This entry was originally posted on the blog at Foresight Resilience Strategies here.
As long-time cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier points out, even if every single person takes the advice of experts and protects themselves through credit freezes, it will not change the business model for data brokers; change may require legislation. With a sufficient legislative and regulatory response, consumers will have less to fear from future breaches. On the other hand, businesses worry about the impacts of a regulatory approach in the cybersecurity arena. What follows is a deeper examination of what proposals have already emerged and a survey of approaches that might eventually become solutions.
Regulatory Landscape: The Patchwork Nature of Existing Controls on Information
The current regulatory environment around companies maintaining large data stores about individuals primarily as a third party (that is, without interacting directly with individuals) is fairly atomized and incomplete. The primary law governing the credit bureaus is the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FCRA imposes requirement on Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion as well as some more sector specific information organizations (such as Innovis, LexisNexis, and Telecheck).
Under the FCRA these consumer reporting agencies must offer the chance for consumers to access their records and correct them. Any obligation to protect the information in those files is generally limited to a duty to correct or delete incorrect information. In addition, the covered organization can face liability for intentionally releasing a consumer’s credit information to a third party without the consent of the consumer. Consumer reporting agencies have no general obligation to provide some minimum level of protection to the consumer’s information from unauthorized access. In other words, if a hacker calls the bureau and successfully requests a consumer’s information, the credit bureau has liability under the FCRA; if the credit bureau leaves that information on an insecure server and the same hacker accesses and downloads it, the credit bureau has no liability.
There are a series of other laws that cover specific types of information: For healthcare information held by covered entities, there is the HIPAA Privacy Rule; for information about children, there is COPPA. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in addition to its responsibilities under the FCRA and COPPA, can pursue “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce” but that requires some evidence of deception. If the company says it will share your personal information with others for profit and then does so, there is no deception. Some of these mechanisms, especially a consumer protection mission similar to that of the FTC, exist in state attorneys general offices as well.
All of these authorities form an incomplete patchwork that means that even in the egregious situation we find in the Equifax breach, in which so many consumers are affected and it seems likely that the security practices of the company were insufficient, there may not be direct liability for failing to provide a basic level of security for consumers.
Data Breach Notification Requirements are Nearly Ubiquitous
At the state level, the most directly relevant form of regulation for events like the Equifax breach are data breach notification laws. Data breach notification laws prescribe how a company that has had a breach must notify the public. Some researchers have credited the nearly ubiquitous data breach notification mandates in U.S. states with creating a culture of transparency. Data breach notifications have driven greater privacy awareness within the U.S. business community, especially when compared with other countries that have more prescriptive privacy laws on their books.
A national data breach notification standard would help in some ways by adding enforcement at the federal level to the system we have now. There was nearly a national data breach notification law passed in 2015 and that bill has now been reintroduced in response to the Equifax breach. It is too early to determine its fate.
Data breach notification has had a positive effect but it seems unlikely that adding a national layer to the requirement will drive additional change in how businesses handle personal data. Data breach notification attempts to close the barn door after the horse has already escaped by imposing requirements on the after-action activities. It does not impose requirement for what companies must do before the breach occurs. Bad practices and a lack of incentives to protect your information are what led to this problem and regulation of those practices is the only way to ensure they improve.
At least one other proposal does the necessary work of improving the FCRA by increasing transparency for consumers and making it easier to seek remedies. This doesn’t change the fundamental lack of protection for consumers’ information before the fact.
How Could Congress Respond?
Legislative proposals to respond to the Equifax breach should regulate what companies that keep personally identifiable information do with that information. One current legislative proposal from Senators Markey, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, and Franken starts to focus on these elements of consumer privacy for the data broker industry. It carves out data brokers already regulated under the FCRA from most of its access, disclosure, and notice provisions. It does not except covered data brokers from the bill’s requirement that companies develop a security plan to protect consumers’ personal information against loss, unauthorized access, use, modification, destruction, or disclosure.
The previous Administration contemplated a more complete implementation of privacy principles into law, recognizing that consumers needed a more complete set of protections than the patchwork found in current law. That draft covered a broader swath of companies and imposed a more complete set of requirements including notice to consumer, consent, access, integrity, security, and enforcement. The proposal mostly relied on a reasonableness standard to determine the way a covered entity could comply with the requirements in each of those areas. It also introduced the concept of safe harbors that would rely on a certified set of privacy practices developed in multistakeholder processes (several have been completed) certified by the Federal Trade Commission.
The Challenge for Industry and Legislators
The Equifax breach is the perfect storm of a security incident:
- The breach broadly impacts the security of the personal information of potentially the majority of U.S. adults,
- Equifax collected and mishandled this sensitive information without ever asking the consumers’ permission, and
- The breach included sensitive data that, unlike a breach involving passwords, consumers cannot easily change
The message that Congress takes from this breach will determine whether it will drive changes to the business practices in this industry. To the extent that the public considers this breach business as usual, Congress will likely restrict its activities to hearings on the topic. Should a larger awareness of the dangers of identity theft from this breach cause a stronger movement for a solution that will try and address the problem before breaches occur, Congress may break the logjam on data breach notification legislation or even go further than that toward substantive privacy or cybersecurity regulation.
The rites of post-election spring in D.C. are constant. Newly elected politicians struggling to get a handle on their job. The blooming of new rumors with regards to who is taking what undersecretary job and who is against them. Like the cherry blossoms bursting forth here in April, it is a dependable ritual.
Another cherished ritual is trying to figure out exactly what kind of policy direction the new Administration needs to pursue on infinitely complex matters – ones that seemed so easy in the campaign. In the case of cyber space and the U.S. intentions and actions therein, it is extraordinarily complicated.
New issues – 21st century issues – are hard to deal with in D.C. This town was born in World War II and its bureaucratic structure is a tribute to mid-20th century organization charts – layered and stove-piped. And they certainly not meant to deal with private sector issues beyond taxation and regulation. But, the cyber world we live in today hardly fits the U.S. Government model.
President Obama was the first to experience cyber space – and its connecting systems of the internet – full blast. Within his eight years, Obama was whipsawed by a world-wide social media explosion, the rapid decline of “old media” information providers, an acceleration of the decline of traditional “brick and mortar” business replaced by virtual offices, and a rapidly expanding “gig economy” for a new generation of young people.
The Obama Administration also experienced a domain in which America lost its position as the dominant player – with less than ten percent of the world’s users and shrinking — that could be outmatched and outwitted by smaller, more agile players from North Korea to groups like Anonymous and WikiLeaks. They exposed our public and private secrets. They reached into our inadequately secured systems. And they did it with relative impunity.
Other larger nation states sensing our vulnerability – particularly Russia and China – have used cyber space to their advantage. While controlling its use over its own population, Moscow and Beijing have gleefully used it to steal our secrets and to exercise power in our elections. They have literally built armies to exploit this new domain. America might be powerful on land, sea, air, and space. But we are more than equaled by them in cyber space.
At home, complicating our actions has been the development of a huge cyber culture. Eighty-five percent of cyber space is held in private hands. Five of the six top U.S. companies by market worth are tech firms ranging from Apple to Facebook to Microsoft. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Bill Gates are household names. And with them has come a libertarian generation who view all government as inept, and value information security above issues of national security.
So, What Is a Government to Do?
The Obama Administration did what governments traditionally do. They reacted big time. They set up “public-private partnerships.” The cleaved a Cyber Command out of the body of the NSA. They engaged in a series of meetings with international players – governments and corporations – to establish rules of the road in cyber space. And they set up department functions at FBI, DHS, and elsewhere to address specific issues with another in a line of relatively powerless White House czars – always forgetting what happened to the last czar of Russia.
And after all that effort, how is the USG doing? Well, the Russians stuck their noses deeply and freely into their first American election. Security in cyber space remains somewhat of a joke with endless breaches and continued thievery of information. The public-private partnership is a morass of disappointment for both the public and private sector. The internal USG bureaucratic struggles march onward over who is in charge of what and can reach out to whom. Mark Zuckerberg, further solidifying America’s cyber culture, wants to run for President. And we have a President who tweets.
It seems to me the time has come to establish a clear U.S. based doctrine for cyberspace. What does the USG want for our country from cyber space? In the Cold War, we pursued a series of strategies around a doctrine of Containment. We did not want the USSR to make the world communist. We would not allow another country to become communist. We would try to change over the ones that were. And we wanted to tip over the USSR. Not easy. Lots of failed strategies and some pretty successful ones. Took nearly 45 years. But we did it.
So, what about a Cyber Doctrine that simply says America needs to protect itself and its interests at home to maintain a free and secure internet for Americans – a National Cyber Security Doctrine.
First of all, recognize it’s going to take time to build success and we need to be flexible. We are in the earliest stages of cyber world. It’s like trying to determine air power strategy in 1914. In 20 years, we’ve gone from dial-up modems to the Internet of Things. Artificial intelligence is just in its infancy. We don’t know what we don’t know.
Second, understand that we are simply internationally outgunned on this one. There are four billion users of cyber space and the number continues to rise every day. There are 325 million Americans. We are big. But China and India are bigger. And so are the populations of the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. And most of them don’t have a libertarian viewpoint of the world. We can continue negotiating internationally, but it is going to do little good for now.
Third, the White House needs to ask what can government do to make a secure and free internet at home. Follow the money. Appoint a National Cyber Director based in the Office of Management and Budget and as part of the National Security Council who will direct with money and program control over what the USG will do and will not do. That money and program power is crucial. Otherwise, no one in the USG will pay attention to them one bit.
Fourth, and finally, stay out of the direct intervention business with the private sector. Stay above the fray. You set standards. Provide tax breaks to get corporations and people truly interested in developing security for cyber space. Set legal penalties for when they don’t. For instance, the Internet Service Providers have been lax regarding security practices by their customers. (When is the last time you changed your password into something secure, not 123546 or password.)
A USG focused on security and access to cyber space at home is the best approach in a domain over which we have little practical control. Sometimes doing a little is the hardest thing to do. But a restrained National Cyber Doctrine is much better than doing too much.
This post is co-authored by Scott Somers and Raphael M. Barishansky.
Since 9/11, firearms have accounted for 95 percent of all deaths from domestic terrorism. While IEDs remain relatively rare in the U.S. when compared with armed attack, the Boston Marathon bombing (2013) and the recent explosions in Manhattan and New Jersey (2016) warn of a growing domestic threat. Both tactics produce mass trauma casualties.
Advances in battlefield trauma care and medical technology during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in a sharp reduction in preventable deaths in those conflicts. First-responder combat medics and corpsmen are better trained and equipped to address bullet and shrapnel wounds.
Law enforcement agencies have also adapted their tactics for violent mass casualty incidents. After the Columbine High School Shooting, police departments adopted a more aggressive response in which officers immediately pursue and neutralize an aggressor rather than waiting for a SWAT team. This change was supported by significant enhancements in officer training and equipment.
By comparison, the emergency medical services (EMS) response to violent mass casualty incidents has been slower to adapt. EMS curricula, standards and policies still largely dictate that field EMS providers wait until police mitigate the threat before entering to treat victims. While EMS responders wait for a secure scene, the injured are not receiving care resulting in potentially preventable trauma-related disability and death. Critics point to the Aurora theater shooting to suggest that some lives might have been saved had a more proactive emergency medical response procedure been in place.
To be fair, the need for better field EMS response has not gone unaddressed. Guidelines from the DHS Office of Health Affairs, US Fire Administration, and Interagency Board are just a few examples of resources developed for medical first responders. And law enforcement has begun training officers in Tactical Combat Casualty Care. But greater Federal leadership is needed to support training and equipping local, regional, and tribal field EMS providers for violent mass casualty response.
The White House should set an explicit goal. The National Academy of Science will soon recommend that the White House set a national aim of achieving zero preventable deaths after injury and minimizing trauma-related disability. Reducing morbidity and mortality among violent incident casualties would be a logical component of this goal. However, the current national Counter IED strategy makes no mention of either field EMS or the trauma care system.
The Federal Interagency Committee on EMS (FICEMS) should take the lead. A significant barrier to coordinating preparedness in the pre-hospital arena is that EMS sits at the crossroads of public health, health care, and public safety. There is no designated lead federal agency for EMS. As a consequence, the federal government has not set standards for EMS performance in the homeland security mission and some EMS provider types have received as little as four percent of DHS preparedness funding.
Congress mandated creation of the FICEMS to ensure interaction among Federal agencies in support of EMS and 9-1-1 systems. Its mission is to coordinate projects across the Federal government.
Improving field EMS interaction and interoperability during violent mass casualty incidents must be a high-priority initiative for FICEMS. FICEMS is also well-positioned to establish a cross-disciplinary effort to collect, analyze and validate best practices for pre-hospital and hospital-based response to violent mass casualty incidents, from bystander actions to field treatments and surgical care. FICEMS must also advocate among its members for proper funding for integration of all EMS provider types into the homeland security mission.
The FDA must be a partner in this process. Innovations from military medicine, such as redesigned tourniquets and utilization of hemostatic agents, have helped save lives. These treatments are supported by a large body of uncontrolled clinical evidence. FICEMS and the FDA should facilitate prehospital inclusion in randomized controlled trials of innovative trauma care.
Scott Somers, Ph.D., is a CCHS senior fellow with over 20 years in emergency medical services. He was formerly a member of the National EMS Advisory Council.
Raphael M. Barishansky, MPH, MS, CPM, is a CCHS senior fellow with over 20 years of experience in emergency medical services and public health preparedness.
Americans really don’t get the Russians. We are a people who pride themselves on divided government, openness, and the exposure of corruption – almost to the point of obsession. The Internet has allowed those truly American attitudes an even greater sway in the its body politic. Now, everyone can be their own “loudspeaker of truth.” In Russia, the story is quite the opposite.
Russia has a 500-year history of oppression from their “leadership.” It started with Czar Ivan the Terrible and continues today under Czar Vladimir the First. Russia is country run by central control; a state that views opposition as criminal and traitorous. And one of the most important parts of state power is controlling what people “think” through the information they are provided.
Thanks to the Internet, the Russians can more easily manipulate information than ever before. And Moscow is now applying gleefully that ability to their overseas goals. Most recently, Moscow been accused by Washington of desiring to control and influence our Presidential elections. And to a limited extent, Moscow have succeeded by the very effort. In the domain of worldwide Internet, perception is reality.
This type of information manipulation for political result is not new. In the Cold War between the U.S. and Russia, perception was often reality. The United States used covert means to supply information to friendly overseas sources to reinforce its positions. Occasionally, such as in Vietnam, it even deluded itself and the American people into believing that a limited, winnable war was possible.
The KGB, Russia’s Cold War spy service, was expert at planting damaging information about the U.S. around the world. It was a way of undermining our influence and the perception of wrong doing was all that mattered in the war of minds. Sometimes it worked quite well and the damage persists to this day. For instance, it was the KGB that floated the idea that American experiments to dominate the Third World created AIDS.
And so it goes today. We deal with Russia relying on old habits reinforced and facilitated with new technologies. The Internet with its hidden corners of attribution is a hard place in which to fight rumor and innuendo. Instantaneous transmission makes it impossible to control or counter the initial message. The very fact the Russian are releasing information about American candidates is damaging to the perceived integrity of our elections. The idea they could fool with our vote count is even more upsetting to the legitimacy of an already spooked electorate.
So, the first game of perception management goes to the Russians. There will be a section of the U.S. population already unhappy with the election results that will forever believe the system is now vulnerable to massive rigging. The reality is that there are several thousand different voting systems – ranging from paper ballots to electronic voting gear rarely updated to the 21st century. Hacking on a mass scale is unlikely though some minor efforts may be made. But that does not really matter. Even a few hacking attempts could be enough to poison perceptions.
So, for this round, the Russians have won an American election. It will be up to a new Administration to make Moscow pay for this interference. The games have only just begun.
For those of us of a certain age, The Godfather movies represented a cultural touchstone and an endless source of “tough guy” quotes. “Leave the gun, take the cannoli.” “I’ll make him an offer he can not refuse.” And, my favorite as one of the lead characters ruefully comments on another’s death, “this is the business we have chosen.”
When I heard about the Yahoo data breach of some 500 million accounts, I was expecting public outrage. What I’ve seen from the public so far is a shrug of the shoulders and a sigh. For cyberspace, leaked information seems to be the cost of doing business. And, so far, the public seems willing to accept it.
I think this dull reaction is a combination of three problems – two technical and one social. The first is the ubiquity of an Internet that was never meant to do what it is doing. Security was not a consideration because the original development was done in national security installations. Thus the issues of outsider break-in and insider threat were not really considered. We are retrofitting security, which makes people feel better – more complex passwords and anti-hacking systems galore. But they are expensive and it is hard to judge their effectiveness versus their cost. But it appears to be a panacea to many concerns for many concern for now.
There also remains in the socially powerful Silicon Valley – a producer of much security software — an interesting 1960’s attitude toward free sharing of information and anti-government interference. This has produced a generation of younger libertarian people who expect their information to be protected from government surveillance and is outraged at government efforts to “surveil” them. In consternation to my generation of national security types, the breaches don’t seem to bother them as much.
The third problem is simply the problem of the public’s lowered expectations. The continuous drumbeat of breaches from OPM to Sony to Yahoo and hundreds of others have conditioned the public to accept this level of lax security. And until individuals are hit with some sort of personal cost – stolen credit card charges, fake bank accounts, and damaged credit – the cost does not really come home.
Some like former NSA head Michael Hayden have suggested a “high side” secure Internet. Many others are adopting forms of encryption – much to the pain of a government charged with national security in an Internet age when the bad guys use the Net.
So, unless there is some form of real and extensive public outrage, we are likely to continue in this pattern of a stream of security breaches and temporary wringing of hands. This may be the cyber business we have chosen, but paraphrasing The Godfather characters, it’s about time we make the illegal hackers an offer they can’t refuse.”
The cyber hack of the Democratic National Committee, and the subsequent release of 19,000 e-mails by Wikileaks, is the leading political news story today, with the news media reporting on ignominious details from many of the e-mails, and the DNC Chairwoman resigning her position at least in part as the result of these e-mails. Moreover, numerous reports indicate that many experts and government officials believe that one or more Russian intelligence agencies are behind the hack, using Wikileaks as a cut-out to disseminate the e-mails.
This cyber hack and data dump is the latest in a series of similar such attacks against organizations and individuals over the past few years, including the Sony hack in 2014 (reportedly carried out by North Korea), the hack of CIA Director John Brennan’s personal e-mail account in 2015, and hacks and massive data dumps of informaion from private sector companies such as Stratfor, HBGary, and Hacking Team. In each of these cases, and especially with Sony, the news media reported not just on the fact of the hack but also on the contents of the stolen and leaked information. This reporting has magnified the impact of all of these hacks, helping the hackers and leakers to achieve the intended consequences of their efforts, and thus implicitly encouraging future hacks and data dumps.
This trend raises serious questions as to how the news media should act with respect to hacked information:
1. Should the news media be reporting at all on the content of stolen, hacked information? Would news media outlets report on materials that had been physically stolen from companies’ offices? If not, then why is cyber different?
2. If the answer to the question above is ‘yes’, are there limits on what should be reported on? Is “newsworthiness” enough? Should there be some standard of wrong-doing (criminal activity, corruption, etc.) as the basis for reporting, similar to standards for whistle-blowing within the US Government?
3. Should the news media exercise different degrees of restraint depending upon the target of the hack, i.e. whether it is a government agency, corporation, non-profit organization or individual?
4. How should information about the likely perpetrator of the hack influence decisions by the news media about what to publish? For example, with respect to the DNC hack, it appears probable that a foreign intelligence service is conducting an operation that is intended to undermine and influence the democratic process in the U.S. Does the U.S. news media really want to be in the role of facilitating such an operation?
5. How should the additional factor of a criminal investigation or indictment influence decisions by the news media to report on the leaked content from hacks?
These issues are as deserving of discussion within the news media as the content of the leaks themselves. While there is no feasible way to completely restrain dissemination of hacked information from such leaks, given the proliferation of blogs and independent news media outlets over the last decade, I would hope that mainstream news media outlets would develop a self-enforced code of conduct and set of policies for reporting on such hacked information, guided by the core principle that information from a cyber hack is the ill-gotten gain of a criminal act and should be treated with the same restraint as information purloined from the burglary of an office suite.
If we continue to see broad-based reporting by the media on hacked information, however, then there is a strong risk that this cycle of hack and leak will only grow worse, in a way that not only harms the hacked organizations but undermines American interests and values.
Last September, during his State Visit in Washington, China’s President Xi Jinping committed (see paragraph 48) to President Obama that China would not conduct or support cybertheft to benefit China’s economic competitiveness. President Xi then took that non-binding commitment with the United States on the road and became its primary advocate, culminating in the inclusion of similar language in the Antalya Communiqué agreed by the leaders of the G20 in November.
As I noted on this blog (twice in September and again in December), accepting that non-binding commitment as progress delayed taking meaningful action–in the form of economic sanctions–to try and actively influence the cyber behavior of China’s state-sponsored hackers. My argument at that time, and still today, is that in adopting that non-binding commitment, the Chinese President was practicing the Art of War on the United States by making a rhetorical feint while continuing the cyber activities–state-sponsored and state-supported cybertheft of U.S. companies’ proprietary information–that violate that commitment and continue to undermine the U.S. economy.
As alluded to above, the reason President Xi felt the need to send his high-level envoy Meng Jianzhu to negotiate the non-binding commitment appears to be the widely reported fact that the Administration was readying a package of sanctions against Chinese individuals and entities. The Chinese President prefered to take on a commitment to which its government has no intention of abiding rather than face inconvenience and loss of face that sanctions would cause. If the Administration had moved forward with sanctions last fall, China would have been the first country to have its entities and citizens targeted by sanctions under President Obama’s April 2015 Executive Order announcing a national emergency on cybersecurity and authorizing such sanctions.
Now just over six months after President Xi’s State Visit during which he endorsed the norm against cybertheft, that commitment appears to have done its job completely…for China. This issue, which used to be very high on the list of difficult problems in communications between the two Presidents, barely got a mention last week when the Presidents met in Washington on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit. Based on the readout from that meeting, “[t]he President reiterated that we will continue to monitor whether Chinese actions demonstrate their adherence to the commitments.” But has anything changed that would merit continued passivity in the face of China’s cybertheft?
The best source of such information is the federal government, but it is not forthcoming about its information for obvious reasons. Still, we can look at the sources that told us there was no change toward the end of last year–both private sector and government–but there has not been much further discussion of whether this type of hacking continues through the first 3 months of 2016. Discussion about the direction of China-based intrusion sets in CrowdStrike’s 2015 Global Threat Report, released in February 2016, asserted that “[t]he economic downturn and new Five Year Plan in China will continue to drive their state-sponsored cyber espionage activities.” The report also details how the current economic cybertheft intrusion sets CrowdStrike has identified over time map to the priority economic sectors listed in China’s new Five Year Plan. And in comments to Politico last week, counsel to the Intellectual Property and Technology, Media and Telecoms group in Hong Kong suggested that there may have been an increase in cybertheft.
The Intelligence Community provided additional information this year in the Congressional testimonies of both Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper and the leader of Cyber Command and NSA Director Admiral Michael Rogers. Both concluded, in identical language in their written testimonies that, “China continues cyber espionage against the United States.” And Director Clapper further elaborated that, “China continues to have success in cyber espionage against the US Government, our allies, and US companies” (emphasis added). Clearly, China has not stopped the conduct that nearly resulted in the imposition of economic sanctions last Fall.
On that basis, the time has come for the Administration to impose such sanctions on Chinese entities and individuals. The testimonies of both IC officials, however, raises a troubling question about whether the Administration is making the situation worse for American businesses. In both Director Clapper’s testimony and in responses to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee by Admiral Rogers, the IC leaders suggested that without evidence of “…the use of exfiltrated data for commercial gain,” the jury would be out. As Admiral Rogers put it this week, “The question I think we still need to ask is, is that activity then in turn shared with the Chinese private industry?”
In fact, several reports have asserted attribution of intrusion sets focused on commercial information to Chinese state actors going back several years, but the additional burden of showing the stolen data used for specific commercial gain by Chinese industry adds a tremendous complication to any attempt to sanction Chinese cyber activities that threaten U.S. competitiveness. Such a burden would delay any such sanctions until they were far too late to be of any use. Perhaps more importantly, President Obama’s April 2015 Executive Order adopted a “reasonably likely” standard for imposing sanctions on persons or entities that engage in cybertheft. Adopting the IC’s standard–putting the onus to detect, attribute, and trace the misappropriated information through to its use by a commercial entity–is far too generous to the hackers. Combined with the reduced attention paid to the problem since President Xi’s State Visit, the adoption of this standard would render sanctions for hacking activity a dead letter.
The question the Obama Administration faces now, six months after it allowed President Xi to take the initiative, is how to regain the momentum in its fight against Chinese cybertheft. As detailed in December, the indictments of five Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) hackers by the Justice Department in May 2014 had a measurable effect on the PLA’s cybertheft activities. If that is the case, indictments against hackers from the Ministry of State Security, China’s external intelligence agency, or the Ministry of Public Security, China’s domestic police agency, could be one way forward. Indictments are not a great policy option because as a law enforcement action, it is insulated–appropriately–from the policy process. As successful as those indictments were at sending a message, using that tool on a regular basis would be difficult for an Administration to control or direct. The real hope is that the White House would look at the continued cybertheft conducted by China and revisit its decision not to impose sanctions on China immediately after President Xi’s State Visit. With significant continued cybertheft originating from China, one hopes for that reversal very soon.
Since the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, French officials have been pushing to undercut ISIS and other militant groups on a number of fronts. These measures reflect continuing concern with the threat level, as underscored in the recent Europol report on the changing tactics, techniques and procedures of ISIS.
In response to prevailing circumstances, France is working to minimize the seams between its inward and outward facing intelligence agencies. By upping information flows, the idea is “`to deepen coordination between interior and exterior intelligence services in France as well as overseas…particularly from transit zones and sanctuaries where terrorists gather who want to commit acts on [French] territory’…”. France is also walking the talk vis-à-vis partner countries, such as in West Africa, and is reported to have warned Ivory Coast and Senegalabout Islamist plans to attack cities there.
In addition to sharing information with partners in Africa, France persists in its counterterrorism activities there including Special Forces operations in Mali, and surveillance flights over Libya. While there is a definite logic to confronting militants abroad in order to help blunt their momentum, inclination and ability to attack the French homeland, continued investment in these overseas efforts is notable given the “state of economic emergency” in France declared by the President at the outset of 2016.
Invigorating the French economy is itself partly an exercise in building societal cohesion and combating violent extremism, as young people in diaspora communities within France experience relatively high levels of unemployment.
But this segment of the population is not the only one that is restive. Media reports indicate that French Jews are leaving the country “in record numbers.” There is also discontent within the broader populace, where some have called for a national commission to investigate the Paris attacks of 2015 in both January (Charlie Hebdo, kosher supermarket) and November, to better understand “what went wrong and…avoid a repeat.” The idea has yet to gain much traction within political ranks, however. And just days ago, the country’s Justice Minister stepped downbecause she disagreed with the government’s plan to amend the French constitution to allow for the revocation of citizenship from convicted dual-national terrorists.
Next steps for the bilateral relationship between France and the United States will unfold soon. Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve is scheduled to visit the United States in February to meet with Homeland Security Secretary Johnson and Attorney General Lynch, among others. Their discussion agenda is reported to include countering terrorist use of social media. The visit takes place in a broader context of challenge which French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian has described as “a new era in defense strategy,” marked by “a resurgent Russia[,]…a lack of European solidarity and war in the Middle East.”
Yesterday the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness (NJOHSP) publicly released a report entitled “Terrorism Threat Assessment 2016”, a detailed assessment of the current terrorism threat in the state of New Jersey. The report is a solid analysis of the different dimensions of the terrorist threat to the state; it concludes that homegrown violent extremists pose the greatest threat to the state in 2016, and also assesses that there is a “moderate” terrorism threat from other groups (ISIS, AQAP, white supremacists, militia groups, and sovereign citizens).
What is especially notable about the report is the fact that the state is releasing it publicly on its website, a contrast to the previous practice of marking such reports “For Official Use Only” (FOUO) and restricting their distribution narrowly to law enforcement officers, other public safety officials, executives at critical infrastructure companies, etc. This decision seems to reflect a deliberate recognition of the value in directly informing the American public about the terrorist threat, and appropriately enlisting them in efforts to detect and prevent terrorism, instead of treating them as passive bystanders. As the director of the NJOHSP notes in the foreword to the report, “Security is a collective responsibility and we are all in this fight together.”
The decision to release this report publicly warrants praise, and is a practice that the federal government and other states should emulate. For example, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation jointly release dozens of Unclassified/FOUO intelligence reports each year, the contents of which are rarely sensitive; in many instances, their findings are copied and pasted nearly verbatim from official statements about terror-related indictments. Given that these reports are already widely disseminated to state and local law enforcement and other stakeholders, there is little justification for not making them public at the outset, rather than allowing them to eventually leak to the news media, as they often do. The revised National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS), which I wrote about last month, may also provide a basis for such broader dissemination of threat information. Many state fusion centers also produce similar reports to New Jersey’s assessment, which could be publicly released.
A shift toward issuing such analyses publicly could improve the American public’s understanding about the terrorism threat, leading to several tangible benefits. As noted earlier, well-informed citizens are more likely to play a role in detecting and reporting suspicious activity and potentially then preventing the next attack. Well-informed citizens are also less likely to make inappropriate reports about activity that should not be deemed suspicious, which wastes law enforcement agencies’ time with false leads. Finally, an American public that develops a sober, fact-based understanding of terrorism threats from professional non-partisan analysts (instead of from other filtered sources: cable news, social media, Hollywood, politicians, etc.) is more likely to react in a measured and resilient way to terrorist attacks and periods of elevated threat.
By no means is such public dissemination of threat information a panacea: but if such efforts lead to an improved public understanding of the terrorism threat even among a small percentage of the U.S. population, these efforts will be more than worthwhile.
Earlier today the Department of Homeland Security publicly released a Congressionally-mandated report entitled “Entry/Exit Overstay Report, Fiscal Year 2015.” The report presents detailed country-by-country information on visa overstays for Fiscal Year 2015: data that I don’t recall being compiled or publicly released in previous years.
Two key insights from the report:
1. VWP vs. non-VWP overstay rates. Overall, the report calculates the in-country visa overstay rate for Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries at 0.65% and non-VWP countries at 1.60%. But it is notable, in taking a granular country-by-country look at the data, that many large non-VWP countries have lower overstay rates than some of the VWP countries. For example, non-VWP country China’s overstay rate is calculated at 0.89% – lower than Austria’s at 1.28%. Indonesia’s overstay rate is 1.21% – lower than Spain’s at 1.40%.
It is of course noteworthy that these are not apples to apples comparisons: the non-VWP countries’ travelers are all people applied for and were approved for visas (whereas many of their compatriots were likely rejected for visas); but travel is permitted freely (pursuant to an ESTA approval) for the vast majority of citizens of VWP countries. But in spite of this fact, it is worth looking more closely at why certain lower and middle-income countries have relatively low overstay rates, and whether there are other non-economic factors (e.g. political stability, social cohesion) that influence overstay rates and should be considered in assessing countries’ applications to join the Visa Waiver Program.
2. Assessment of pilot projects and studies. The report also provides detailed information on current and planned projects at Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that are intended to enhance efforts to reduce overstay rates. Notably, the report discusses CBP’s Biometric Exit Mobile pilot, and notes that it “has afforded a small amount of biometric departure data and provided a significant law enforcement benefit for existing outbound operations.” The report does not quantify what is meant by a “significant law enforcement benefit,” but if such biometric data collection provides a valuable means to detect fugitives and absconders, in addition to its value from a border security standpoint, then an investment to scale up such a pilot project into a nation-wide capability may be warranted.