Search This Blog
Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Labels

Load More
Trendy Right Now

Popular Posts

Showing posts with label US Congress. Show all posts
US Congress
Cyber Security Data Brokers National Security Privacy Bill Threat Intelligence US Congress

Data Brokers are Preparing to Challenge Privacy Legislation

 

Congress has been attempting to crack down on data brokers, and they are fighting back. In late March, the House voted unanimously to ban the sale of Americans' data to foreign rivals. And a data-collecting provision is included in the bill reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the contentious act that authorises the National Security Agency, which is set to expire later this month. 

Negotiations over FISA's reauthorization became so heated that House Speaker Mike Johnson pulled the bill from consideration in February. The most contentious issue was an amendment proposed by Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) that would bar data brokers from selling customer data to law enforcement and require a warrant to access Americans' information, according to Politico's Influence newsletter in February. 

National security hawks in Congress and local law enforcement groups joined forces to oppose the amendment, with the National Sheriffs' Association alleging in a letter to Congress that it would "kneecap law enforcement". 

"On House amendments, the Sheriffs of this great country don't usually keep score. But on this one, we will keep score and know who our friends are by their votes against Congressman Davidson's amendment, which further erodes the rule of law in our country and empowers the cartels," the letter stated. 

With FISA about to expire at the end of the month, Congress will undoubtedly bring it up again. Some legislators have indicated that they are unlikely to support the bill unless privacy updates are included. "We must have these amendments. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), leader of the House Judiciary Committee, told Politico in February that "there's no way we're not going to have them.” 

Data brokers also seem to be entering the fight. Politico's Influence newsletter revealed that early this year, when the amendment was being discussed in the House, Relx, the parent company of data analytics company LexisNexis, based in the United Kingdom, hired the lobbying firm Venable. 

Recently, criticism of other Relx subsidiaries' data collecting and distribution policies has also surfaced. The New York Times revealed in March that a number of automakers were providing LexisNexis Risk Solutions with driving records of their clients, who then sold the data to insurance firms.
Read more »
US Congress
Data Spying FBI National Security Privacy US Congress

White House Panel Recommends Restricting the FBI's Access to spy Data

FBI spying

A team of national security experts created by the Biden administration has advised that the FBI be restricted from accessing surveillance data that captures communications by Americans. The Presidential Intelligence Advisory Board gave the basis for this proposal as frequent failings by the agency.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702 

The panel examined Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which permits the US intelligence agency to collect information on non-US citizens believed to be located outside the US. The section is slated to expire on December 31 unless Congress renews it. The board determined that this portion is a vital national security tool.

However, the program also records conversations with or about US citizens and businesses. US intelligence services can then search the data trove by entering Americans' names, phone numbers, and email addresses in what is known as "US person queries." Critics call this method of eavesdropping on Americans' personal information — and even their communications — a "back-door search."

Congressional Renewal in Question 

With reforms, the surveillance authority will be renewed by Congress. Republicans have joined Democrats, civil liberties groups, and industry titans such as Alphabet Inc.'s Google and Apple Inc. in criticizing Section 702.

The White House will review all of the board's recommendations, according to a senior administration official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity, with particular attention being paid to the first: dropping the FBI's ability to examine the Section 702 database for proof of crimes that aren't associated with national security.

Findings of the Panel 

Nonetheless, the advisory group ruled that "Section 702 authorities are critical to national security and do not jeopardize civil liberties, so long as the necessary culture, processes, and oversight are in place." 
The board observed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which receives 4% of the data captured under Section 702, engaged in frequent noncompliance with the law's standards. This problem board members attributed to carelessness rather than purposeful data misuse.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Deputy Jon Finer stated that the provision "should be reauthorized without new and operationally damaging restrictions on reviewing intelligence lawfully collected by the government, and with measures that build on proven reforms to enhance compliance and oversight, among other improvements."

This development draws attention to the ongoing debate over privacy and national security. While surveillance programs are necessary for national security, it is critical to guarantee that they do not violate civil liberties. The White House panel's recommendation to limit FBI access to surveillance data is a step in the right direction toward reconciling these two interests.

How Congress reacts to these recommendations and whether Section 702 is renewed remains to be seen. In any event, this development highlights the significance of transparency and accountability in government monitoring activities.
Read more »
US Congress
Cyber Security Data Kids Safety Online Safety Safety Security US Congress

Fight over Kids Online Safety Act Sparks Debate, as Bill Gains Support in Congress

 

The Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, is a newly reintroduced legislation aimed at improving the mental health and safety of children by imposing restrictions on tech companies. Although it is gaining support in Congress, civil liberties groups are increasingly opposing it, arguing that the bill would undermine free speech and online privacy protections. 

Under KOSA, platforms would be required to prevent users under 17 from accessing content that promotes harmful behaviors like eating disorders and suicide. They would also need to provide parents with tools to monitor their children's platform use, including safety settings. Additionally, companies would have to allow independent audits and grant academic researchers access to data to better understand how social media is affecting young people. 

The latest version of KOSA, which was first introduced by Senators Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee last year, specifies the duty of care aspect to only apply to tech companies for harms such as eating disorders, suicide, and data collection. Furthermore, the bill includes explicit protections for support services like suicide help hotlines, schools, and educational software.

“I think our bill is clarified and improved,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said at a press conference Tuesday that also included groups and parents supporting the bill. “We’re not going to solve all of the problems of the world with a single bill but we are making a measurable, very significant start.”

Several advocacy groups, including the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and Fairplay, along with parent and youth advocates, have expressed their support for KOSA legislation. During a press conference, parents who lost their children in social media-related incidents also spoke in favor of the bill. However, some critics of the bill have argued that the proposed changes do not address their concerns. 

 “If an attorney general wants to argue that trans kids talking about going to a protest is making other kids depressed, they can do that,” says Fight for the Future director Evan Greer.

Additionally, the bill does not provide clear guidelines on what counts as mitigation or prevention resources, leaving companies at risk of liability or discouraging them from recommending content on that topic. In the past, companies have been shown to opt for the latter option in similar situations, as demonstrated by the passage of SESTA-FOSTA in 2018. 

“There are two fatal flaws in this bill,” said Greer. “One is a misunderstanding of how platforms will react to this liability and the other is a fundamental misunderstanding of how technology works.”
 
The group requested a meeting with Blumenthal's office to discuss their concerns, but their requests were ignored. Blumenthal's office did not respond to the question about the meeting requests. The ACLU, which Blumenthal said the lawmakers had met with, also still opposes the law. 

“KOSA’s core approach still threatens the privacy, security and free expression of both minors and adults by deputizing platforms of all stripes to police their users and censor their content under the guise of a ‘duty of care,'” said Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “KOSA would be a step backwards in making the internet a safer place for children and minors.”

Despite its critics, the bill appears to be outpacing other online safety efforts in Congress. The bill now has over 30 cosponsors in the Senate, more than double the last time it was introduced. Blumenthal says that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., backs the legislation and a vote is a question of timing. “I fully hope and expect to have a vote this session,” Blumenthal said.

“Giving extremist governors the power to decide what content is safe for kids online is a nonstarter,” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., wrote in a statement to CyberScoop. “However, I share the sponsors’ goal of making the internet safer for children and appreciate the bill’s effort to limit addictive design features targeted at children. I urge my colleagues to focus on elements that will truly protect kids, rather than handing MAGA Republicans more power to wage their culture war against kids.”

The proposed KOSA bill, which aims to enhance children's safety, does not have a counterpart in the House and may face opposition from younger and more progressive members. It is one of many bills focused on children's safety that has garnered attention from civil society groups, with KOSA receiving the most support. Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to discuss another bill, the EARN IT Act, which seeks to prevent online exploitation of children but has raised concerns about its potential impact on free speech and encryption. 

A coalition of 132 organizations has written to Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin and ranking member Lindsey Graham, urging them to reject the bill. Durbin has also introduced similar legislation, the STOP CSAM Act, but it is not expected to be discussed this week. 

Additionally, a new bill introduced by a Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, Katie Britt, R-Ala., and Chris Murphy, D-Conn. would prohibit social media for children under 13 and require parental consent for those under 18.
Read more »
User Privacy
Cyber Security cyber threat Illegal spying Surveillance Tool US Congress User Privacy

The Most Controversial Surveillance Device Used By The FBI Is In Danger

 

Congress is currently embroiled in a heated debate about the US government's ability to spy on its own citizens. And as this battle develops, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's fiercest adversaries on Capitol Hill are not simply reformers merely looking to curtail its power. The recent election has given a number of legislators greater power, and they are now attempting to significantly limit how the FBI investigates crimes. 
 
At a critical juncture for the US intelligence community, new information on the FBI's violations of limitations on the use of foreign intelligence for domestic offences has come to light. The government is allowed to intercept the electronic communications of foreign targets who are not covered by the Fourth Amendment under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the so-called crown jewel of US intelligence. 

At the end of the year, that authorization will expire. However, mistakes in the FBI's secondary use of the data—the investigation of crimes committed on US soil—are expected to fuel an already ferocious discussion about whether law enforcement officials can be trusted with such an invasive instrument.

A routine audit by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) national security division and the office of the director of national intelligence (ODNI), America's "top spy," has been key to this conflict because it has uncovered new instances of the FBI breaking regulations limiting access to intelligence purportedly gathered to safeguard US national security. They claimed that there have been "many" instances of such "errors."

According to an audit assessment that was just recently made public, FBI agents often searched raw FISA data without authorization in the first half of 2020. Agents apparently looked for evidence of foreign influence connected to a US politician in one instance. In another, a local political party was the subject of an improper search. According to the report, these "mistakes" were caused by "misunderstandings" of the legislation in both instances. 

The report claims that between December 2019 and May 2020, FBI agents searched FISA databases using "only the name of a US congressman," a search that was later determined to be "noncompliant" with legal requirements. However, some searches were "overly broad as constructed," according to investigators, even though they were "reasonably likely to return foreign intelligence information." 

In a another incident, the FBI conducted searches using "local political party names" despite the fact that a relationship to foreign intelligence was "not reasonably likely." The DOJ offered an explanation for the mistakes, claiming that FBI agents "misunderstood" the search protocols and that they were "thereafter reminded of how to correctly apply the query guidelines." These are the errors that, in the end, will be used as ammo in the upcoming conflict to curtail the FBI's authority. 

Although disturbing, the misuse, according to Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center for Justice's national security programme at the New York University School of Law, was totally anticipated. "The door is opened to monitoring based on race, religion, politics, or other inadmissible characteristics," she claims when the government is permitted to access Americans' private communications without a warrant. 

Raw Section 702 data contains unredacted information about Americans, as it is considered to be "unminimized" even though a significant portion of it is derived "downstream" from internet businesses like Google. High-level approval is needed to "unmask" it for spy agencies like the CIA and NSA. But the FBI routinely goes through unminimized data during investigations, as well as frequently before launching them, in a practice that privacy and civil liberties attorneys have dubbed a "backdoor search." In order to allay concerns, the US Congress changed FISA to need a court order in cases that are only criminal in nature. But it was revealed years later that the FBI had never requested authorization from the judge. 

Following disclosures that a secret court had approved a wiretap on a former campaign assistant of then-presidential nominee Donald Trump in October 2016, as part of the FBI's investigation into Russian election interference, FISA eavesdropping came under increased Republican scrutiny. Despite the fact that there were multiple FBI mistakes, the wiretap application was hastily accepted even though an inspector general's report later established sufficient grounds for the investigation. 

The FISA Amendments Act initially passed Section 702 in 2008, and it was more recently extended until December 31, 2023—notably, it is not used to authorise the wiretap itself. To further extend the authority, Congress must take a vote by the end of the year. With Republicans like Jim Jordan, a leading FBI critic, opposing a prompt reauthorization, and the Biden administration pressing for one, this deadline will undoubtedly spark a debate about government monitoring that will last the rest of the year. 

As per research by Demand Progress, the recently revealed blunders are not the first in FBI history. According to declassified court papers, the bureau is suspected of carrying out thousands of illegal searches beginning in 2017 and continuing at least until 2019. For instance, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court stated in a 2018 memorandum that the FBI's minimization methods, "as they have been executed," were inconsistent with neither the FISA standards nor the Fourth Amendment itself. 

Additionally, it has disregarded rules that were approved in 2018 and called for a court order before using Section 702 data for domestic criminal investigations. Prior to November 2020, an oversight review revealed, for example, that the FBI had carried out 40 searches without the required authorization. These searches covered a variety of topics, including organised crime, health care fraud, public corruption, and bribery.

An earlier DOJ audit, which was declassified in August 2021, revealed that, in one case, an intelligence analyst had carried out "batch queries" of FISA-acquired data at the FBI's request, using the personal information of "multiple current and former United States government officials, journalists, and political commentators." Although the analyst made an effort to delete the US material, it claimed that occasionally they "accidentally failed" to do so.
Read more »
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)