Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (23 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.

Other Developments

  • New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner has begun the process of implementing the new Privacy Act 2020 and has started asking for input on the codes of practice that will effectuate the rewrite of the nation’s privacy laws. The Commissioner laid out the following schedule:
    • Telecommunications Information Privacy Code and Civil Defence National Emergencies (Information Sharing) Code
      • Open: 29 July 2020 / Close: 26 August 2020
    • The Commissioner noted “[t]he new Privacy Act 2020 is set to come into force on 1 December…[and] makes several key reforms to New Zealand’s privacy law, including amendments to the information privacy principles.” The Commissioner added “[a]s a result, the six codes of practice made under the Privacy Act 1993 require replacement.”
  • Australia’s 2020 Cyber Security Strategy Industry Advisory Panel issued its report and recommendations “to provide strategic advice to support the development of Australia’s 2020 Cyber Security Strategy.” The body was convened by the Minister for Home Affairs. The panel “recommendations are structured around a framework of five key pillars:
    • Deterrence: The Government should establish clear consequences for those targeting businesses and Australians. A key priority is increasing transparency on Government investigative activity, more frequent attribution and consequences applied where appropriate, and strengthening the Australian Cyber Security Centre’s (ACSC’s) ability to disrupt cyber criminals by targeting the proceeds of cybercrime.
    • Prevention: Prevention is vital and should include initiatives to help businesses and Australians remain safer online. Industry should increase its cyber security capabilities and be increasingly responsible for ensuring their digital products and services are cyber safe and secure, protecting their customers from foreseeable cyber security harm. While Australians have access to trusted goods and services, they also need to be supported with advice on how to practice safe behaviours at home and work. A clear definition is required for what constitutes critical infrastructure and systems of national significance across the public and private sectors. This should be developed with consistent, principles-based regulatory requirements to implement reasonable protection against cyber threats for both the public and private sectors.
    • Detection: There is clear need for the development of a mechanism between industry and Government for real-time sharing of threat information, beginning with critical infrastructure operators. The Government should also empower industry to automatically detect and block a greater proportion of known cyber security threats in real-time including initiatives such as ‘cleaner pipes’.
    • Resilience: We know malicious cyber activity is hitting Australians hard. The tactics and techniques used by malicious cyber actors are evolving so quickly that individuals, businesses and critical infrastructure operators in Australia are not fully able to protect themselves and their assets against every cyber security threat. As a result, it is recommended that the Government should strengthen the incident response and victim support options already in place. This should include conducting cyber security exercises in partnership with the private sector. Speed is key when it comes to recovering from cyber incidents, it is therefore proposed that critical infrastructure operators should collaborate more closely to increase preparedness for major cyber incidents.
    • Investment: The Joint Cyber Security Centre (JCSC) program is a highly valuable asset to form a key delivery mechanism for the initiatives under the 2020 Cyber Security Strategy should be strengthened. This should include increased resources and the establishment of a national board in partnership with industry, states and territories with an integrated governance structure underpinned by a charter outlining scope and deliverables.
  •  Six of the world’s data protection authorities issued an open letter to the teleconferencing companies “to set out our concerns, and to clarify our expectations and the steps you should be taking as Video Teleconferencing (VTC) companies to mitigate the identified risks and ultimately ensure that our citizens’ personal information is safeguarded in line with public expectations and protected from any harm.” The DPAs stated that “[t]he principles in this open letter set out some of the key areas to focus on to ensure that your VTC offering is not only compliant with data protection and privacy law around the world, but also helps build the trust and confidence of your userbase.” They added that “[w]e welcome responses to this open letter from VTC companies, by 30 September 2020, to demonstrate how they are taking these principles into account in the design and delivery of their services. Responses will be shared amongst the joint signatories to this letter.” The letter was drafted and signed by:
    • The Privacy Commissioner of Canada
    • The United Kingdom Information Commissioner’s Office
    • The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
    • The Gibraltar Regulatory Authority
    • The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong, China
    • The Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner of Switzerland
  • The United States Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) “is reviewing its regulations on bank digital activities to ensure that its regulations continue to evolve with developments in the industry” and released an “advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) [that] solicits public input as part of this review” by 8 August 2020. The OCC explained:
    • Over the past two decades, technological advances have transformed the financial industry, including the channels through which products and services are delivered and the nature of the products and services themselves. Fewer than fifteen years ago, smart phones with slide-out keyboards and limited touchscreen capability were newsworthy.[1] Today, 49 percent of Americans bank on their phones,[2] and 85 percent of American millennials use mobile banking.[3]
    • The first person-to-person (P2P) platform for money transfer services was established in 1998.[4] Today, there are countless P2P payment options, and many Americans regularly use P2P to transfer funds.[5] In 2003, Congress authorized digital copies of checks to be made and electronically processed.[6] Today, remote deposit capture is the norm for many consumers.[7] The first cryptocurrency was created in 2009; there are now over 1,000 rival cryptocurrencies,[8] and approximately eight percent of Americans own cryptocurrency.[9] Today, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, biometrics, cloud computing, big data and data analytics, and distributed ledger and blockchain technology are used commonly or are emerging in the banking sector. Even the language used to describe these innovations is evolving, with the term “digital” now commonly used to encompass electronic, mobile, and other online activities.
    • These technological developments have led to a wide range of new banking products and services delivered through innovative and more efficient channels in response to evolving customer preferences. Back-office banking operations have experienced significant changes as well. AI and machine learning play an increasing role, for example, in fraud identification, transaction monitoring, and loan underwriting and monitoring. And technology is fueling advances in payments. In addition, technological innovations are helping banks comply with the complex regulatory framework and enhance cybersecurity to more effectively protect bank and customer data and privacy. More and more banks, of all sizes and types, are entering into relationships with technology companies that enable banks and the technology companies to establish new delivery channels and business practices and develop new products to meet the needs of consumers, businesses, and communities. These relationships facilitate banks’ ability to reach new customers, better serve existing customers, and take advantage of cost efficiencies, which help them to remain competitive in a changing industry.
    • Along with the opportunities presented by these technological changes, there are new challenges and risks. Banks should adjust their business models and practices to a new financial marketplace and changing customer demands. Banks are in an environment where they compete with non-bank entities that offer products and services that historically have only been offered by banks, while ensuring that their activities are consistent with the authority provided by a banking charter and safe and sound banking practices. Banks also must comply with applicable laws and regulations, including those focused on consumer protection and Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) compliance. And, importantly, advanced persistent threats require banks to pay constant and close attention to increasing cybersecurity risks.
    • Notwithstanding these challenges, the Federal banking system is well acquainted with and well positioned for change, which has been a hallmark of this system since its inception. The OCC’s support of responsible innovation throughout its history has helped facilitate the successful evolution of the industry. The OCC has long understood that the banking business is not frozen in time and agrees with the statement made over forty years ago by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: “the powers of national banks must be construed so as to permit the use of new ways of conducting the very old business of banking.” [10] Accordingly, the OCC has sought to regulate banking in ways that allow for the responsible creation or adoption of technological advances and to establish a regulatory and supervisory framework that allows banking to evolve, while ensuring that safety and soundness and the fair treatment of customers is preserved.
  • A trio of House of Representatives Members have introduced “legislation to put American consumers in the driver’s seat by giving them clearer knowledge about the technology they are purchasing.” The “Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act” (H.R.7583) was drafted and released by Representatives John Curtis (R-UT), Seth Moulton (D-MA), and Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) and according to their press release, it would:
    • The legislation is in response to reports about household devices listening to individuals’ conversations without their knowledge. While some manufacturers have taken steps to more clearly label their products with listening devices, this legislation would make this information more obvious to consumers without overly burdensome requirements on producers of these devices. 
    • Specifically, the bill requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to work alongside industry leaders to establish guidelines for properly disclosing the potential for their products to contain audio or visual recording capabilities. To ensure this does not become an overly burdensome labeling requirement, the legislation provides manufacturers the option of requesting customized guidance from the FTC that fits within their existing marketing or branding practices in addition to permitting these disclosures pre or post-sale of their products.
  • House Oversight and Reform Committee Ranking Member James Comer (R-KY) sent Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey a letter regarding last week’s hack, asking for answers to his questions about the security practices of the platform. Government Operations Subcommittee Ranking Member Jody Hice (R-GA) and 18 other Republicans also wrote Dorsey demanding an explanation of “Twitter’s intent and use of tools labeled ‘SEARCH BLACKLIST’ and ‘TRENDS BLACKLIST’ shown in the leaked screenshots.”
  • The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled against United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) head Michael Pack and enjoined his efforts to fire the board of the Open Technology Fund (OTF). The court stated “it appears likely that the district court correctly concluded that 22 U.S.C. § 6209(d) does not grant the Chief Executive Officer of the United States Agency for Global Media, Michael Pack, with the authority to remove and replace members of OTF’s board.” Four removed members of the OTF Board had filed suit against pack. Yesterday, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine (D) filed suit against USAGM, arguing that Pack violated District of Columbia law by dissolving the OTF Board and creating a new one.
  • Three advocacy organizations have lodged their opposition to the “California Privacy Rights Act” (aka Proposition 24) that will be on the ballot this fall in California. The American Civil Liberties Union, the California Alliance for Retired Americans, and Color of Change are speaking out against the bill because “it stacks the deck in favor of big tech corporations and reduces your privacy rights.” Industry groups have also started advertising and advocating against the statute that would rewrite the “California Consumer Privacy Act” (CCPA) (AB 375).

Further Reading

  • Facebook adds info label to Trump post about elections” – The Hill. Facebook has followed Twitter in appending information to posts of President Donald Trump that implicitly rebut his false claims about fraud and mail-in voting. Interestingly, they also appended information to posts of former Vice President Joe Biden that merely asked people to vote Trump out in November. If Facebook continues this policy, it is likely to stoke the ire of Republicans, many of whom claim that the platform and others are biased against conservative voices and viewpoints.
  • Ajit Pai urges states to cap prison phone rates after he helped kill FCC caps” – Ars Technica. The chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FC) is imploring states to regulate the egregious rates charged on payphones to the incarcerated in prison. The rub here is that Pai fought against Obama-era FCC efforts to regulate these practices, claiming the agency lacked the jurisdiction to police intrastate calls. Pai pulled the plug on the agency’s efforts to fight for these powers in court when he became chair.
  • Twitter bans 7,000 QAnon accounts, limits 150,000 others as part of broad crackdown” – NBC News. Today, Twitter announced it was suspending thousands of account of conspiracy theorists who believe a great number of untrue things, namely the “deep state” of the United States is working to thwart the presidency of Donald Trump. Twitter announced in a tweet: “[w]e will permanently suspend accounts Tweeting about these topics that we know are engaged in violations of our multi-account policy, coordinating abuse around individual victims, or are attempting to evade a previous suspension — something we’ve seen more of in recent weeks.” This practice, alternately called brigading or swarming, has been employed on a number of celebrities who are alleged to be engaging in pedophilia. The group, QAnon, has even been quoted or supported by Members of the Republican Party, some of whom may see Twitter’s actions as ideological.
  • Russia and China’s vaccine hacks don’t violate rules of road for cyberspace, experts say” – The Washington Post. Contrary to the claims of the British, Canadian, and American governments, attempts by other nations to hack into COVID-19 research is not counter to cyber norms these and other nations have been pushing to make the rules of the road. The experts interviewed for the article are far more concerned about the long term effects of President Donald Trump allowing the Central Intelligence Agency to start launching cyber attacks when and how it wishes.

© 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.