishing the National Security Council (NSC), and would be specifically named as an adviser the President may or may not invite to participate in NSC meetings and deliberations.

In terms of duties, the NCD would serve “as the principal advisor to the President on cybersecurity strategy and policy” “[s]ubject to the authority, direction, and control of the President.” This new official would coordinate the drafting and implementation of the United States’ National Cyber Strategy in consultation with existing stakeholders like OMB, the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and others. The NCD would also be empowered to review agency budget submissions and be required to certify they are aligned with the National Cyber Strategy. The new Director would also be added to the stakeholders that address information security across federal agencies. The NCD would “lead joint interagency planning for the Federal Government’s integrated response to cyberattacks and cyber campaigns of significant consequence,” which would be defensive operations. It appears the NCD would not be the lead US official for offensive cyber-attacks, which appears to be the province of the head of Cyber Command, currently General Paul Nakasone.  However, there are provisions that seem to suggest the National Cyber Director could be added to the inter-agency process of determining whether and when the US will launch cyber-attacks. However, the CSC envisioned the NCD not interfering with the current process for offensive operations: “The NCD will coordinate interagency efforts to defend against adversary cyber operations against domestic U.S. interests; this will not impinge on DoD responsibility for Title 10 activities, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) responsibility for Title 50 activities, or the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) responsibility for counterintelligence activities, but the NCD would be kept fully apprised of those activities.”

The Senate’s “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021“ (S.4049) would require “the  Secretary  of  Defense,  in  coordination  with  the Secretary  of  Homeland  Security,  shall  seek  to  enter  into  an  agreement  with  an  independent  organization  with  relevant expertise in cyber policy and governmental organization  to  conduct  and  complete  an  assessment  of  the  feasibility and advisability of establishing a National Cyber Director.” The text of the House’s NDAA released thus far does not address the CSC’s recommendation for the establishment of an NCD.

© 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 cristianrodri17 from Pixabay