This episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast kicks off with the sudden emergence of a serious bipartisan effort to impose new national security regulations on companies that may be part of America’s information technology and content supply chain. Spurred by a stalled CFIUS negotiation with TikTok, Michael Ellis tells us, a a dozen well-known Democratic and Republican senators have adhered to the RESTRICT law (Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology) which authorizes the exclusion of companies based in hostile countries from the US economy. The administration also jumped on the trainwhich makes the adoption of certain legislation on the subject more probable than in the past.
Jane Bambauer explains the decision of the district court continued use of “geofection warrant” to identify Jan 6 rioters. We come to agree that this move (and the context) turned out to be the best it could be for the Justice Department, silencing the usual leftist critics of law enforcement’s technological adaptation.
Just days after releasing a cybersecurity strategy that calls for more regulation, the administration is delivering what it asked for. THE The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has issued emergency cybersecurity orders for airports and aircraft operators which I believe take the regulatory framework from a few small steps to a plausible set of minimum requirements. Things look a little different in the water and sewer sector, where the regulator is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – which is not known for its expertise in cybersecurity – and the power to regulate is based, if at all, on very general legislative language. To make the task even more difficult, The EPA plans to impose its cybersecurity standards using an interpretative rule, in a context where Congress has made legislate just enough on cybersecurity to undermine the advisability of adopting a broad interpretation.
Jane explores the story that deterred Google releasing its impressive AI technology for fear of bad press. This brings us to a reflection on the policy inside companies with a guaranteed source of income. I hope Google’s fears of politically incorrect AI infect Chinese tech companies.
Jane and I take it back debate over UK online security law and end-to-end encryptionwhich leads to a poly-scientific visit to European political institutions.
The other cybersecurity and national security news in Congress is the ongoing debate over the renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), in which it appears the FBI has scored a own goal. A The FBI analyst conducted an unauthorized search of the 702 database for information on one of the House Intelligence Committee moderates, Rep. Darin LaHood, R-Ill. The details are sketchy, Michael notes, but the search was revealed by Rep. LaHood, and it was bound to lead to harsh questioning during the FBI director’s classified testimony. Meanwhile, at least one member of the Presidential Civil Liberties and Oversight Council is calling for what could be a crippling “reform” of 702 database searches.
Jane and I unpack the controversy surrounding the Federal Trade Commission’s investigation into Twitter’s compliance with its latest consent decree. Legally, Elon Musk’s Twitter is in the background. Politically, however, the two organizations are more balanced. Chances are both sides are overestimating their own strengths, which could predict a real donnybrook.
Michael assesses the stories saying the Biden administration is preparing new rules to govern outbound investment in China. He is skeptical that we will see heavy regulation in this space.
In quick strokes,
You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using itunes, google play, Spotify, Pocket castsor our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to comments. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Don’t forget: if your suggested guest appears on the show, we’ll send you a coveted Cyberlaw Podcast Mug! The opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families or pets.
