Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events ( 4 September)

Here is today’s Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events.

Coming Events

  • The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission will hold a hearing on 9 September on “U.S.-China Relations in 2020: Enduring Problems and Emerging Challenges” to “evaluate key developments in China’s economy, military capabilities, and foreign relations, during 2020.”
  • On 10 September, the General Services Administration (GSA) will have a webinar to discuss implementation of Section 889 of the “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2019” (P.L. 115-232) that bars the federal government and its contractors from buying the equipment and services from Huawei, ZTE, and other companies from the People’s Republic of China.
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a forum on 5G Open Radio Access Networks on 14 September. The FCC asserted
    • Chairman [Ajit] Pai will host experts at the forefront of the development and deployment of open, interoperable, standards-based, virtualized radio access networks to discuss this innovative new approach to 5G network architecture. Open Radio Access Networks offer an alternative to traditional cellular network architecture and could enable a diversity in suppliers, better network security, and lower costs.
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Competition Policy & Consumer Rights Subcommittee will hold a hearing on 15 September titled “Stacking the Tech: Has Google Harmed Competition in Online Advertising?.” In their press release, Chair Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asserted:
    • Google is the dominant player in online advertising, a business that accounts for around 85% of its revenues and which allows it to monetize the data it collects through the products it offers for free. Recent consumer complaints and investigations by law enforcement have raised questions about whether Google has acquired or maintained its market power in online advertising in violation of the antitrust laws. News reports indicate this may also be the centerpiece of a forthcoming antitrust lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice. This hearing will examine these allegations and provide a forum to assess the most important antitrust investigation of the 21st century.
  • The United States’ Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) announced that its third annual National Cybersecurity Summit “will be held virtually as a series of webinars every Wednesday for four weeks beginning September 16 and ending October 7:”
    • September 16: Key Cyber Insights
    • September 23: Leading the Digital Transformation
    • September 30: Diversity in Cybersecurity
    • October 7: Defending our Democracy
    • One can register for the event here.
  • 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 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, but an agenda is not available at this time.

Other Developments

  • The United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) “released the Election Risk Profile Tool, a user-friendly assessment tool to equip election officials and federal agencies in prioritizing and managing cybersecurity risks to the Election Infrastructure Subsector.” The agencies stated “[t]he new tool is designed to help state and local election officials understand the range of risks they face and how to prioritize mitigation efforts…[and] also addresses areas of greatest risk, ensures technical cybersecurity assessments and services are meeting critical needs, and provides a sound analytic foundation for managing election security risk with partners at the federal, state and local level.”
    • CISA and the EAC explained “[t]he Election Risk Profile Tool:
      • Is a user-friendly assessment tool for state and local election officials to develop a high-level risk profile across a jurisdiction’s specific infrastructure components;
      • Provides election officials a method to gain insights into their cybersecurity risk and prioritize mitigations;
      • Accepts inputs of a jurisdiction’s specific election infrastructure configuration; and
      • Outputs a tailored risk profile for jurisdictions, which identifies specific areas of highest risk and recommends associated mitigation measures that the jurisdiction could implement to address the risk areas.
  • The cybersecurity agencies of the Five Eyes nations have released a Joint Cybersecurity Advisory: Technical Approaches to Uncovering and Remediating Malicious Activity that “highlights technical approaches to uncovering malicious activity and includes mitigation steps according to best practices.” The agencies asserted “[t]he purpose of this report is to enhance incident response among partners and network administrators along with serving as a playbook for incident investigation.”
    • The Australian Cyber Security Centre, Canada’s Communications Security Establishment, the United States’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Centre, and New Zealand’s National Cyber Security Centre and Computer Emergency Response Team summarized the key takeaways from the Joint Advisory:
      • When addressing potential incidents and applying best practice incident response procedures:
      • First, collect and remove for further analysis:
        • Relevant artifacts,
        • Logs, and
        • Data.
      • Next, implement mitigation steps that avoid tipping off the adversary that their presence in the network has been discovered.
      • Finally, consider soliciting incident response support from a third-party IT security organization to:
        • Provide subject matter expertise and technical support to the incident response,
        • Ensure that the actor is eradicated from the network, and
        • Avoid residual issues that could result in follow-up compromises once the incident is closed.
  • The United States’ (U.S.) Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) signed an Antitrust Cooperation Framework with their counterpart agencies from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, And United Kingdom. The Multilateral Mutual Assistance and Cooperation Framework for Competition Authorities (Framework) “aims to strengthen cooperation between the signatories, and provides the basis for a series of bilateral agreements among them focused on investigative assistance, including sharing confidential information and cross-border evidence gathering.” Given that a number of large technology companies are under investigation in the U.S., the European Union (EU) and elsewhere, signaling a shift in how technology multinationals are being viewed, this agreement may enable cross-border efforts to collectively address alleged abuses. However, the Framework “is not intended to be legally binding and does not give rise to legal rights or obligations under domestic or international law.” The Framework provides:
    • Recognising that the Participants can benefit by sharing their experience in developing, applying, and enforcing Competition Laws and competition policies, the Participants intend to cooperate and provide assistance, including by:
      • a) exchanging information on the development of competition issues, policies and laws;
      • b) exchanging experience on competition advocacy and outreach, including to consumers, industry, and government;
      • c) developing agency capacity and effectiveness by providing advice or training in areas of mutual interest, including through the exchange of officials and through experience-sharing events;
      • d) sharing best practices by exchanging information and experiences on matters of mutual interest, including enforcement methods and priorities; and
      • e) collaborating on projects of mutual interest, including via establishing working groups to consider specific issues.
  • Dynasplint Systems alerted the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that it suffered a breach affecting more than 100,000 people earlier this year. HHS’ Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is investigating possible violations of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations regarding the safeguarding of patients’ health information. If Dynasplint failed to properly secure patient information or its systems, OCR could levy a multimillion dollar fine for the size breach. For example, in late July, OCR fined a company over $1 million for the theft of an unencrypted laptop that exposed the personal information of a little more than 20,000 people.
    • Dynasplint, a Maryland manufacturer of range of motion splints, explained:
      • On June 4, 2020, the investigation determined that certain information was accessed without authorization during the incident.
      • The information may have included names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and medical information.
      • Dynasplint Systems reported this matter to the FBI and will provide whatever cooperation is necessary to hold perpetrators accountable.
  • The California Legislature has sent two bills to Governor Gavin Newsom (D) that would change how technology is regulated in the state, including one that would alter the “California Consumer Privacy Act” (AB 375) (CCPA) if the “California Privacy Rights Act” (CPRA) (Ballot Initiative 24) is not enacted by voters in the November election. The two bills are:
    • AB 1138 would amend the recently effective “Parent’s Accountability and Child Protection Act” would bar those under the age of 13 from opening a social media account unless the platform got the explicit consent from their parents. Moreover, “[t]he bill would deem a business to have actual knowledge of a consumer’s age if it willfully disregards the consumer’s age.”
    •  AB 1281 would extend the carveout for employers to comply with the CCPA from 1 January 2021 to 1 January 2022. The CCPA “exempts from its provisions certain information collected by a business about a natural person in the course of the natural person acting as a job applicant, employee, owner, director, officer, medical staff member, or contractor, as specified…[and also] exempts from specified provisions personal information reflecting a written or verbal communication or a transaction between the business and the consumer, if the consumer is a natural person who is acting as an employee, owner, director, officer, or contractor of a company, partnership, sole proprietorship, nonprofit, or government agency and whose communications or transaction with the business occur solely within the context of the business conducting due diligence regarding, or providing or receiving a product or service to or from that company, partnership, sole proprietorship, nonprofit, or government agency.” AB 1281 “shall become operative only” if the CPRA is not approved by voters.
  • Senators Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) have written “a letter to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Joseph Simons urging the FTC to take action to address the troubling data collection and sharing practices of the mobile application (app) Premom” and “to request information on the steps that the FTC plans to take to address this issue.” They asserted:
    • A recent investigation from the International Digital Accountability Council (IDAC) indicated that Premom may have engaged in deceptive consumer data collection and processing, and that there may be material differences between Premom’s stated privacy policies and its actual data-sharing practices. Most troubling, the investigation found that Premom shared its users’ data without their consent.
    • Moore Capito, Klobuchar, and Moran stated “[i]n light of these concerning reports, and given the critical role that the FTC plays in enforcing federal laws that protect consumer privacy and data under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and other sector specific laws, we respectfully ask that you respond to the following questions:
      • 1. Does the FTC treat persistent identifiers, such as the non-resettable device hardware identifiers discussed in the IDAC report, as personally identifiable information in relation to its general consumer data security and privacy enforcement authorities under Section 5 of the FTC Act?  
      • 2. Is the FTC currently investigating or does it plan to investigate Premom’s consumer data collection, transmission, and processing conduct described in the IDAC report to determine if the company has engaged in deceptive practices?
      • 3. Does the FTC plan to take any steps to educate users of the Premom app that the app may still be sharing their personal data without their permission if they have not updated the app? If not, does the FTC plan to require Premom to conduct such outreach?
      • 4. Please describe any unique or practically uncommon uses of encryption by the involved third-party companies receiving information from Premom that could be functionally interpreted to obfuscate oversight of the involved data transmissions.
      • 5. How can the FTC use its Section 5 authority to ensure that mobile apps are not deceiving consumers about their data collection and sharing practices and to preempt future potentially deceptive practices like those Premom may have engaged in?

Further Reading

  • Justice Dept. Plans to File Antitrust Charges Against Google in Coming Weeks” By Katie Benner and Cecilia Kang – The New York Times; “The Justice Department could file a lawsuit against Google this month, overriding skepticism from its own top lawyers” By Tonty Romm – The Washington Post; “There’s a partisan schism over the timing of a Google antitrust lawsuit” By Timothy B. Lee – Ars Technica. The New York Times explains in its deeply sourced article that United States Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys want more time to build a better case against Google, but that Attorney General William Barr is pressing for the filing of a suit as early as the end of this month in order for the Trump Administration to show voters it is taking on big tech. Additionally, a case against a tech company would help shore up the President’s right flank as he and other prominent conservatives continue to insist in the absence of evidence that technology companies are biased against the right. The team of DOJ attorneys has shrunk from 40 to about 20 as numerous lawyers asked off the case once it was clear what the Attorney General wanted. These articles also throw light on to the split between Republican and Democratic state attorneys general in the case they have been working on with the former accusing the latter of stalling for time in the hopes a Biden DOJ will be harsher on the company and the latter accusing the former of trying to file a narrow case while Donald Trump is still President that would impair efforts to address the range of Google’s alleged antitrust abuses.
  • Facebook Moves to Limit Election Chaos in November” By Mike Isaac – The New York Times. The social network giant unveiled measures to fight misinformation the week before the United States election and afterwards should people try to make factually inaccurate claims about the results. Notably, political advertisements will be banned a week before the 3 November election, but this seems like pretty weak tea considering it will be business as usual until late October. Even though the company frames these moves as “additional steps we’re taking to help secure the integrity of the U.S. elections by encouraging voting, connecting people to authoritative information, and reducing the risks of post-election confusion,” the effect of misinformation, disinformation, and lies that proliferate on Facebook will have likely already taken root by late October. It is possible the company still wants the advertising revenue it would forgo if it immediately banned political advertising. Another proposed change is to provide accurate information about voting generally and COVID-19 and voting. In fact, the platform corrected a post of President Donald Trump’s that expressed doubts about mail-in voting.
  • Washington firm ran fake Facebook accounts in Venezuela, Bolivia and Mexico, report finds” By Craig Timberg and Elizabeth Dwoskin – The Washington Post. In tandem with taking down fake content posted by the Internet Research Agency, Facebook also removed accounts traced back to a Washington, D.C. public relations firm, CLS Strategies, that was running multiple accounts to support the government in Bolivia and the opposition party in Venezuela, both of which are right wing. Using information provided by Facebook, Stanford University’s Internet Observatory released a report stating that “Facebook removed a network of 55 Facebook accounts,4 2 Pages and 36 Instagram accounts attributed to the US-based strategic communications firm CLS Strategies for engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior (CIB).” Stanford asserted these key takeaways:
    • 11 Facebook pages related to Bolivia mainly supported Bolivia’s Interim President Jeanine Áñez and disparaged Bolivia’s former president Evo Morales. All had similar creation dates and manager location settings.
    • Venezuela-focused assets supported and promoted Venezuelan opposition leaders but changed in tone in 2020, reflecting factional divides in the opposition and a turn away from Juan Guaidó.
    • In addition to fake accounts, removed Facebook accounts include six profiles that match the names and photos of CLS Strategies employees listed publicly on their website and appear to be their real accounts.
    • CLS Strategies has a disclosed contract with the Bolivian government to provide strategic communications counsel for Bolivia’s 2020 elections and to strengthen democracy and human rights in Bolivia.
    • Coordinated inauthentic behavior reports from Facebook and Twitter have increasingly included assets linked to marketing and PR firms originating and acting around the world. The firms’ actions violate the platforms’ terms by operating internationally and failing to identify their origins and motivations to users.
    • In its release on the issue, Facebook explained:
      • In August, we removed three networks of accounts, Pages and Groups. Two of them — from Russia and the US — targeted people outside of their country, and another from Pakistan focused on both domestic audiences in Pakistan and also in India. We have shared information about our findings with law enforcement, policymakers and industry partners.
  • Belarusian Officials Shut Down Internet With Technology Made by U.S. Firm” By Ryan Gallagher – Bloomberg. A United States firm, Sandvine, sold deep packet inspection technology to the government in Belarus through a Russian intermediary. The technology was ostensibly to be used by the government to fend off dangers to the nation’s networks but was instead deployed to shut down numerous social media and news sites on the internet the day of the election. However, Belarusian activists quickly determined how to use workarounds, launching the current unrest that threatens to topple the regime. The same company’s technology has been used elsewhere in the world to cut off access to the internet as detailed by the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab in 2018.
  • Canada has effectively moved to block China’s Huawei from 5G, but can’t say so” – Reuters. In a move reminiscent of how the People’s Republic of China (PRC) tanked Qualcomm’s proposed purchase of NXP Semiconductors in 2018, Canada has effectively barred Huawei from its 5G networks by not deciding, which eventually sent a signal to its telecommunications companies to use Ericsson and Nokia instead. This way, there is no public announcement or policy statement the PRC can object to, and the country toes the line with its other Five Eyes partners that have banned Huawei in varying degrees. Additionally, given that two Canadian nationals are being held because Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou is being detained in Canada awaiting extradition to the Unted States to face criminal charges, Ottawa needs to manage its relations with the PRC gingerly.

© 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 Simon Steinberger from Pixabay

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (28 August)

Here is today’s Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events.

Coming Events

  • On 10 September, the General Services Administration (GSA) will have a webinar to discuss implementation of Section 889 of the “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2019” (P.L. 115-232) that bars the federal government and its contractors from buying the equipment and services from Huawei, ZTE, and other companies from the People’s Republic of China.
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a forum on 5G Open Radio Access Networks on 14 September. The FCC asserted
    • Chairman [Ajit] Pai will host experts at the forefront of the development and deployment of open, interoperable, standards-based, virtualized radio access networks to discuss this innovative new approach to 5G network architecture. Open Radio Access Networks offer an alternative to traditional cellular network architecture and could enable a diversity in suppliers, better network security, and lower costs.
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Competition Policy & Consumer Rights Subcommittee will hold a hearing on 15 September titled “Stacking the Tech: Has Google Harmed Competition in Online Advertising?.” In their press release, Chair Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asserted:
    • Google is the dominant player in online advertising, a business that accounts for around 85% of its revenues and which allows it to monetize the data it collects through the products it offers for free. Recent consumer complaints and investigations by law enforcement have raised questions about whether Google has acquired or maintained its market power in online advertising in violation of the antitrust laws. News reports indicate this may also be the centerpiece of a forthcoming antitrust lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice. This hearing will examine these allegations and provide a forum to assess the most important antitrust investigation of the 21st century.
  • The United States’ Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) announced that its third annual National Cybersecurity Summit “will be held virtually as a series of webinars every Wednesday for four weeks beginning September 16 and ending October 7:”
    • September 16: Key Cyber Insights
    • September 23: Leading the Digital Transformation
    • September 30: Diversity in Cybersecurity
    • October 7: Defending our Democracy
    • One can register for the event here.
  • 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 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, but an agenda is not available at this time.

Other Developments

  • Members of the British Parliament have written the United Kingdom’s (UK) Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) “about the Government’s approach to data protection and privacy during the COVID-19 pandemic, and also the ICO’s approach to ensuring the Government is held to account.” The MPs argued in the letter addressed to UK ICO Commissioner Elizabeth Denham
    • During the crisis, the Government has paid scant regard to both privacy concerns and data protection duties. It has engaged private contractors with problematic reputations to process personal data, as highlighted by Open Democracy and Foxglove. It has built a data store of unproven benefit. It chose to build a contact tracing proximity App that centralised and stored more data than was necessary, without sufficient safeguards, as highlighted by the Human Rights Committee. On releasing the App for trial, it failed to notify yourselves in advance of its Data Protection Impact Assessment – a fact you highlighted to the Human Rights Committee.
    • Most recently, the Government has admitted breaching their data protection obligations by failing to conduct an impact assessment prior to the launch of their Test and Trace programme. They have only acknowledged this failing in the face of a threat of legal action by Open Rights Group. The Government have highlighted your role at every turn, citing you as an advisor looking at the detail of their work, and using you to justify their actions.
    • The MPs added:
      • In this context, Parliamentarians and the public need to be able to rely on the Regulator. However, the Government not only appears unwilling to understand its legal duties, it also seems to lack any sense that it needs your advice, except as a shield against criticism.
      • Regarding Test and Trace, it is imperative that you take action to establish public confidence – a trusted system is critical to protecting public health. The ICO has powers to compel documents to understand data processing, contractual relations and the like (Information Notices). The ICO has powers to assess what needs to change (Assessment Notices). The ICO can demand particular changes are made (Enforcement notices). Ultimately the ICO has powers to fine Government, if it fails to adhere to the standards which the ICO is responsible for upholding.
  • The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has released a 5G strategy that flows from a Trump Administration strategy released earlier this year. CISA is not asserting it has much authority in how the private sector will build, roll out, source, and secure 5G and is instead looking to capitalize on its role as the United States government’s cybersecurity agency for the civilian part of the government. As such, CISA is proposing to advise private sector stakeholders and provide its expertise so that the next generation of wireless communications in the U.S. is safe, stable, and secure. CISA is putting forth five initiatives that seeks to position CISA as a key stakeholder in assisting the larger U.S. efforts and individual companies and entities.
    • In the “National Strategy To Secure 5G,” the Trump Administration tied its overarching effort to foster 5G development and to cement the U.S.’s role as the preeminent technological power in the world to its 2018 United States National Cyber Strategy.
    • The Administration asserted
      • This National Strategy to Secure 5G expands on how the United States Government will secure 5G infrastructure domestically and abroad. 5G infrastructure will be an attractive target for criminals and foreign adversaries due to the large volume of data it transmits and processes as well as the support that 5G will provide to critical infrastructure. Criminals and foreign adversaries will seek to steal information transiting the networks for monetary gain and exploit these systems and devices for intelligence collection and surveillance. Adversaries may also disrupt or maliciously modify the public and private services that rely on communications infrastructure. Given these threats, 5G infrastructure must be secure and reliable to maintain information security and address risks to critical infrastructure, public health and safety, and economic and national security.
    • CISA noted the four lines of efforts from the “National Strategy To Secure 5G” are:
      • Facilitating domestic 5G rollout;
      • Assessing the risks and identifying core security principles for 5G infrastructure;
      • Managing the risks to our economic and national security from the use of 5G infrastructure; and
      • Promoting responsible global development and deployment of 5G infrastructure.
    • CISA stated
      • [it] leads 5G risk management efforts so the United States can fully benefit from all the advantages 5G connectivity promises to bring. In support of CISA’s operational priority to secure 5G, as outlined in the CISA Strategic Intent, the CISA 5G Strategy establishes five strategic initiatives that stem from the four lines of effort defined in the National Strategy to Secure 5G. Guided by three core competencies: Risk Management, Stakeholder Engagement, and Technical Assistance, these initiatives include associated objectives to ensure there are policy, legal, security, and safety frameworks in place to fully leverage 5G technology while managing its significant risks. With the support of CISA and its partners, the CISA 5G Strategy seeks to advance the development and deployment of a secure and resilient 5G infrastructure, one that enables enhanced national security, technological innovation, and economic opportunity for the United States and its allied partners.
    • CISA laid out the five initiatives:
      • Strategic Initiative 1: Support 5G policy and standards development by emphasizing security and resilience
        • The development of 5G policies and standards serve as the foundation for securing 5G’s future communications infrastructure. Those entities that shape the future of these policies and standards position themselves as global leaders and help facilitate secure deployment and commercialization of 5G technologies. To prevent attempts by threat actors to influence the design and architecture of 5G networks, it is critical that these foundational elements be designed and implemented with security and resilience from the start.
        • DESIRED OUTCOME: Threat actors are unable to maliciously influence the design and architecture of 5G networks.
      • Strategic Initiative 2: Expand situational awareness of 5G supply chain risks and promote security measures
        • Between untrusted components, vendors, equipment, and networks, 5G supply chain security is under constant threat. For example, while certain 5G equipment may be from a trusted vendor, supporting components manufactured or handled by untrusted partners or malicious actors could negate any security measures in place. These compromised components have the potential to affect the connectivity and security of transmitted data and information.
        • DESIRED OUTCOME: Malicious or inadvertent vulnerabilities within the 5G supply chain are successfully prevented or mitigated.
      • Strategic Initiative 3: Partner with stakeholders to strengthen and secure existing infrastructure to support future 5G deployments
        • Before moving to a standalone infrastructure, the first iterations of 5G deployment will work alongside existing 4G LTE infrastructure and core networks. While 5G architecture is designed to be more secure, 5G’s specifications and protocols stem from previous networks, which contain legacy vulnerabilities. For example, the overlay of 4G and 5G networks has the potential for a malicious actor to carry out a downgrade attack, where they could force a user on a 5G network to use 4G in order to exploit known vulnerabilities against them. These inherent vulnerabilities, along with new and unidentified risks, will require the collaboration of industry and government to develop and communicate security enhancements to support secure 5G deployments.
        • DESIRED OUTCOME: Secure 5G deployment, void of legacy vulnerabilities and untrusted components.
      • Strategic Initiative 4: Encourage innovation in the 5G marketplace to foster trusted 5G vendors
        • As 5G is deployed, there is an emphasis on ensuring that state-influenced entities do not dominate the 5G marketplace. To address this concern, CISA will work with its partners to support R&D initiatives and prize programs that result in secure and resilient 5G technologies and capabilities. By supporting these types of efforts, CISA will help drive innovation and establish a trusted vendor community for the future of 5G.
        • DESIRED OUTCOME: Increased number of trusted vendors in the 5G marketplace to address risks posed by limited competition and proprietary solutions.
      • Strategic Initiative 5: Analyze potential 5G use cases and share information on identified risk management strategies
        • The enhanced capabilities of 5G technologies will support an array of new functions and devices, introducing a plethora of potential use cases. With the potential for the connection of billions of devices on a network, also known as massive Machine-Type Communication (mMTC), applications like smart cities will require increased security to safeguard connected devices from potential threats and vulnerabilities. To ensure the security and integrity of these devices, CISA will communicate known vulnerabilities and risk management strategies for use cases associated with securing the Nation’s critical functions.
        • DESIRED OUTCOME: New vulnerabilities introduced by deployments of 5G technology are clearly understood and managed.
  • The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released new guidance on grants and agreements federal agencies must generally follow that further implements a ban on using United States (U,S.) government funds on buying services or equipment from Huawei, ZTE, and other companies from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Section 889 of the “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2019” (P.L. 115-232) bars federal agencies, federal contractors, and recipients of federal funds from buying or using these services. Two regulations have been issued previously pertaining to agencies and contractors, and this notice governs the recipients of federal funding. However, the explanatory portion of the notice that discusses Section 889 differs from the actual regulatory text, giving rise to possible confusion over the scope and extent of the ban on the recipients of federal funding from buying or paying for banned services and equipment.
    • In the body of the notice, OMB stated:
      • OMB revised 2 CFR to align with section 889 of the NDAA for FY 2019 (NDAA 2019). The NDAA 2019 prohibits the head of an executive agency from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to procure or obtain, extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain, or enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain the equipment, services, or systems prohibited systems as identified in NDAA 2019. To implement this requirement, OMB is adding a new section, 2 CFR 200.216 Prohibition on certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment, which prohibit Federal award recipients from using government funds to enter into contracts (or extend or renew contracts) with entities that use covered telecommunications equipment or services. This prohibition applies even if the contract is not intended to procure or obtain, any equipment, system, or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services. As described in section 889 of the NDAA 2019, covered telecommunications equipment or services includes:
        • Telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities).
      • For the purpose of public safety, security of government facilities, physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure, and other national security purposes, video surveillance and telecommunications equipment produced by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities).
      • Telecommunications or video surveillance services provided by such entities or using such equipment.
      • Telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced or provided by an entity that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of the National Intelligence or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reasonably believes to be an entity owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the government of a covered foreign country.
    • In the rule itself, it is provided that the ban extends to the recipients and subrecipients themselves and not contractors using the banned services or equipment:
      • (a) Recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to:
        • (1) Procure or obtain;
        • (2) Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or
        • (3) Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.
  • The United States (U.S.) Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a major reorganization of its Antitrust Division through the creation of “the Office of Decree Enforcement and Compliance and a Civil Conduct Task Force” and a shuffling of subject area matters “among its six civil sections in order to build expertise based on current trends in the economy.”
    • The DOJ explained
      • The Office of Decree Enforcement and Compliance will have primary responsibility for enforcing judgments and consent decrees in civil matters.  It will also advise the Antitrust Division’s criminal sections when parties seek credit at the charging stage for their corporate compliance programs.  The office will work closely with division attorneys, monitors, and compliance officers to ensure the effective implementation of and compliance with antitrust judgments.  Additionally, the office will be the Antitrust Division’s primary contact for complainants who have information regarding potential violations of those final judgments.
      • The second change to the Antitrust Division’s civil enforcement program is the creation of the Civil Conduct Task Force.  This dedicated group of Division attorneys will work across the civil sections and field offices to identify conduct investigations that require additional focus and resources.  As an independent group, the task force will have the dedicated resources and a consistent mandate to investigate and, ultimately, prosecute civil conduct violations of the antitrust laws.
      • The third change announced today is the realignment of certain responsibilities within the Antitrust Division’s six civil sections. The allocation of commodities among sections has evolved over the years, and today’s announcement is a recognition that technology has reshaped the competitive dynamics in several industries that the Antitrust Division analyzes on a regular basis.
      • Specifically, the currently named Media, Entertainment, and Professional Services Section will shift attention to financial services, fintech, and banking.  Those commodities were previously divided across three other civil sections.  The currently named Telecommunications and Broadband Section will expand its portfolio to concentrate on media, entertainment, and telecommunications industries. Lastly, the currently named Technology and Financial Services section will focus full time on technology markets and the competitive characteristics of platform business models.
  • A class action was filed in British court against Marriott for data breaches between 2014 and 2018 exposed the personal data of people worldwide. This action follows the United Kingdom’s (UK) Information Commissioner’s Office’s (ICO) intention to fine Marriott “£99,200,396 for infringements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)” in 2019, but this enforcement action was extended through mid-2020 by the ICO. It is unclear when, or even if, the ICO will conclude its investigation and action against Marriott given the UK’s pending exit from the European Union and the GDPR. Theoretically, the ICO may be able to use the UK’s data protection law, and it is telling the class action is filed under both the GDPR and the UK’s data protection law in effect during most of the period in which the breaches occurred.
    • The law firm handling the class action asserted
      • It is believed the data breach began when the systems of the Starwood Hotels group were compromised following a hack on its reservation network, which is believed to have first occurred in 2014. Marriott International acquired the Starwood Hotels group in 2016 but the exposure of customer information was not discovered until 2018. The guests’ personal data affected by the breach included information such as guests’ names, email and postal addresses, telephone numbers, gender and credit card information.
  • The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a component agency of the United States (U.S.) Department of Transportation (DOT), asked for input on a draft rule “to ensure that States meet specific registration, notification, and coordination requirements to facilitate broadband infrastructure deployment in the right-of-way (ROW) of applicable Federal-aid highway projects.” The agency was directed to undertake this rulemaking by language in the “MOBILE NOW Act” that was enacted as part of “The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018” (P.L. 115-141). The FHWA explained “[o]nce the regulations take effect, the Section 607 requirements will apply to each State that receives funds under [the section of the United States Code that governs highway funding and projects], including the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.” The agency added:
    • FHWA recognizes that it is in the public interest for utility facilities to use jointly the ROW of public roads and streets when such use and occupancy do not adversely affect highway or traffic safety, or otherwise impair the highway or its aesthetic quality, and does not conflict with Federal, State, or local laws and regulations. The opportunity for such joint use avoids the additional cost of acquiring separate ROW for the exclusive accommodation of utilities. As a result, the ROW of highways is often used to provide public services to abutting residents as well as to serve conventional highway needs.
    • Utility facilities, unlike most other fixed objects that may be present within the highway environment, are not owned nor are their operations directly controlled by State or local public agencies. Federal laws and FHWA regulations contained in 23 U.S.C. 109, 111, 116, and 123 and 23 CFR parts 1, 635, 645, and 710 regulate the accommodation, relocation, and reimbursement of utilities located within the highway ROW. State departments of transportation (State DOT) are required to develop Utility Accommodation policies that meet these regulations. 23 CFR 645.211.

Further Reading

  • New Zealand stock exchange hit by cyber attack for second day” By Martin Farrer – The Guardian. A powerful offshore Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack took down the nation’s stock exchange for the second day in a row. Given the apparent sophistication and resources necessary to execute this attack, according to experts, one wonders if either of the Pacific Rim’s most active, capable nation-state hackers may be responsible: the People’s Republic of China or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
  • Israeli phone hacking company faces court fight over sales to Hong Kong” by Patrick Howell O’Neill – MIT Technology Review. Human rights attorneys have filed suit in Tel-Aviv to force the Ministry of Defence to end exports of Cellebrite’s phone hacking technology to repressive regimes like Hong Kong and Belarus. It is not clear Israel ever granted Cellebrite an export license, and the Ministry is being closed mouth on the issue. Previous filings assert Cellebrite’s technology has been used over 4,000 times in Hong Kong to hack into the phones of dissidents and activists even though many were using device encryption. Given that Cellebrite sells its technology widely throughout the world, perhaps the claims of some Five Eyes nations, including the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, are overblown?
  • Armed militias mobilize on social media hours before deadly Kenosha shooting” – The Atlantic Counsel’s Digital Forensic Research Lab. As it turns out, Facebook and reddit posts and pages were encouraging armed individuals and militias to go to Kenosha, Wisconsin ostensibly to ensure protests over the police shooting of an African American man in the back did not result in violence or looting. An alarming number of these posts called for violence against the protestors, and at least one person heeded this call by shooting and killing two protestors.
  • Facebook chose not to act on militia complaints before Kenosha shooting” By Russell Brandom – The Verge. Even with people submitting complaints that various users and groups were inciting violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Facebook moderators declined to take down most of the material…until the day after a person shot and killed two protestors.
  • Tech’s deepening split over ads and privacy” By Kyle Daly – Axios. This piece summarizes some of the internecine fighting in Silicon Valley over privacy, which, as the author points out is driven by, or perhaps more kindly, happens to coincide with each companies’ interest. For example, Apple faces antitrust scrutiny in the United States and European Union and does not earn much revenue from advertising, so it is easy for them to propose changes to their iOS that would give users much more control over the data companies could collect. This would hurt some of Apple’s rivals like Facebook. What is not mentioned here is that should Microsoft win the TikTok sweepstakes, it is all but certain it’s position on stricter privacy controls will change, for the video sharing app s built on harvesting data from users.

© 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 Free-Photos from Pixabay

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

Here are today’s Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events.

Coming Events

  • On 10 September, the General Services Administration (GSA) will have a webinar to discuss implementation of Section 889 of the “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2019” (P.L. 115-232) that bars the federal government and its contractors from buying the equipment and services from Huawei, ZTE, and other companies from the People’s Republic of China.
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a forum on 5G Open Radio Access Networks on 14 September. The FCC asserted
    • Chairman [Ajit] Pai will host experts at the forefront of the development and deployment of open, interoperable, standards-based, virtualized radio access networks to discuss this innovative new approach to 5G network architecture. Open Radio Access Networks offer an alternative to traditional cellular network architecture and could enable a diversity in suppliers, better network security, and lower costs.
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Competition Policy & Consumer Rights Subcommittee will hold a hearing on 15 September titled “Stacking the Tech: Has Google Harmed Competition in Online Advertising?.” In their press release, Chair Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asserted:
    • Google is the dominant player in online advertising, a business that accounts for around 85% of its revenues and which allows it to monetize the data it collects through the products it offers for free. Recent consumer complaints and investigations by law enforcement have raised questions about whether Google has acquired or maintained its market power in online advertising in violation of the antitrust laws. News reports indicate this may also be the centerpiece of a forthcoming antitrust lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice. This hearing will examine these allegations and provide a forum to assess the most important antitrust investigation of the 21st century.
  • The United States’ Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) announced that its third annual National Cybersecurity Summit “will be held virtually as a series of webinars every Wednesday for four weeks beginning September 16 and ending October 7:”
    • September 16: Key Cyber Insights
    • September 23: Leading the Digital Transformation
    • September 30: Diversity in Cybersecurity
    • October 7: Defending our Democracy
    • One can register for the event here.
  • 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.” By 21 August, the FTC “is seeking comment on a range of issues including:
    • How are companies currently implementing data portability? What are the different contexts in which data portability has been implemented?
    • What have been the benefits and costs of data portability? What are the benefits and costs of achieving data portability through regulation?
    • To what extent has data portability increased or decreased competition?
    • Are there research studies, surveys, or other information on the impact of data portability on consumer autonomy and trust?
    • Does data portability work better in some contexts than others (e.g., banking, health, social media)? Does it work better for particular types of information over others (e.g., information the consumer provides to the business vs. all information the business has about the consumer, information about the consumer alone vs. information that implicates others such as photos of multiple people, comment threads)?
    • Who should be responsible for the security of personal data in transit between businesses? Should there be data security standards for transmitting personal data between businesses? Who should develop these standards?
    • How do companies verify the identity of the requesting consumer before transmitting their information to another company?
    • How can interoperability among services best be achieved? What are the costs of interoperability? Who should be responsible for achieving interoperability?
    • What lessons and best practices can be learned from the implementation of the data portability requirements in the GDPR and CCPA? Has the implementation of these requirements affected competition and, if so, in what ways?”
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an open meeting on 30 September, but an agenda is not available at this time.

Other Developments

  • The United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) Assistant Director for Infrastructure Security Brian Harrell has resigned and left CISA. Harrell is returning to the private sector and will be replaced by CISA Deputy Assistant Director Steve Harris in an acting capacity.
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced “the successful conclusion of bidding in its auction of Priority Access Licenses in the 3550-3650 MHz band…which was designated as Auction 105, made available the greatest number of spectrum licenses ever in a single FCC auction.” The FCC stated “[t]his 70 megahertz of licensed spectrum will further the deployment of 5G, the next generation of wireless connectivity, as well as the Internet of Things and other advanced spectrum-based services.” The FCC added:
    • Bidding in the auction of 70 megahertz of Priority Access Licenses (PALs) in the 3550-3650 MHz band (Auction 105) concluded today following round 76. Gross proceeds reached $4,585,663,345, and bidders won 20,625 of 22,631, or more than 91.1%, of available licenses. The FCC will release a public notice in a few days providing detailed auction results, including the names of Auction 105 winning bidders, and announcing deadlines for payments and the filing of long-form applications, as well as other post-auction procedures needed for the prompt issuance of licenses. That information, as well as other information about Auction 105, will be available at: https://www.fcc.gov/auction/105.  
  • The United States (U.S.) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a Joint Cybersecurity Advisory “in response to a voice phishing (vishing) campaign.” The agencies said “[v]ishing is a form of criminal phone fraud, using social engineering over the telephone system to gain access to private personal and financial information for the purpose of financial reward.” Vishing was reportedly key components in the recent Twitter hack and a breach of Israeli defense firms.
    • The FBI and CISA stated:
      • The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a mass shift to working from home, resulting in increased use of corporate virtual private networks (VPNs) and elimination of in-person verification. In mid-July 2020, cybercriminals started a vishing campaign—gaining access to employee tools at multiple companies with indiscriminate targeting—with the end goal of monetizing the access. Using vished credentials, cybercriminals mined the victim company databases for their customers’ personal information to leverage in other attacks. The monetizing method varied depending on the company but was highly aggressive with a tight timeline between the initial breach and the disruptive cash-out scheme.
  • At a press conference at the Department of Defense (DOD), Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord provided more detail on the waiver the trump Administration granted for some purchases of services and equipment from the People’s Republic of China. Regarding the Section 889 waiver, Lord stated
    • The waiver was granted temporarily by ODNI. It’s only in effect until September 30th in order to provide time to review the full details of the rule implementation using additional information from DOD. 
    • The waiver covers items that are considered low-risk to national security such as food, clothing, maintenance services, construction materials that are not electronic, and numerous other items that ODNI has identified as commodities, low-risk commodities. 
    • The waiver received is not for our major weapons systems or any support activity related to them. The short-term waiver is important so that end-of-fiscal-year activity will not be impacted. We are balancing warfighter readiness and completing end-of-year purchases to avoid issues with expiring funds with rule implementation for the next 45 days. DOD is not seeking a broader waiver request at this time. 
    • As we eliminate Chinese telecommunications equipment form our supply chain, we know that there are challenges for our industry partners, but we are pleased to see the defense industrial base stepping up smartly. This is the right thing for our national security. 
    • We’re pleased to see the efforts of our major primes in being proactive to eliminate the prohibited equipment, and we continue to remain in constant dialogue. We will keep you updated as we move forward. 
  • The United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has updated its “Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers Guidance” by issuing Version 4.0. CISA stated “[w]hile earlier versions were primarily intended to help officials and organizations identify essential work functions in order to allow them access to their workplaces during times of community restrictions, Version 4.0 identifies those essential workers that require specialized risk management strategies to ensure that they can work safely. It can also be used to begin planning and preparing for the allocation of scare resources used to protect essential workers against COVID-19.”
    • In the guidance, CISA explained
      • This list is intended to help State, local, tribal, territorial officials and organizations endeavor to protect their workers and communities as they continue to reopen in a phased approach, coupled with the need to ensure continuity of functions critical to public health and safety, as well as economic and national security. Decisions informed by this list should also take into consideration worker safety, workplace settings, as well as additional public health considerations based on the specific COVID-19-related concerns of particular jurisdictions. This list is advisory in nature.
    • CISA stressed:
      • It is not, nor should it be considered, a federal directive or standard. Additionally, this advisory list is not intended to be the exclusive list of critical infrastructure sectors, workers, and functions that should continue to work safely during the COVID-19 response across all jurisdictions. (emphasis in the original)
    • CISA asserted
      • The advisory list identifies workers who conduct a range of operations and services that are typically essential to continued critical infrastructure viability, including staffing operations centers, maintaining and repairing critical infrastructure, operating call centers, working construction, and performing operational functions, among others. It also includes workers who support crucial supply chains and enable functions for critical infrastructure. The industries they support represent, but are not limited to, medical and healthcare, telecommunications, information technology systems, defense, food and agriculture, transportation and logistics, energy, water and wastewater, and law enforcement
  • The United States (U.S.) Department of Energy’s (DOE) Artificial Intelligence and Technology Office (AITO) “announced the creation of the First Five Consortium (First Five).” The DOE has adapted Pentagon developed artificial intelligence/machine learning to help U.S. first responders make better, faster decisions in the event of a disaster. However, this effort was co-led by Microsoft and involved a range of other stakeholders.
    • DOE explained
      • Co-Chaired with Microsoft Corporation, First Five was formed in response to the January 2020 White House Executive Forum focused on Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Response. This cross-cut of industry, government, non-profit, and academia has pledged their in-kind support to develop solutions that will improve the impact mitigation of natural disasters in the United States.
      • DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is currently scaling a prototype initially developed by the Department of Defense (DOD) Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) that uses deep learning algorithms to provide near real-time data to improve the decision making of our nation’s First Responders. Since 2019, the JAIC has led the development of AI capability through its National Mission Initiatives.
      • To support this work, Microsoft recently established a critical infrastructure team to help advance the nation’s key systems, services, and functions essential to the operation of American society and its economy. Comprehensive data collection together with modeling hold huge promise for forecasting and detecting early signs of coming disasters. The development of life-saving AI algorithms can help responders better focus their aid and make for a faster and safer response. The team will explore avenues to use AI, confidential computing, modernized communications, distributed systems, and cybersecurity to improve disaster resilience, collaborating with DOE, DOD, and others.
  • The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published “an advisory guidance document to assist non-federal public and private entities interested in using technical tools, systems, and capabilities to detect and mitigate Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS).” This guidance document is not binding on entities operating UAS but instead runs through a survey of some federal laws that limit the use of UAS, especially with respect to privacy and surveillance.
  • The agencies stated
    • The advisory is intended to provide an overview of potentially applicable federal laws and regulations, as well as some factors relevant to whether those laws may apply to particular actions or systems. Specifically, this advisory addresses two categories of federal laws that may apply to UAS detection and mitigation capabilities: (1) various provisions of the U.S. criminal code enforced by DOJ; and (2) federal laws and regulations administered by the FAA, DHS, and the FCC. The advisory does not address state and local laws, which UAS detection and mitigation capabilities may also implicate. Neither does it cover potential civil liability flowing from the use of UAS detection and mitigation technologies
    • This advisory is provided for informational purposes only. It is strongly recommended that, prior to the testing, acquisition, installation, or use of UAS detection and/or mitigation systems, entities seek the advice of counsel experienced with both federal and state criminal, surveillance, and communications laws. Entities should conduct their own legal and technical analysis of each UAS detection and/or mitigation system and should not rely solely on vendors’ representations of the systems’ legality or functionality. As part of that analysis, entities should closely evaluate and consider whether the use of UAS detection and mitigation capabilities might impact the public’s privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. This is particularly important because potential legal prohibitions, as discussed below, are not based on broad classifications of systems (e.g., active versus passive, detection versus mitigation), but instead are based on the functionality of each system and the specific ways in which a system operates and is used. A thorough understanding of both applicable law and the systems’ functionality will ensure important technologies designed to protect public safety, by detecting and/or mitigating UAS threats, are used effectively, responsibly, and legally.
  • A United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advisory body has reported to President Donald Trump on software defined networking in response to a request from the Executive Office of the President that it examine “the implications of software-defined networking (SDN) on the Nation’s national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) communications and information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure.”
    • The National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) explained
      • In networking, SDN and network functions virtualization (NFV) represent an ongoing shift away from legacy technologies based upon hardware to software based networks that leverage standard, commercial off-the-shelf, or commodity-based hardware.
      • This shift is structurally transforming the ICT ecosystem and allowing networks to become more flexible and adaptive. SDN’s more flexible architecture has proven to be beneficial during the ongoing response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
      • The NSTAC examined best practices for SDN and related technologies; identified the associated challenges and opportunities; and assessed current utilization and corresponding risk mitigations. Building off the recommendations outlined in the 2017 NSTAC Report to the President on Emerging Technologies Strategic Vision, this examination sought to make specific recommendations to the EOP regarding SDN policy.
    • NSTAC made these and other recommendations:
      • The Administration should encourage and support the continued deployment of SDN technology in the U.S. and allied nation ICT environments. Policymakers should consider how to promote the use of open architectures with particular focus on 5G and beyond.
      • The Defense Community and the Intelligence Community (IC) should expand efforts to define their specific requirements and use cases for SDN and related technology specific to their unique needs, which can be shared with private sector SDN providers and relevant standards bodies. In collaboration with the private sector, the Defense Community and IC should also determine how the capabilities might be leveraged for adoption in the national security environment.
      • The Government establish policies to help educate U.S. departments, agencies, and critical infrastructure operators on the full range of SDN and related technology capabilities to enhance their mission performance, improve security, and lower costs.
      • Working with Congress, the Administration should: establish policies and incentives to encourage U.S.-based investment and innovation in research and development of SDN and related technology capabilities and standards; (2) encourage best practices for secure implementation; and (3) promote deployment of these capabilities within the U.S. Government and allied nation ICT environments. Policymakers should also consider updating acquisition strategies and mechanisms around SDN and related technology-based services.
  • The Australian Strategic Policy Institute released a report titled “Hunting The Phoenix” that “focuses on overseas talent-recruitment operations—how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) goes abroad to hunt or lure” technology talent from abroad as a means of leveling the playing field with the United States (U.S.) and other nations.
    • ASPI asserted
      • The CCP’s use of talent-recruitment activity as a conduit for non-transparent technology transfer presents a substantial challenge to governments and research institutions. Many of those activities fly under the radar of traditional counterintelligence work, yet they can develop into espionage, interference and illegal or unethical behaviour.
      • While this phenomenon may still be poorly understood by many governments and universities, it can often be addressed by better enforcement of existing regulations. Much of the misconduct associated with talent-recruitment programs breaches existing laws, contracts and institutional policies. The fact that it nonetheless occurs at high levels points to a failure of compliance and enforcement mechanisms across research institutions and relevant government agencies. Governments and research institutions should therefore emphasise the need to build an understanding of CCP talent-recruitment work. They must also ensure that they enforce existing policies, while updating them as necessary. This report recommends the introduction of new policies to promote transparency and accountability and help manage conflicts of interest.
    • The United States (U.S.) Department of State provided ASPI with $145,600, which may have resulted in a bias to the final product, so caveat lector.

Further Reading

  • California DMV Is Selling Drivers’ Data to Private Investigators” By Joseph Cox – Vice. In following up on previous articles about various state Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMV) around the United States (U.S.) selling people’s personal information, this reporter got his hands on a list of the entities the California DMV is sharing such information with and it includes private investigators, bails bondsmen, and employers for those employees who drive as part of their duties. Previously, it has been disclosed that the CA DMV made $50 million a year doing this even though the agency claims this amount merely recovers its costs. No word in this article on whether recipients of this information are barred from sharing or selling it. Earlier this month, eight House Democrats and two Members of the California Assembly wrote the DMV with their concern about these practices and the practice of sharing driver’s license photos with law enforcement agencies for facial recognition technology.  
  • Facebook Braces Itself for Trump to Cast Doubt on Election Results” By Mike Isaac and Sheera Frenkel – The New York Times. In an article that seems sourced right out of Facebook headquarters, the reader is treated to the dilemmas facing the social media giant and competitors if President Donald Trump or others use their platforms to try and delegitimize an adverse or uncertain election result. There are plenty of options being discussed, but few decisions being made.
  • America’s Terrible Internet Is Making Quarantine Worse” By Olga Khazan – The Atlantic. The digital divide telecommunications advocates have been decrying for years has been exacerbated during the pandemic. Because the United States (U.S.) opted to treat broadband internet like a consumer product instead of a public utility (as many nations in Western Europe did), there are wide disparities in availability, quality, and speed that are further feeding inequities in the educational system. Affluent students have no trouble with online learning, less wealthy students may not be able to afford service or their service may not allow for Zoom classes. The U.S. may need to use the same methods deployed during the New Deal to rectify differences in electricity availability to close the digital divide.  
  • Trump pressures head of consumer agency to bend on social media crackdown” By Leah Nylen, John Hendel and Betsy Woodruff Swan – Politico. It comes as no surprise that President Donald Trump is leaning on Federal Trade Commission Chair Joe Simons to act according to the former’s executive order purportedly regarding online censorship. The two have met twice and the issue has arisen, but the unnamed sources in the article did not relate the result of the conversation. Before a Senate committee earlier this month, Simons poured cold water on the notion the agency will wade into the fight over implementation of the executive order that could strip away more protection for technology companies under 47 U.S.C. 230.
  • With Hacks and Cameras, Beijing’s Electronic Dragnet Closes on Hong Kong” By Paul Mozur – The New York Times. After passage of the new security law that changed civil liberties in Hong Kong, the police and security services are threatening and arresting pro-democracy activists and politicians. They are also using technological means to press these advocates such as hacking into Facebook accounts and forcing people to provide access to their phones. Many technology companies are refusing to honor requests for information or access from officials and are now treating them the same way they would for requests from Beijing.

© 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 Sasin Tipchai from Pixabay

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (17 August)

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

Coming Events

  • 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.”
  • The United States’ Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) announced that its third annual National Cybersecurity Summit “will be held virtually as a series of webinars every Wednesday for four weeks beginning September 16 and ending October 7:”
    • September 16: Key Cyber Insights
    • September 23: Leading the Digital Transformation
    • September 30: Diversity in Cybersecurity
    • October 7: Defending our Democracy
    • One can register for the event here.
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Competition Policy & Consumer Rights Subcommittee will hold a hearing on 15 September titled “Stacking the Tech: Has Google Harmed Competition in Online Advertising?.” In their press release, Chair Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asserted:
    • Google is the dominant player in online advertising, a business that accounts for around 85% of its revenues and which allows it to monetize the data it collects through the products it offers for free. Recent consumer complaints and investigations by law enforcement have raised questions about whether Google has acquired or maintained its market power in online advertising in violation of the antitrust laws. News reports indicate this may also be the centerpiece of a forthcoming antitrust lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice. This hearing will examine these allegations and provide a forum to assess the most important antitrust investigation of the 21st century.
  • 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.” By 21 August, the FTC “is seeking comment on a range of issues including:
    • How are companies currently implementing data portability? What are the different contexts in which data portability has been implemented?
    • What have been the benefits and costs of data portability? What are the benefits and costs of achieving data portability through regulation?
    • To what extent has data portability increased or decreased competition?
    • Are there research studies, surveys, or other information on the impact of data portability on consumer autonomy and trust?
    • Does data portability work better in some contexts than others (e.g., banking, health, social media)? Does it work better for particular types of information over others (e.g., information the consumer provides to the business vs. all information the business has about the consumer, information about the consumer alone vs. information that implicates others such as photos of multiple people, comment threads)?
    • Who should be responsible for the security of personal data in transit between businesses? Should there be data security standards for transmitting personal data between businesses? Who should develop these standards?
    • How do companies verify the identity of the requesting consumer before transmitting their information to another company?
    • How can interoperability among services best be achieved? What are the costs of interoperability? Who should be responsible for achieving interoperability?
    • What lessons and best practices can be learned from the implementation of the data portability requirements in the GDPR and CCPA? Has the implementation of these requirements affected competition and, if so, in what ways?”
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an open meeting on 30 September, but an agenda is not available at this time.

Other Developments

  • On 14 August, the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the Attorney General’s proposed final regulations to implement the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) (A.B.375) and they took effect that day. The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) had requested expedited review so the regulations may become effective on 1 July as required by the CCPA. With respect to the substance, the final regulations are very similar to the third round of regulations circulated for comment in March, in part, in response to legislation passed and signed into law last fall that modified the CCPA.
    • The OAL released an Addendum to the Final Statement of Reasons and explained
      • In addition to withdrawing certain provisions for additional consideration, the OAG has made the following non-substantive changes for accuracy, consistency, and clarity. Changes to the original text of a regulation are non-substantive if they clarify without materially altering the requirements, rights, responsibilities, conditions, or prescriptions contained in the original text.
    • For further reading on the third round of proposed CCPA regulations, see this issue of the Technology Policy Update, for the second round, see here, and for the first round, see here. Additionally, to read more on the legislation signed into law last fall, modifying the CCPA, see this issue.
    • Additionally, Californians for Consumer Privacy have succeeded in placing the “California Privacy Rights Act” (CPRA) on the November 2020 ballot. This follow on statute to the CCPA could again force the legislature into making a deal that would revamp privacy laws in California as happened when the CCPA was added to the ballot in 2018. It is also possible this statute remains on the ballot and is added to California’s laws. In either case, much of the CCPA and its regulations may be moot or in effect for only the few years it takes for a new privacy regulatory structure to be established as laid out in the CPRA. See here for more detail.
  • In a proposed rule issued for comment, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) explained it is taking “further steps to protect the nation’s communications networks from potential security threats as the [FCC] integrates provisions of the recently enacted Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act) (P.L. 116-124) into its existing supply chain rulemaking proceeding….[and] seeks comment on proposals to implement further Congressional direction in the Secure Networks Act.” Comments are due by 31 August.
    • The FCC explained
      • The concurrently adopted Declaratory Ruling finds that the 2019 Supply Chain Order, 85 FR 230, January 3, 2020, satisfies the Secure Networks Act’s requirement that the Commission prohibit the use of funds for covered equipment and services. The Commission now seeks comment on sections 2, 3, 5, and 7 of the Secure Networks Act, including on how these provisions interact with our ongoing efforts to secure the communications supply chain. As required by section 2, the Commission proposes several processes by which to publish a list of covered communications equipment and services. Consistent with sections 3, 5, and 7 of the Secure Networks Act, the Commission proposes to (1) ban the use of federal subsidies for any equipment or services on the new list of covered communications equipment and services; (2) require that all providers of advanced communications service report whether they use any covered communications equipment and services; and (3) establish regulations to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the proposed reimbursement program to remove, replace, and dispose of insecure equipment.
    • The agency added
      • The Commission also initially designated Huawei Technologies Company (Huawei) and ZTE Corporation (ZTE) as covered companies for purposes of this rule, and it established a process for designating additional covered companies in the future. Additionally, last month, the Commission’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued final designations of Huawei and ZTE as covered companies, thereby prohibiting the use of USF funds on equipment or services produced or provided by these two suppliers.
      • The Commission takes further steps to protect the nation’s communications networks from potential security threats as it integrates provisions of the recently enacted Secure Networks Act into the Commission’s existing supply chain rulemaking proceeding. The Commission seeks comment on proposals to implement further Congressional direction in the Secure Networks Act.
  • The White House’s Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) released a request for information (RFI) “[o]n behalf of the National Science and Technology Council’s (NSTC) Subcommittee on Resilience Science and Technology (SRST), OSTP requests input from all interested parties on the development of a National Research and Development Plan for Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Resilience.” OSTP stated “[t]he plan will focus on the research and development (R&D) and pilot testing needed to develop additional PNT systems and services that are resilient to interference and manipulation and that are not dependent upon global navigation satellite systems (GNSS)…[and] will also include approaches to integrate and use multiple PNT services for enhancing resilience. The input received on these topics will assist the Subcommittee in developing recommendations for prioritization of R&D activities.”
    • Executive Order 13905, Strengthening National Resilience Through Responsible Use of Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Services, was issued on February 12, 2020, and President Donald Trump explained the policy basis for the initiative:
      • It is the policy of the United States to ensure that disruption or manipulation of PNT services does not undermine the reliable and efficient functioning of its critical infrastructure. The Federal Government must increase the Nation’s awareness of the extent to which critical infrastructure depends on, or is enhanced by, PNT services, and it must ensure critical infrastructure can withstand disruption or manipulation of PNT services. To this end, the Federal Government shall engage the public and private sectors to identify and promote the responsible use of PNT services.
    • In terms of future steps under the EO, the President directed the following:
      • The Departments of Defense, Transportation, and Homeland Security must use the PNT profiles in updates to the Federal Radionavigation Plan.
      • The Department of Homeland Security must “develop a plan to test the vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure systems, networks, and assets in the event of disruption and manipulation of PNT services. The results of the tests carried out under that plan shall be used to inform updates to the PNT profiles…”
      • The heads of Sector-Specific Agencies (SSAs) and the heads of other executive departments and agencies (agencies) coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security, must “develop contractual language for inclusion of the relevant information from the PNT profiles in the requirements for Federal contracts for products, systems, and services that integrate or utilize PNT services, with the goal of encouraging the private sector to use additional PNT services and develop new robust and secure PNT services. The heads of SSAs and the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, shall update the requirements as necessary.”
      • the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, in consultation with the heads of SSAs and the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, shall incorporate the [contractual language] into Federal contracts for products, systems, and services that integrate or use PNT services.
      • The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) must “coordinate the development of a national plan, which shall be informed by existing initiatives, for the R&D and pilot testing of additional, robust, and secure PNT services that are not dependent on global navigation satellite systems (GNSS).”
  • An ideologically diverse bipartisan group of Senators wrote the official at the United States Department of Justice in charge of the antitrust division and the chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) “regarding allegations of potentially anticompetitive practices and conduct by online platforms toward content creators and emerging competitors….[that] stemmed from a recent Wall Street Journal report that Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google and YouTube, has designed Google Search to specifically give preference to YouTube and other Google-owned video service providers.”
    • The Members asserted
      • There is no public insight into how Google designs its algorithms, which seem to deliver up preferential search results for YouTube and other Google video products ahead of other competitive services. While a company favoring its own products, in and of itself, may not always constitute illegal anticompetitive conduct, the Journal further reports that a significant motivation behind this action was to “give YouTube more leverage in business deals with content providers seeking traffic for their videos….” This exact conduct was the topic of a Senate Antitrust Subcommittee hearing led by Senators Lee and Klobuchar in March this year.
    • Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC), Mike Lee (R-UT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) signed the letter.
  • The National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released a “Cybersecurity Advisory [and a fact sheet and FAQ] about previously undisclosed Russian malware” “called Drovorub, designed for Linux systems as part of its cyber espionage operations.” The NSA and FBI asserted “[t]he Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) 85th Main Special Service Center (GTsSS) military unit 26165” developed and deployed the malware. The NSA and FBI stated the GRU and GTsSS are “sometimes publicly associated with APT28, Fancy Bear, Strontium, and a variety of other identities as tracked by the private sector.”
    • The agencies contended
      • Drovorub represents a threat to National Security Systems, Department of Defense, and Defense Industrial Base customers that use Linux systems. Network defenders and system administrators can find detection strategies, mitigation techniques, and configuration recommendations in the advisory to reduce the risk of compromise.
  • The United States Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) published Cybersecurity Best Practices for Operating Commercial Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) “a companion piece to CISA’s Foreign Manufactured UASs Industry Alert,…[to] assist in standing up a new UAS program or securing an existing UAS program, and is intended for information technology managers and personnel involved in UAS operations.” CISA cautioned that “[s]imilar to other cybersecurity guidelines and best practices, the identified best practices can aid critical infrastructure operators to lower the cybersecurity risks associated with the use of UAS, but do not eliminate all risk.”
  • The United States Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released the “Identity, Credential, and Access Management (ICAM) Value Proposition Suite of documents in collaboration with SAFECOM and the National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators (NCSWIC), Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI)…[that] introduce[] ICAM concepts, explores federated ICAM use-cases, and highlights the potential benefits for the public safety community:”
    • ICAM Value Proposition Overview
      • This document provides a high-level summary of federated ICAM benefits and introduces domain-specific scenarios covered by other documents in the suite.
    • ICAM Value Proposition Scenario: Drug Response
      • This document outlines federated ICAM use cases and information sharing benefits for large-scale drug overdose epidemic (e.g., opioid, methamphetamine, and cocaine) prevention and response.

Further Reading

  • Trump’s Labor Chief Accused of Intervening in Oracle Pay Bias Case” By Noam Scheiber, David McCabe and Maggie Haberman – The New York Times. In the sort of conduct that is apparently the norm across the Trump Administration, there are allegations that the Secretary of Labor intervened in departmental litigation to help a large technology firm aligned with President Donald Trump. Starting in the Obama Administration and continuing into the Trump Administration, software and database giant Oracle was investigated, accused, and sued for paying non-white, non-male employees significantly less in violation of federal and state law. Estimates of Oracle’s liability ranged between $300-800 million, and litigators in the Department of Labor were seeking $400 million and had taken the case to trial. Secretary Eugene Scalia purportedly stepped in and lowered the dollar amount to $40 million and the head litigator is being offered a transfer from Los Angeles to Chicago in a division in which she has no experience. Oracle’s CEO Safra Catz and Chair Larry Ellison have both supported the President more enthusiastically and before other tech company heads engaged.
  • Pentagon wins brief waiver from government’s Huawei ban” By Joe Gould – Defense News. A Washington D.C. trade publication is reporting the Trump Administration is using flexibility granted by Congress to delay the ban on contractors using Huawei, ZTE, and other People’s Republic of China (PRC) technology for the Department of Defense. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe granted the waiver at the request of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord, claiming:
    • You stated that DOD’s statutory requirement to provide for the military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of out country is critically important to national security. Therefore, the procurement of goods and services in support of DOD’s statutory mission is also in the national security interests of the United States.
    • Section 889 of the “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2019” (P.L. 115-232) requires agencies to remove this equipment and systems and also not to contract with private sector entities that use such equipment and services. It is the second part of the ban the DOD and its contractors are getting a reprieve from for an interim rule putting in place such a ban was issued last month.
  • DOD’s IT supply chain has dozens of suppliers from China, report finds” By Jackson Barnett – fedscoop. A data analytics firm, Govini, analyzed a sample of prime contracts at the Department of Defense (DOD) and found a surge in the presence of firms from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the supply chains in the software and information technology (IT) sectors. This study has obvious relevance to the previous article on banning PRC equipment and services in DOD supply chains.
  • Facebook algorithm found to ‘actively promote’ Holocaust denial” by Mark Townsend – The Guardian. A British counter-hate organization, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), found that Facebook’s algorithms lead people searching for the Holocaust to denial sites and posts. The organization found the same problem on Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube, too. ISD claimed:
    • Our findings show that the actions taken by platforms can effectively reduce the volume and visibility of this type of antisemitic content. These companies therefore need to ask themselves what type of platform they would like to be: one that earns money by allowing Holocaust denial to flourish, or one that takes a principled stand against it.

© 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 Foundry Co from Pixabay

Further Reading, Other Developments, and Coming Events (15 August)

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

Coming Events

  • 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.”
  • The United States’ Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) announced that its third annual National Cybersecurity Summit “will be held virtually as a series of webinars every Wednesday for four weeks beginning September 16 and ending October 7:”
    • September 16: Key Cyber Insights
    • September 23: Leading the Digital Transformation
    • September 30: Diversity in Cybersecurity
    • October 7: Defending our Democracy
    • One can register for the event here.
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust, Competition Policy & Consumer Rights Subcommittee will hold a hearing on 15 September titled “Stacking the Tech: Has Google Harmed Competition in Online Advertising?.” In their press release, Chair Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asserted:
    • Google is the dominant player in online advertising, a business that accounts for around 85% of its revenues and which allows it to monetize the data it collects through the products it offers for free. Recent consumer complaints and investigations by law enforcement have raised questions about whether Google has acquired or maintained its market power in online advertising in violation of the antitrust laws. News reports indicate this may also be the centerpiece of a forthcoming antitrust lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice. This hearing will examine these allegations and provide a forum to assess the most important antitrust investigation of the 21st century.
  • 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.” By 21 August, the FTC “is seeking comment on a range of issues including:
    • How are companies currently implementing data portability? What are the different contexts in which data portability has been implemented?
    • What have been the benefits and costs of data portability? What are the benefits and costs of achieving data portability through regulation?
    • To what extent has data portability increased or decreased competition?
    • Are there research studies, surveys, or other information on the impact of data portability on consumer autonomy and trust?
    • Does data portability work better in some contexts than others (e.g., banking, health, social media)? Does it work better for particular types of information over others (e.g., information the consumer provides to the business vs. all information the business has about the consumer, information about the consumer alone vs. information that implicates others such as photos of multiple people, comment threads)?
    • Who should be responsible for the security of personal data in transit between businesses? Should there be data security standards for transmitting personal data between businesses? Who should develop these standards?
    • How do companies verify the identity of the requesting consumer before transmitting their information to another company?
    • How can interoperability among services best be achieved? What are the costs of interoperability? Who should be responsible for achieving interoperability?
    • What lessons and best practices can be learned from the implementation of the data portability requirements in the GDPR and CCPA? Has the implementation of these requirements affected competition and, if so, in what ways?”
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold an open meeting on 30 September, but an agenda is not available at this time.

Other Developments

  • The Global Engagement Center (GEC) at the U.S. Department of State published the “GEC Special Report: Pillars of Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem” The GEC drew on “on publicly available reporting to provide an overview of Russia’s disinformation and propaganda ecosystem.”  The GEC identified the five pillars of Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem:
    • official government communications;
    • state-funded global messaging;
    • cultivation of proxy sources;
    • weaponization of social media; and
    • cyber-enabled disinformation.
    • The GEC stated
      • This report provides a visual representation of the ecosystem described above, as well as an example of the media multiplier effect it enables. This serves to demonstrate how the different pillars of the ecosystem play distinct roles and feed off of and bolster each other. The report also includes brief profiles of select proxy sites and organizations that occupy an intermediate role between the pillars of the ecosystem with clear links to Russia and those that are meant to be fully deniable. The emphasis on these proxy sites is meant to highlight the important role they play, which can be overlooked given the attention paid to official Russian voices on one end of the spectrum, and the social media manipulation and cyber-enabled threats on the other.
  • The United States (U.S.) Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has restarted its process for rolling out its new electronic health record (EHR) and announced it has “revised its previous schedule to convert facilities to its new HER capabilities with updated timelines for deployments in August in Columbus, Ohio, and October in Spokane, Washington.” The VA opted to replace its Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) with a commercial off-the-shelf system the U.S. Department of Defense has chosen, Cerner Millennium. However, this $16 billion acquisition has encountered numerous difficulties and delays, which has caught he continued attention of Congress.
    • The VA claimed “The new timeline will preserve the 10-year implementation schedule and the overall cost estimates of VA’s EHR modernization program…[and] [a]fter the conversion at these sites, VA will bring other select facilities forward in the timeline.”
    • In June 2020, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found:
      • VA met its schedule for making the needed system configuration decisions that would enable the department to implement its new EHR system at the first VA medical facility, which was planned for July 2020. In addition, VA has formulated a schedule for making the remaining EHR system configuration decisions before implementing the system at additional facilities planned for fall 2020.
      • VA’s Electronic Health Record Modernization (EHRM) program was generally effective in establishing decision-making procedures that were consistent with applicable federal standards for internal control. However, VA did not always ensure the involvement of relevant stakeholders, including medical facility clinicians and staff, in the system configuration decisions. Specifically, VA did not always clarify terminology and include adequate detail in descriptions of local workshop sessions to medical facility clinicians and staff to ensure relevant representation at local workshop meetings. Participation of such stakeholders is critical to ensuring that the EHR system is configured to meet the needs of clinicians and support the delivery of clinical care.
  • The United States (U.S.) Government Accountability Office (GAO) studied and reported on privacy and accuracy issues related to the use of facial recognition technology requested by the chairs of the House Judiciary and Oversight and Reform Committees. This report updates a 2015 report on the same issues and renews the agency’s call first made in 2013 that Congress “strengthen[] the current consumer privacy framework to reflect the effects of changes in technology and the marketplace—particularly in relation to consumer data used for marketing purposes—while also ensuring that any limitations on data collection and sharing do not unduly inhibit the economic and other benefits to industry and consumers that data sharing can accord.”
    • In the new report, the GAO explained that “[s]takeholders we interviewed identified additional activities that companies could improve the use of facial recognition technology. These activities include
      • defining the purpose for the technology’s use and clearly notifying consumers how companies are using the technology—such as surveillance or marketing;
      • identifying risks and limitations associated with using the technology and prohibiting certain uses (e.g., those with discriminatory purposes); and
      • providing guidance or training related to these issues.
    • The GAO asserted
      • However, these voluntary privacy frameworks and suggested activities that could help address privacy concerns or improve the use of facial recognition technology are not mandatory. Furthermore, as discussed earlier, in most contexts facial recognition technology is not currently covered by federal privacy law. Accordingly, we reiterate our 2013 suggestion that Congress strengthen the current consumer privacy framework to reflect the effects of changes in technology and the marketplace.
  • The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) “announced the dismantling of three terrorist financing cyber-enabled campaigns, involving the al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s military wing, al-Qaeda, and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)…the government’s largest-ever seizure of cryptocurrency in the terrorism context.”
    • The DOJ claimed
      • These three terror finance campaigns all relied on sophisticated cyber-tools, including the solicitation of cryptocurrency donations from around the world.  The action demonstrates how different terrorist groups have similarly adapted their terror finance activities to the cyber age.  Each group used cryptocurrency and social media to garner attention and raise funds for their terror campaigns.  Pursuant to judicially-authorized warrants, U.S. authorities seized millions of dollars, over 300 cryptocurrency accounts, four websites, and four Facebook pages all related to the criminal enterprise.
  • The United States (U.S.) National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) revealed it has “has been providing classified briefings and other assistance to federal procurement executives, chief information officers and chief information security officers from across the U.S. Government on supply chain threats and risks stemming from contracting with five Chinese companies.” The NCSC explained the “supply chain security briefings are designed to assist federal agencies implement” Section 889 of the “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2019” (P.L. 115-232).
    • The NCSC stated:
      • One provision of the NDAA prohibits the U.S. Government from directly using goods and services from five specified Chinese companies — Huawei, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications, Hanghzou Hikvision and Dahua Technology Company.
      • Another, broader, provision of Section 889 prohibits federal agencies from contracting with any company that uses goods and services from these five Chinese firms. This particular prohibition takes effect on August 13, 2020, unless a federal agency authorizes a waiver for a specific company, which can only be granted by the agency head after receiving NCSC supply chain security guidance.
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) denied two petitions to stay an April 2020 rulemaking that would make the 6Ghz band of spectrum available to users other than the incumbents. The FCC noted “wo parties—Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO)—petitioned to stay the Order:
    • EEI, a trade association representing investor-owned electric utilities, seeks only to stay the effectiveness of the rules that apply to low-power indoor devices. 
    • APCO, a non-profit association of persons who manage and operate public-safety communications systems, seeks to stay the rules for both standard-power and low-power indoor operations.
    • In the rule and order, the FCC explained
      • We authorize two different types of unlicensed operations—standard-power and indoor low-power operations. We authorize standard-power access points using an automated frequency coordination (AFC) system. These access points can be deployed anywhere as part of hotspot networks, rural broadband deployments, or network capacity upgrades where needed. We also authorize indoor low-power access points across the entire 6 GHz band. These access points will be ideal for connecting devices in homes and businesses such smartphones, tablet devices, laptops, and Internet-of-things (IoT) devices to the Internet. As has occurred with Wi-Fi in the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands, we expect that 6 GHz unlicensed devices will become a part of most peoples’ everyday lives. The rules we are adopting will also play a role in the growth of the IoT; connecting appliances, machines, meters, wearables, and other consumer electronics as well as industrial sensors for manufacturing.
  • In a speech, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) Chair Rod Sims laid out the status of his agency’s actions against Google, Facebook, and other large technology platforms flowing from its final report in its “Digital Platforms Inquiry” that “proposes specific recommendations aimed at addressing some of the actual and potential negative impacts of digital platforms in the media and advertising markets, and also more broadly on consumers,” including:
    • The ACCC recently launched an action against Google regarding misleading representations it made to consumers to obtain their consent to expand the scope of personal information it collected and used about its’ users online activities.
    • In another case, which we brought against Google last year, we allege that Google misled consumers into sharing location data with Google. We contend Google did not clearly inform consumers using Android mobile devices that a particular account setting allowed Google to collect location data. We assert that many consumers may have unknowingly provided more of their personal location data to Google than they intended. Google then used consumers’ location data to enhance the value of its advertising services to prospective advertisers. This case is currently in Court with a hearing scheduled in late November.
    • Currently the ACCC is considering the acquisition by Google and Facebook of Fitbit and Giphy, respectively. We are considering questions such as whether they have the ability to give themselves advantages by favouring their own products, or whether these acquisitions are raising barriers to entry for other competitors.
    • In April 2020 the Federal Government directed the ACCC to develop a mandatory code of conduct to address bargaining power imbalances between Australian news media businesses and digital platforms. We recently published the draft legislation for the code.
  • A British appeals court overturned a decision that found that a police force’s use of facial recognition technology in a pilot program that utilized live footage to be legal. The appeals court found the use of this technology by the South Wales Police Force a violation of “the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European  Convention  on  Human  Rights,  data  protection  legislation,  and  the  Public  Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”) under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.”

Further Reading

  • North Korean Hacking Group Attacks Israeli Defense Industry” by Ronen Bergman and Nicole Perlroth – The New York Times. Israel is denying the claims of a cybersecurity firm that hackers from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) deeply penetrated its defense industry. Through the use of sophisticated phishing, including fake LinkedIn accounts and fluent English speakers, employees at Israeli defense companies were tricked into stalling spyware on these personal computers and then the hackers allegedly eventually accessed classified Israeli networks. The attacks show growing sophistication from DPRK hackers and that those looking to penetrate networks will always seek out weak spots.
  • Pentagon Requests More Time to Review JEDI Cloud Contract Bids” by Frank Konkel – Nextgov. The United States Department of Defense (DOD) has asked for yet more time to resolve who will win the second round of the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) cloud contract that may prove worth more than $10 billion to the winner. The Pentagon had told the court it was on schedule to make an award ion the rebid of the contract that Microsoft had won over Amazon. The latter claimed political interference from the White House violated federal contract law, among other claims, resulting in this lawsuit.
  • Google rival’s study urges letting mobile users pick search defaults” by Ashley Gold – Axios. DuckDuckGo, a search engine, claims in newly released research that permitting Android users to choose their search engine would decrease Google’s market share by 20%. This could be relevant to the United States (U.S.) Department of Justice’s (DOJ) antitrust investigation. As a point of reference, in the U.S., the United Kingdom, and Australia, Google’s share of the mobile search engine market is 95%, 98% and 98%. DOJ may seriously look at this remedy as the European Commission (EC) imposed this as part of its antitrust case against Google, resulting in a record €4.34 billion fine.
  • Facial Recognition Start-Up Mounts a First Amendment Defense” By Kashmir Hill – The New York Times. Clearview AI has retained legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams to make the argument that its collection, use, and dissemination of publicly photos scraped from the internet is protected as free speech. Abrams is quoting as saying that while privacy is, of course, an important right, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution would trump any such rights. It is expected that this argument will be employed in the myriad suits against the facial recognition technology firm in the range of suits against the company.
  • An advanced group specializing in corporate espionage is on a hacking spree” By Jeff Stone – cyberscoop. A new hacking group, RedCurl, has gone on a worldwide hacking campaign that broke into businesses in the United Kingdom, Canada, and other places. The hackers phished a number of businesses successfully by impersonating someone from the human resources in he organization.

© 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.

Trump Administration Issues Second Part of Rule Banning Huawei, ZTE, and Other PRC Entities From Federal Systems

Starting in a month, those contracting with the federal government may not have Huawei or ZTE equipment of systems per a directive of Congress enacted in 2018. Lawmakers were concerned about national security and argued PRC equipment and systems are compromised. The first half of this ban took effect one year ago.

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.

Federal agencies released an interim rule to implement the second half of a government-wide ban on buying or using Huawei, ZTE, and other equipment and systems considered risky or suspect by the United States (US) government. The first half of this ban went into effect late last summer and generally bars US agencies from buying or using so-called “covered telecommunications equipment or services,” and this part of the ban extends the prohibition to entities that would contract with US agencies. Therefore, as a general matter, such contractors would need to certify their services, systems, and equipment are free and clear of “covered telecommunication equipment,” which is largely technology developed and manufactured in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or the Russian Federation. This rule will take effect on 13 August but may possibly affect contracts entered into before that date. And yet, comments are being accepted on this rule until 14 September, which will likely affect the rule on the margins when a final version is issued but not its substance.

The Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) amended “the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement section 889(a)(1)(B) of the “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2019” (P.L. 115-232) that “prohibits executive agencies from entering into, or extending or renewing, a contract with an entity that uses any equipment, system, or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.” The agencies stated

The statute covers certain telecommunications equipment and services produced or provided by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation (or any subsidiary or affiliate of those entities) and certain video surveillance products or telecommunications equipment and services produced or provided by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company (or any subsidiary or affiliate of those entities). The statute is not limited to contracting with entities that use end-products produced by those companies; it also covers the use of any equipment, system, or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.

The DOD, GSA, and NASA explained “[t]he 889(a)(1)(A) rule does the following:

  • It amends the FAR to include the 889(a)(1)(A) prohibition, which prohibits agencies from procuring or obtaining equipment or services that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component or critical technology. (FAR 52.204-25)
  • It requires every offeror to represent prior to award whether or not it will provide covered telecommunications equipment or services and, if so, to furnish additional information about the covered telecommunications equipment or services. (FAR 52.204-24)
  • It mandates that contractors report (within one business day) any covered telecommunications equipment or services discovered during the course of contract performance. (FAR 52.204-25)

The agencies added

The FAR Council will address the public comments received on both previous interim rules in a subsequent rulemaking. In addition, each agency has the opportunity under 889(a)(1)(A) to issue agency-specific procedures (as they do for any acquisition-related requirement). For example, GSA issued a FAR deviation where GSA categorized risk to eliminate the representations for low and medium risk GSA-funded orders placed under GSA indefinite-delivery contracts.

Section 889 of the FY 2019 NDAA was drafted to address the threats posed by the presence of Huawei and ZTE equipment and services throughout the systems and supply chains of the federal government and its contractors. The ultimate goal is the complete phaseout, if possible, of these and any other suspect systems that could possibly be compromised or exploited in the future. Consequently, Russian equipment and systems are also targeted. All federal agencies must inventory and then work to remove this equipment and products within the next few years, and the DOD has already started the required rulemakings to fulfill this policy goal.

As a result, the DOD and other agencies changed the FAR to put into effect a Congressionally-required ban on Huawei and ZTE products detailed in Section 889 of the FY 2019 NDAA. Specifically the August 2019 interim rule bars federal agencies from buying Huawei, ZTE, and related Chinese “equipment, system[s], or service[s] that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system” unless an exception allows the agency to disregard this general ban. This rule has already taken effect, and it is likely the DOD and other agencies will issue a final rule, which may change the interim rule on the margins but will likely maintain the substance of the prohibition. It bears note that this interim rule is applicable to all contracts going forward and some solicitations offered and contracts signed before August 13, 2019. In December 2019, the DOD, GSA, and NASA changed the original requirement that contractors certify for each procurement they do not have any Huawei or ZTE equipment or services and may make this certification annually instead.

In concert with the August 2019 interim final rule that put in place a ban on buying or using Huawei, ZTE, or other related equipment, the DOD issued a memorandum that “provides DOD-specific procedures associated with the interim FAR rule that implements section 889(a)(l)(A) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232)…[and] [t]hese implementation procedures apply to contracts, task orders, and delivery orders, including basic ordering agreements (BOAs), orders against BOAs, blanket purchase agreements (BPAs), and calls against BPAs.”

Finally, it bears note that Section 889(b) also contains language barring any agency from making a loan or providing a grant to any entity with Huawei or ZTE systems or equipment or to buy Huawei systems or equipment. In June 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) asked Congress for legislative changes to the grant and loan language, ideally in the FY 2020 NDAA, and to push back the deadline for both of these provisions from August 13, 2020 to August 13, 2022. However, the Armed Services Committees did not include such language in either FY 2020 NDAA, suggesting there is not support in the committees to softening or rolling back the Huawei/ZTE bans.

© 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 Alejandro Luengo on Unsplash