Gov performance

President Donald Trump promised big changes on cybersecurity after his election. During the Obama administration, the nation’s cybersecurity was “run by people that don’t know what they’re doing,” the president said during a post-election press conference. The Trump administration, he promised, would gather “some of the greatest computer minds anywhere in the world” and “put those minds together … to form a defense.” Seven months into the president’s administration, however, analysts are wondering what’s so different.

On most major cybersecurity issues, such as securing federal networks and critical infrastructure, Trump officials are in near lockstep with their Obama-era predecessors. Where they differ, there’s no clear Trump cybersecurity doctrine to explain the divergence. “It’s schizophrenic,” said Peter Singer, a cyber theorist and senior fellow at the New America Foundation. “That may be because of the absence of a strategy or it may be because the chaotic execution of that strategy undermines it.”

After months of debate, protests, and disruptions, the Federal Communications Commission’s comment period on its proposal to kill network neutrality is now over. The commission stopped accepting comments closing out with nearly 22 million total replies — setting an immense new record. The FCC’s previous comment record was just 3.7 million, set during the last net neutrality proceeding. But the process of receiving all those comments was far from smooth this time around.

The FCC’s website is fairly confusing. It’s also, apparently, susceptible to spam and other attacks, which we saw at multiple points across the past four months. All the while, the FCC’s chairman has been trying to explain that comments don’t really matter anyway, despite the commission’s requirement to act in the public interest and take public feedback. From the very beginning of the proceeding, FCC leadership laid out that it would be the quality, not the quantity, of the comments that made a difference. On the surface, that’s a reasonable argument, but it’s being set out as an excuse to ignore the overwhelming millions of comments in support of net neutrality in favor of few well-written filings by Comcast and the like. Now that the comment period has ended, the FCC will begin work on a revised version of its proposal, which it will then vote on and quite likely pass, making it official policy. The commission is supposed to factor public input into its revisions — and in fact, much of the original proposal was just a big series of open-ended questions — so it’ll probably be a little while before we see a final draft.

It’s entirely possible that the commission will go ahead with its original, bare-bones plan to simply kill net neutrality and leave everything else up to internet providers to sort out. But if the commission does decide to put in place some sort of protections, then we’ll have another debate to run through — one over exactly how effective those rules might be, and exactly how many ways companies can weasel around them.

The Federal Communications Commission's website already gets a lot of traffic—sometimes more than it can handle. But thanks to a weakness in the interface that the FCC published for citizens to file comments on proposed rule changes, there's a lot more interesting—and potentially malicious—content now flowing onto one FCC domain.

The system allows just about any file to be hosted on the FCC's site—potentially including malware. The application programming interface (API) for the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System that enables public comment on proposed rule changes has been the source of some controversy already. It exposed the e-mail addresses of public commenters on network neutrality—intentionally, according to the FCC, to ensure the process' openness—and was the target of what the FCC claimed was a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack. But as a security researcher has found, the API could be used to push just about any document to the FCC's website, where it would be instantly published without screening. Because of the open nature of the API, an application key can be obtained with any e-mail address. While the content exposed via the site thus far is mostly harmless, the API could be used for malicious purposes as well. Since the API apparently accepts any file type, it could theoretically be used to host malicious documents and executable files on the FCC's Web server.

In his first seven months as president, Donald Trump has generally drawn high job approval ratings among Republicans. But a new survey finds that nearly a third of Republicans say they agree with the president on only a few or no issues, while a majority expresses mixed or negative feelings about his conduct as president. A separate survey, conducted on Pew Research Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel, finds stark divisions between those who approve and those who disapprove of Trump’s job performance in their impressions of the president.

Those who disapprove of Trump cite several concerns about him: 32% point to his personality, including his temperament; 25% mention his policies, particularly foreign policy and its impact on U.S. standing in the world; and 19% fault his intelligence or competence. Trump’s supporters raise different concerns: 17% of those who approve of his job performance cite his use of Twitter and other social media, while 16% say they are most concerned about obstruction from others, such as Congress and the news media. About one-in-ten of those who approve of Trump say their biggest concern is his personality (11%) and a similar share point to his policies (10%).

With a bundle of Senate confirmations of Trump appointees just before the August congressional recess, it’s a good time to take stock of what progress the Trump administration has made in filling the positions that shape policy in the digital arena. My Brookings paper last fall, Bridging The Internet-Cyber Gap: Digital Policy Lessons for the Next Administration, included a “digital plum book” that identified the positions from the full Plum Book (the Government Printing Office compilation of senior federal positions that is a roadmap to presidential appointments) with real impact on the constellation of issues that affect the digital economy and digital society.

To see how the Trump administration is doing, we used the digital plum book as a scorecard. There are 95 positions in the digital plum book. For 65 of these positions, the administration has at least announced a nominee, and 37 of these have been confirmed to date. This compares favorably to unfilled positions overall: the Partnership for Public Service counts 117 confirmed out of 591 positions, with another 106 pending nominations as of this writing. The digital plum book also identified 32 positions as jobs where a broad understanding of digital issues is critical to the mission. Of these, 13 have been filled and another two have been announced. For the remainder, 12 are being filled in an acting capacity, and the other five are vacant altogether.

Shortly before the inauguration, I outlined four general areas where actions could be taken to reinvigorate investment: one, undoing harmful policies; two, clearing regulatory underbrush; three, developing and executing a strong pro-innovation agenda; and, four, overhauling the Commission’s arcane processes and its organization. I’m pleased to say that we’ve seen significant progress on each front....The Internet is arguably the greatest man-made technology of my lifetime and a testament to free-market principles embodying the American Dream. The government must remain steadfast that this platform should be unfettered by regulation. Doing so is the way to ensure that the economic revolution and expansion of opportunity, unsurpassed in modern history, will continue for future generations and empower their American Dreams.

[Commentary] These are not normal times. The man in the White House is reckless and unmanageable, a danger to the Constitution, a threat to our democratic institutions. Republicans and conservatives around the country should be just as concerned as Democrats about President Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest, his campaign’s relationship with the Russians and whether he engaged in obstruction of justice. They should call him out when he sows division, when he dog-whistles, when he emboldens bigots. They should stand up for global human rights, for constructive engagement with the rest of the world and for other shared American values that transcend party allegiances.

[Commentary] Several prominent Republicans took to Twitter on Aug 17 to denounce hatred and bigotry in the wake of President Donald Trump's shocking equivocations about the white-supremacist mayhem in Charlottesville (VA). Expressing disapproval in 140 characters or fewer is insufficient when the president angrily asserts that there were some "very fine people" among the bigots waving Confederate battle flags and swastika banners; when torch-bearing marchers chanted "Jews will not replace us"; and when police said one Nazi sympathizer rammed a sports car into a crowd, killing an innocent counterprotester. This is a moment of reckoning for members of the Party of Lincoln: Do they want to stand up for American values, or do they want to keep enabling a president whose understanding of right and wrong has slipped dangerously off the rails? If congressional Republicans choose the former — and history will be watching — they should join together with Democrats to censure President Trump.

Censure is not impeachment. Whether that's appropriate will likely depend on the outcome of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. But censure would constitute a forceful way of rebuking the White House and condemning the vile views of a bigoted fringe, even as those people's right to free speech and peaceful protest is protected under the First Amendment. The political chasm between Democrats and Republicans may be wider than ever. But when it comes to ideologies of hate and racism, the nation's leaders need to speak forcefully with one voice.

Commissioner Michael O'Rielly of the Federal Communications Commission says President Donald Trump was wrong to suggest there were some fine people amongst the racist and neo-Nazi protestors who sparked violence in Charlottesville (VA), and said he was "astounded" by the President's press conference on Aug 16.

"I was not available to comment previously," he said. "But I was just astounded when I got back to town to see what had happened and to see the [President's] press conference yesterday and the transcript from some of that." O'Rielly said he was troubled by the President's comment that there were fine people in both camps. "The President's point I think was wrong. I don't think there are fine people in some of these hateful groups. I don't think you can be a fine person in a hateful group. I don't think those things go together."

Democratic lawmakers are calling for an independent investigation into how the Federal Communications Commission responded to a reported cyberattack in May that crippled the agency’s comment filing system. Sen Brian Schatz (D-HI) and House Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that cast doubt on the FCC’s version of the incident. “While the FCC and the FBI have responded to Congressional inquiries into these [distributed denial of service] attacks, they have not released any records or documentation that would allow for confirmation that an attack occurred, that it was effectively dealt with, and that the FCC has begun to institute measures to thwart future attacks and ensure the security of its systems,” the letter reads. "As a result, questions remain about the attack itself and more generally about the state of cybersecurity at the FCC — questions that warrant an independent review.”