Politics

What the government’s new cybersecurity report could mean for business

Industry is apparently part of the problem — and the solution.

Sen. Angus King

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, co-chairs the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, which issued a report Wednesday saying the U.S.' cybersecurity infrastructure is dangerously inadequate.

Photo: Aaron P. Bernstein via Getty Images

America's cybersecurity strategy needs an overhaul, according to a massive new government report — but what does that mean for the technology industry?

"The reality is that we are dangerously insecure in cyber," co-chairs Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, and Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wisc., wrote in a letter prefacing the report, which was released by the bipartisan Cyberspace Solarium Commission on Wednesday. "Your entire life — your paycheck, your health care, your electricity — increasingly relies on networks of digital devices that store, process and analyze data. These networks are vulnerable, if not already compromised."


Get what matters in tech, in your inbox every morning. Sign up for Source Code.


The 182-page report argues for an approach of "layered cyber deterrence" and makes dozens of recommendations that would affect public and private sectors alike. The more than 75 recommendations run the gamut, from concrete suggestions about ensuring paper trails for voting machines to additional authorities for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, as well as specific legislative fixes aimed at spurring private sector security changes.

Many of the recommendations in the report "do not break new ground," James A. Lewis, senior vice president and director of the Technology Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Protocol. But if they are enacted, some of them could have a significant impact on technology companies and other industries.

There's a lot to dig through, but here are some key takeaways.

Industry is part of the problem — and the solution

The report is littered with references to public-private partnerships and collaboration, many of them vague. But the general vision laid out in the report "will require private-sector entities to step up and strengthen their security posture," King and Gallagher not, adding that most critical infrastructure "is owned by the private sector." The underlying message: That some of that infrastructure is not resilient enough.

If the strategy laid out were followed through, there would be additional expectations placed on private industry — generally in the form of things like adhering to new security standards and working with various new federal structures designed to help manage digital national security risks.

However, King and Gallagher say they "do not want to saddle the private sector with onerous and counterproductive regulations, nor do we want to force companies to hand over their data to the federal government." That suggests that even they are looking for voluntary cooperation in many circumstances.

Data security and privacy liability incoming?

That said, there are some places where the Commission calls for concrete changes that would change business practices.

One of the most significant is the recommendation that Congress pass legislation requiring "that final goods assemblers of software, hardware and firmware are liable for damages from incidents that exploit known and unpatched vulnerabilities for as long as they support a product or service."

This would provide clarity and increased protections for consumers, it argues, while putting businesses on the hook for keeping their products and services secure. Expect plenty of pushback from across the tech sector and beyond over any proposed lawmaking along those lines.

On a similar front, the Commission recommends Congress "pass a national data security and privacy protection law establishing and standardizing requirements for the collection, retention and sharing of user data." Right now, there is no overarching federal standard, akin to Europe's General Data Protection Regulation, for data security. Instead a patchwork of state regulations help set the effective floor of privacy protections, led by more stringent regulation out of California.

The impact of any such law on businesses would obviously depend on just how strict it is — but there is increasing bipartisan support for some form of data privacy regulation, so watch this space.

One other recommendation that could affect industry is the proposal that Congress establish a "National Cybersecurity Certification and Labeling Authority" to run programs including voluntary security certifications and labeling for IT and communications products. While voluntary, this would be a step toward giving cybersecurity safety certifications similar to those used to show certain electric products meet basic safety standards — and could change customer perceptions of the products and services they buy.

But don't assume Congress will act

While the report lays out the stakes as dire — it even opens with a bit of dystopian fiction about a post-cyberpocalypse Washington — there's no guarantee Congress will take action anytime soon. In fact, many of the report's recommendations, including a comprehensive federal data privacy law, are proposals that have been floating around in the legislative ether in one form or another for years.

Angus acknowledged the legislative status quo in an interview with Wired, saying he hopes that around half of the recommendations will be considered as part of the National Defense Authorization Act in May.

Still, Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., a member of the commission and co-founder and co-chair of the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, said he has "never felt more optimistic" during his decade of working on cybersecurity issues than with the release of this report.

"We have a long way to go as a nation to close our aperture of vulnerability in cyberspace," the Congressman told Protocol in an emailed statement. "But the strategy we lay out today will make us much more secure if we have the political will to execute it."

Climate

A pro-China disinformation campaign is targeting rare earth miners

It’s uncommon for cyber criminals to target private industry. But a new operation has cast doubt on miners looking to gain a foothold in the West in an apparent attempt to protect China’s upper hand in a market that has become increasingly vital.

It is very uncommon for coordinated disinformation operations to target private industry, rather than governments or civil society, a cybersecurity expert says.

Photo: Goh Seng Chong/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Just when we thought the renewable energy supply chains couldn’t get more fraught, a sophisticated disinformation campaign has taken to social media to further complicate things.

Known as Dragonbridge, the campaign has existed for at least three years, but in the last few months it has shifted its focus to target several mining companies “with negative messaging in response to potential or planned rare earths production activities.” It was initially uncovered by cybersecurity firm Mandiant and peddles narratives in the Chinese interest via its network of thousands of fake social media accounts.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Some of the most astounding tech-enabled advances of the next decade, from cutting-edge medical research to urban traffic control and factory floor optimization, will be enabled by a device often smaller than a thumbnail: the memory chip.

While vast amounts of data are created, stored and processed every moment — by some estimates, 2.5 quintillion bytes daily — the insights in that code are unlocked by the memory chips that hold it and transfer it. “Memory will propel the next 10 years into the most transformative years in human history,” said Sanjay Mehrotra, president and CEO of Micron Technology.

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Fintech

Ripple’s CEO threatens to leave the US if it loses SEC case

CEO Brad Garlinghouse said a few countries have reached out to Ripple about relocating.

"There's no doubt that if the SEC doesn't win their case against us that that is good for crypto in the United States,” Brad Garlinghouse told Protocol.

Photo: Stephen McCarthy/Sportsfile for Collision via Getty Images

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said the crypto company will move to another country if it loses in its legal battle with the SEC.

Garlinghouse said he’s confident that Ripple will prevail against the federal regulator, which accused the company of failing to register roughly $1.4 billion in XRP tokens as securities.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Policy

The Supreme Court’s EPA ruling is bad news for tech regulation, too

The justices just gave themselves a lot of discretion to smack down agency rules.

The ruling could also endanger work on competition issues by the FTC and net neutrality by the FCC.

Photo: Geoff Livingston/Getty Images

The Supreme Court’s decision last week gutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions didn’t just signal the conservative justices’ dislike of the Clean Air Act at a moment of climate crisis. It also served as a warning for anyone that would like to see more regulation of Big Tech.

At the heart of Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision in West Virginia v. EPA was a codification of the “major questions doctrine,” which, he wrote, requires “clear congressional authorization” when agencies want to regulate on areas of great “economic and political significance.”

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

Enterprise

Microsoft and Google are still using emotion AI, but with limits

Microsoft said accessibility goals overrode problems with emotion recognition and Google offers off-the-shelf emotion recognition technology amid growing concern over the controversial AI.

Emotion recognition is a well-established field of computer vision research; however, AI-based technologies used in an attempt to assess people’s emotional states have moved beyond the research phase.

Photo: Microsoft

Microsoft said last month it would no longer provide general use of an AI-based cloud software feature used to infer people’s emotions. However, despite its own admission that emotion recognition technology creates “risks,” it turns out the company will retain its emotion recognition capability in an app used by people with vision loss.

In fact, amid growing concerns over development and use of controversial emotion recognition in everyday software, both Microsoft and Google continue to incorporate the AI-based features in their products.

“The Seeing AI person channel enables you to recognize people and to get a description of them, including an estimate of their age and also their emotion,” said Saqib Shaikh, a software engineering manager and project lead for Seeing AI at Microsoft who helped build the app, in a tutorial about the product in a 2017 Microsoft video.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins