April 2013

Cybersecurity: New version of old fight

Battling rogue hackers and digital spies — it’s precisely the sort of cutting-edge challenge that typically confounds Congress. But the cybersecurity debate about to begin in the House this week is merely a more modern take on an old political fight: a classic lobbying battle set against the backdrop of a post-Sept. 11 struggle between privacy and security.

Virtually all of Washington believes the government and industry should exchange data about new cyberthreats — not unlike regulators in the not-too-distant past who shared a desire to find new methods of preventing terrorism. In both debates, however, it’s always been about the details. And on cybersecurity, Congress, the White House, private companies and interest groups just don’t see eye to eye. Each side is lobbying hard to shape the final product as regulators realize it’s difficult to safeguard civil liberties while thwarting the sort of attacks that might darken a city or disrupt Wall Street trading.

Local police grapple with response to cybercrimes

If a purse with $900 is stolen, the victim probably would call the police. If a computer hacker steals $900 from that same person's bank account, what then? Call the police? Could they even help?

As it is now, local police don't have widespread know-how to investigate cybercrimes. They rely heavily on the expertise of the federal government, which focuses on large, often international cybercrimes. What's missing is the first response role, typically the preserve of local police departments that respond to calls for help from individuals and communities. Bart Johnson, executive director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said police need to have a better understanding of what a cyberthreat is and how to address it. Johnson said his organization has been working with the FBI and Homeland Security Department since December to confront these issues.

Congress debates update of aging cybercrime law

Thirty years ago, the Macintosh was a new product, and the Internet was the little-known realm of the federal government and academia. That’s when 1984 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — the guiding law that still defines and governs cybercrimes — was born.

In dealing with computer-related wrongdoing in 2013, though, there are few who believe the law remains adequate, fair or modern enough to apply. But if there’s broad agreement that the CFAA sorely needs an update, dueling draft bills in the House illustrate dramatic differences among possible directions to go — stricter, looser or a combination. The Justice Department and some in Congress, alarmed by a rise in major cybersecurity crimes, want stiffer penalties for hacking. That effort, though, faces fierce pushback from a coalition of Internet activists and civil rights groups who want to ease or remove certain types of prosecutions and lighten penalties. CFAA reform was already looming, but the suicide of 26-year-old Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz in January helped galvanize groups to change the law so that not all hacking is considered the same and to make penalties less draconian in some cases. Swartz killed himself as he faced up to 35 years in prison and a $1 million fine after prosecutors alleged he stole more than 4 million documents from the JSTOR database of academic research papers at MIT.

The Antisocial Network

[Commentary] Bitcoin’s wild ride may not have been the biggest business story of the past few weeks, but it was surely the most entertaining. Over the course of less than two weeks the price of the “digital currency” more than tripled. Then it fell more than 50 percent in a few hours. Suddenly, it felt as if we were back in the dot-com era. The economic significance of this roller coaster was basically nil. But the furor over bitcoin was a useful lesson in the ways people misunderstand money — and in particular how they are misled by the desire to divorce the value of money from the society it serves.

Justice Department: FCC should help Sprint, T-Mobile buy frequencies

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should ensure that Sprint and T-Mobile are able to buy the rights to wireless frequencies, the Justice Department argued. The department's Antitrust Division argued that ensuring smaller carriers have access to spectrum — the airwaves that carry all mobile data traffic — is critical for promoting competition and keeping cellphone service prices down.

Sprint and T-Mobile operate nationwide networks but are much smaller than industry leaders Verizon and AT&T. The Justice Department warned that AT&T and Verizon might buy up the spectrum not to use for their customers, but to choke off their competitors' access to the vital resource. There are only a limited number of frequencies capable of carrying cellular signals. "A large incumbent may benefit from acquiring spectrum even if its uses of the spectrum are not the most efficient if that acquisition helps preserve high prices," the department wrote in the document, which was signed by division chief William Baer. The Justice Department argued that unless there is compelling evidence that one of the large carriers is already using all of its existing spectrum efficiently, the public would benefit the most from allowing one of the smaller carriers to buy the rights to the frequencies.

Is Tom Wheeler the Frontrunner for FCC Chief?

President Barack Obama is getting an earful about who he should nominate as the next chair of the Federal Communications Commission, but despite all the noise and Beltway gossip, one name keeps popping to the top: Tom Wheeler.

Wheeler "appears to still have the inside track," wrote Stifel analysts Christopher King and David Kaut. It didn't hurt Wheeler that he picked up backing this week from 11 public interest advocates and former government officials. In a letter to the president, they praised the former cable lobbyist and venture capitalist as someone with an "open mind and an intelligent take on the challenges that will confront the new chairman," namely the expansion of broadband, the build-out of a public safety network and the pending auction of TV spectrum to meet the growing demand for wireless services. Wheeler's other big advantage is his fundraising for Obama. According to the Obama campaign, Wheeler raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for the president's re-election. Women are sure to be disappointed if Obama doesn't pick the agency's first women chair. That came through subtly, but clearly, at a Minority Media & Telecom Council luncheon honoring the 15 women commissioners who served on the FCC. Obama could easily name a woman to serve as interim chairwoman, an easy solution since his only two choices are women, commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel.

When public infrastructure goes private

[Commentary] Consider some of the things that have bound our nation together: Universal postal service at a flat rate, whether you live in Santa Monica or Sitka, Alaska. Interstate highways, built with taxpayer funds and free of tolls. Regulated phone and electric service, with lifeline rates for the economically disadvantaged. These were all based on a social contract honoring the notion that essential infrastructure should be available to all — indeed, that those normally left by the side of the economic road might be most in need. But you can kiss that notion goodbye, because today's model of building public infrastructure is to let private companies do it. Americans are becoming more dependent on privately operated toll roads to get where we're going, and on private delivery services like FedEx and UPS to carry our parcels. But the greatest shift has occurred in the sector that is most crucial in the information age: communications and data networks.

Copper Wire -- A technology whose time has passed

[Commentary] In the last century, we have seen many technologies come and go. Before the car, came the horse and buggy; before computers, there were typewriters; and before wireless and fiber broadband networks, there was copper wire. There aren’t many horse and buggies on the road and most of us don’t have typewriters sitting on our desks. So why are copper networks still so widely used although they have been rendered obsolete by next-generation technologies? The simple answer is that federal, state and local regulations are stuck in the past.

The legacy copper Public Switch Telephone Network (PSTN) provided the backbone of national telephone networks for more than 100 years. But today, IP-based networks deliver connection speeds and new products and services unequaled by anything delivered via copper. Recognizing this, consumers are abandoning outdated copper services at a rapid pace, instead opting for more reliable wireless and wired IP-based networks. Traditional copper networks are no longer applicable to the needs and benefits of today’s technologies. It doesn't make economic or practical sense to continue requiring telecommunications companies to preserve obsolete copper wire technologies when wireless and fiber networks can offer better connections more efficiently. Regulations should not favor a century-old technology over the most cutting-edge of today’s services.

House to take up key cybersecurity bills next week

The House is preparing to work on a cybersecurity bill next week that is similar to a version the Obama administration threatened to veto last year. Republicans will call up the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA H.R. 624), a bill sponsored by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI). The bill is meant to improve information-sharing about cyber threats between companies and the government, with the goal of helping to thwart cyberattacks. It would let the government share classified information with companies to that end, and also provide liability protection for companies so they are not subject to lawsuits for sharing data about cyber threats. This week, the White House signaled it cannot fully support the bill, but stopped short of threatening a veto. The House Rules Committee set a deadline of next Tuesday for members to file amendments to the bill. The committee will also meet Tuesday to approve rule for the bill; once a rule is approved, the House will be able to consider the bill on the floor as early as the next day.

The House will take up other bills next week on cyber issues, although these will be suspension bills that will get less debate and will need to be approved by a two-thirds majority vote. Those bills, which will not require a rule, are:

H.R. 756, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act, from Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), to boost cyber security research.
H.R. 967, the Advancing America's Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act, from Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). This bill is aimed at aiding information technology research.
H.R. 1163, the Federal Information Security Amendments Act, from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). This bill is aimed at creating an updated cyber security framework for systems that support the federal government.

Cyber security bill pits tech giants against privacy activists

The escalating cyberattacks on corporate and government computers have provided a rare opportunity for bipartisan legislation to address the problem. But rather than sailing through Congress, the latest cyber security legislation is exposing a fault line in the tech industry. On one side stand some of tech's biggest companies, such as Intel, Oracle and IBM, which are pressing for more government action. On the other side are thousands of smaller tech firms and privacy activists who have launched online protests to raise the alarm over a bill they say harms privacy and civil liberties.

Benton

Search