There won’t be progress on the cyber front without collaboration between government and industry, state and industry officials agreed Wednesday at an Information Technology Industry Council event. “Self-preservation” often incentivizes companies not to seek government aid in breaches, said Florida Chief Information Officer James Grant. He cited industry’s fear of losing jobs, or shame over cyberincidents: “We have to establish trust that threat actors don’t care about branches or divisions of government, and we are only as strong as our weakest vulnerability.” Entities need to “get away from victim-blaming,” said Texas Chief Information Officer Amanda Crawford. “There is no silver bullet for any of this, so we need to understand there isn’t a shame to this. You need to be able to report and get back on your feet.” Texas successfully responded to a 2019 ransomware attack because it had a statewide cyber plan, she said, noting Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) declaration of a state of disaster, the first time a cyberincident triggered that. The ultimate goal should be statewide and citywide visibility of threats, consistent reporting and rapid response, said Cisco's U.S. Sled Systems Engineering Director Mike Witzman. “We really welcome that industry partnership with government.” He said government and organizations should implement multifactor authentication and zero trust architecture as standards.
Karl Herchenroeder
Karl Herchenroeder, Associate Editor, is a technology policy journalist for publications including Communications Daily. Born in Rockville, Maryland, he joined the Warren Communications News staff in 2018. He began his journalism career in 2012 at the Aspen Times in Aspen, Colorado, where he covered city government. After that, he covered the nuclear industry for ExchangeMonitor in Washington. You can follow Herchenroeder on Twitter: @karlherk
The FTC doesn’t have the authority to make competition rules, FTC Commissioner Noah Phillips said Tuesday during a U.S. Chamber of Commerce livestream. It wasn’t Congress’ intent to give unelected bureaucrats on the commission the power to pass rules that affect “virtually the entire economy,” which is “very much contemplated” in President Joe Biden’s executive order on competition, he said. “These are legislative judgments, and even if Congress wants to make a mistake, those are mistakes for Congress to make.”
The Senate Commerce Committee aims to vote on Alvaro Bedoya’s FTC nomination in early February, an aide told us. The committee had expected a vote this week before the Senate shifted its recess, the aide said.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 16-6 Thursday to advance to the floor a bill that would ban Big Tech platforms from self-preferencing products (see 2201140049). Despite calls from tech companies and Republicans for a legislative hearing, Senate Antitrust Subcommittee Chair Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., told us she’s focused on getting the bill to the floor.
Illinois Democrats introduced a bill Wednesday to allow app developers to deal directly with customers and avoid app store fees from Apple and Google. This is similar to a bipartisan bill the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up soon. Sponsors of the Illinois bill told us legislators in Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Rhode Island and North Dakota are having similar conversations.
Their agencies hope to issue joint takeover guidelines this year, DOJ Antitrust Division Chief Jonathan Kanter announced with FTC Chair Lina Khan Tuesday. The rise in mergers and acquisitions has been a key driver in consolidation, including in tech, and the M&A guidelines should reflect modern challenges, they told a livestreamed news conference.
Sponsors of a bill that would ban Big Tech platforms from self-preferencing their products are optimistic about passage, but two Republican holdouts shared reservations in interviews last week. The American Innovation and Choice Online Act (S-2992) is set for markup Thursday after being held over one week. The bill would bar dominant platforms from acting to prevent rival products from competing on their platforms.
The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the nomination of Katherine Vidal to lead the Patent and Trademark Office on a 17-5 vote Thursday. Voting no: Jon Ossoff, D-Ga.; Josh Hawley, R-Mo.; John Kennedy, R-La.; Ted Cruz, R-Texas; and Mike Lee, R-Utah. Kennedy, the only opposing voter to speak on the nomination, said Vidal gave nonanswers to his questions about Big Tech’s influence over the PTO. He voted against prior nominees because they’re “in the pockets” of Big Tech, he said. Kennedy said Big Tech “doesn’t like” patents because they interfere with market dominance. Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told Kennedy: “I don’t want to step on any news that will be issued after this meeting, but buckle your seatbelt. This committee is going to be taking some forays into the field you just mentioned.” Durbin is a co-sponsor of S-2992, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, which the committee held over Thursday, as expected (see 2201110053). Durbin called Vidal a “well-qualified” nominee with a deep understanding of the PTO. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., voiced his support for Vidal, saying she will continue the “reforms” started by former Director Andrei Iancu (see 2201050046) for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Big Tech. He credited Iancu for “going after” Big Tech, which is making it difficult for small innovators to protect intellectual property. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., agreed with Tillis.
DOJ’s inspector general highlighted “significant” concerns about the department’s intelligence gathering efforts for the discredited Steele dossier, the nominee to lead the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board told the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday. The dossier by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent linked to the Hillary Clinton campaign, alleged Trump-Russia-linked interference in the 2016 presidential election. The IG’s reports were “very convincing” and detailed 17 omissions or errors in the IC’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications, said Sharon Bradford Franklin during her confirmation hearing.
The FTC provided stronger evidence supporting its case against Facebook, and Chair Lina Khan doesn’t need to recuse herself, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. He threw out the social media network’s attempt to dismiss the case, as was expected (see 2108240059). The agency’s newly presented facts fortify its theories, particularly about claims about Facebook’s social networking monopoly, wrote U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in 1:20-cv-03590 (Pacer). The FTC alleged Facebook has a monopoly in personal social networking services and unlawfully maintained that monopoly. Facebook bought rivals Instagram and WhatsApp and unlawfully implemented policies preventing interoperability between Facebook and apps it viewed as nascent threats, the FTC argued. In its amended complaint, the agency presented “detailed factual allegations” and multiple metrics to show Facebook’s market dominance, wrote Boasberg. Facebook argued commissioners' vote authorizing the complaint was invalid because Khan showed prejudgment against the company in her work before joining the agency. Khan was “acting in a prosecutorial capacity, as opposed to in a judicial role, in connection with the vote” and therefore didn’t violate any ethical rules, wrote Boasberg, also as expected. The company didn’t comment.