White hat researchers look for vulnerabilities in information systems and play an increasingly crucial role in our nation’s cyber security defenses. Yet, the rules of the road for these types of “hackers” have been slow to evolve in terms of civil and criminal liability. Speakers included: Leonard Bailey – Special Counsel for National Security, Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section, U.S. Department of Justice, Harley Geiger – Director of Public Policy, Rapid7, Franck Journoud – Cybersecurity & Technology Policy, Oracle, Katie Moussouris – Founder and CEO, Luta Security, Chris Bing – Associate Editor, CyberScoop
Over 21 years ago, at the dawn of the commercial Internet, Congress passed a seemingly minor amendment to the massive Telecom Act of 1996 — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (HR 1555). HR 1555 was designed to limit liability of Internet providers for content posted by their users and also to give them a safe harbor to manage objectionable behavior on their platforms.
There is no question that with Section 230 Congress enabled the meteoric growth of the Internet. The impact of Section 230 has been showered with superlatives like “The Most Important Law in Tech” and “The Legislation That Saved the Internet.” Yet, since Section 230’s passage, it has been litigated hundreds of times. Further, hundreds of lawmakers’ bills have been introduced seeking to hold intermediaries liable for the actions of its users. In fact, there are several bills in Congress right now that seek to hold scale back Section 230’s scope including two on human trafficking.
We invite you to a discussion about Section 230 and efforts to limit the scope of the law. The panel will include legal scholars and industry representatives that rely on the law. The panel will discuss the origins of the law, the role it plays in enabling Internet services and technologies. Join us on September 8 at noon in Rayburn 2237.
- Julie Cohen – Mamolen Professorship in Law & Technology, Georgetown University Law School (Bio)
- Eric Goldman – Professor of Law and Co-director of the High Tech Law Institute, Santa Clara Law School (Bio)
- Rachel Wolbers – Policy Director, Engine (Bio)
In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in London UK Prime Minister has been at the forefront of international calls for the technology companies to do more to combat online extremism. The British Government has announced its intention to stamp out extremism “in all its forms, both across society and on the internet”. Within the United States, the Department of Homeland Security just announced a $10 million grant for two-year programming to organizations that will work to improve security in our communities and thwart terrorism. Countering-Violence Extremism, specifically online, is the effort to proactively counter efforts by extremist groups to recruit and radicalize followers worldwide. This effort now more than ever requires the increasing cooperation between the private, public, and academic sector amongst others. Tech companies have been experimenting with new techniques and guidelines. At the same time the Trump Administration is determined to prevent domestic terrorism. These are complex issues at the intersection of freedom of expression and national security. How will all of these proposed changes and solutions express themselves online, domestically and abroad? How do these efforts to identify and prevent early online radicalization square with the First Amendment and notions of freedom of expression?
Follow: @NetCaucusAC | #CVEOnline
- Kevin Adams, Justice and Home Affairs, British Embassy (Bio)
- Dr. Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens, Research Director, Project on Extremism, George Washington University (Bio)
- Mark MacCarthy, Senior Vice President, Public Policy, Software & Information Industry Association (Bio)
- Arthur Rizer, Director of National Security and Justice Policy, R Street (Bio)
- Clara Tsao, Chief Technology Officer, CVE Task Force, Department of Homeland Security, and White House Presidential Innovation Fellow(Bio)
DATE: Friday, July 21, 2017
TIME: 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm
LOCATION: Rayburn House Office Building Room 2237
Without Congressional action Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will cease to be a law enforcement tool at the disposal of law enforcement. In the aftermath of 9/11 Congress empowered America’s top law enforcement agencies to the collect the data on non-US persons. Critics say that 702 surveillance enables law enforcement to gather data in bulk as well as data incidental and unrelated to legitimate threats. Law enforcement maintains that 702 is a critical tool in thwarting terrorism and in fighting crime. Yet, Congress has set the expiration date on 702 powers to December 31, 2017. Now, Congress must weigh the pros and cons of the provision and decide to one of three things: 1) reauthorize 702) revise 702 or 3) retire the 702 by not-acting (it will simply sunset). When it comes to balancing national security and privacy protections, what will Congress do with 702?
Follow: @NetCaucusAC | #fisafriday
- Michelle Richardson – Deputy Director, Freedom, Security, and Technology Project, Center for Democracy and Technology (Bio)
- Adam Klein – Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security (Bio)
- Stuart Evans – Deputy Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, Department of Justice
- Elizabeth (Liza) Goitein – Co-Director, Liberty & National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice (Bio)
- Tim Lordan (Moderator) – Executive Director, Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee (Bio)
DATE: Friday, July 14, 2017
TIME: 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm
LOCATION: Rayburn House Office Building Room 2226
Fighting crime and thwarting terrorism is not what it was 20 years ago. Globally, law enforcement agencies are demanding more and more ready access to social media company data about customers — most of which is held by U.S.-based Internet giants like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Snap. However, expedient access to that data is hampered by privacy rules and our Constitution’s 4th amendment. Now, the U.S. Department of Justice, working with allies around the globe, have proposed that Congress streamline the rules so that foreign police agencies could access social media data more quickly. The fix would require updating the the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (ECPA), which many critics say is outdated. Our panel will explore the pros and cons of this proposed fix and what it means for Congress, for U.S. citizens, and for U.S. Internet companies.
Date: Friday, July 10, 2017
Time: 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm
Location: Rayburn House Office Building Room 2237
Follow: @NetCaucusAC | #crossborderwarrants
- Opening Remarks: Chris Randle– Legislative Director & Counsel, Rep. Jeffries (NY-08) (Bio)
- Opening Remarks: Judd Smith– Legislative Director & Counsel, Rep. Marino (PA-10) (Bio)
- Moderator: Carrie Cordero– Counsel, ZwillGen PLLC (Bio)
- Richard Downing– Deputy Assistant Attourney General, Department of Justice (Bio)
- Neema Singh Guliani – Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union (Bio)
- Professor Jennifer Daskal – Associate Professor of Law, American University (Bio)
- Stephanie Martz, Reform Government Surveillance (Bio)
What does the future of work, in the age of continued automation, look like?
Startups continue to follow the path set by companies such as Uber: short term ‘gigs’ that allow workers more freedom to chose their work hours but also bring with it more uncertainty. At the same time, manufacturing jobs continue to be supplemented and replaced by automation. Finally, AI looms large on the horizon as software promises to replace not only blue collar but also white collar labor.
Will American workers have to compete both with foreign labor and domestic, machine labor? Or is there another way that will lead to increased integration of human and machine? Join our panel of experts as we discuss these and other questions and hear all sides of the story.
– Steve DelBianco, Executive Director, NetChoice (Bio)
– Lori Sanders, Associate VP of Federal Affairs, R Street Institute (Bio)
– Kristin Sharp, Executive Director, SHIFT Commission on Work, Workers & Technology (Bio)
– Steven Overly – Technology Reporter, POLITICO Pro (moderator)(Bio)
Date: Friday, June 9, 2017
Time: 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm
Location: Rayburn House Office Building Room 2226
Follow: @NetCaucusAC | #futurework
The Internet has become essential for Americans as they participate in commerce, culture and democracy. The Internet and the Internet of Things is rapidly becoming an important part of how our cities and transportation networks operate. Increasingly rural communities are incorporating Internet-enabled technologies into their communities and lifestyles. The possibilities seem endless.
Do the Trump Administration’s impending infrastructure plans and tax plans include approaches to increasing Internet access and Internet-enabled technologies in America? If so, how and for whom? And what types of technologies? What about rural and low-income Americans? As we wait for more detailed proposals from the Administration and from the FCC we’ve assembled a panel of experts to explore the possibilities and challenges for expanding Internet access and for incorporating the Internet of tomorrow into the American way of life. Join us.
- Shirley Bloomfield – CEO, NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association
- Doug Brake – Senior Analyst, Telecom Policy, ITIF
- Blair Levin – Non-resident Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
- Lisa Schoenthaler – VP Association Affairs and Office of Rural/Midsize Operators, NCTA – The Internet & Television Association
Ever since the November election the FCC’s Open Internet order has been under serious review. Some critics of the former Chairman Wheeler’s approach to Net Neutrality argue that Congress should rewrite the rules for traffic on the Internet. Supporters argue that the FCC’s Title II rules are the only way to assure that traffic is handled equally. And now that Chairman Ajit Pai is firmly in the driver’s seat, it has been reported that he favors a different approach. So where does the key to the future of net neutrality rules lie? With regulations, legislation, or even the marketplace? With multiple congressmen calling for legislative solution to create rules of the road for open Internet, will we have to look towards congress? We’ve assembled a diverse set of perspectives on this issue so that you can hear all sides of the story.
- Sarah Morris, Open Technology Institute (Bio)
- Matthew Murchison, Latham & Watkins (Bio)
- Gigi B. Sohn, Open Society Foundations (Bio)
- Berin Szoka, President, TechFreedom (Bio)
Ransomware is now a global epidemic. It strikes an estimated 40% of businesses in the US, UK, Canada and Germany and is now is hitting one out of every six consumers, according to Kaspersky Lab. Today, ransomware has replaced credit card theft as the preferred scam of online criminals and they are extorting billions globally. But the epidemic is nearly silent because few want to admit they’ve been victimized and blackmailed into paying ransom.
At this Internet Caucus Advisory Committee briefing we discuss:
- What is ransomware?
- Can ransomware be decrypted?
- Should victims pay or fight back?
- What are the legal implications?
- What is the federal government doing to assist and inform victims?
About 2 in 5 businesses in the US, Canada, UK and Germany have been victims of ransomware, with Kaspersky Lab estimating that more than 1 in 6 consumers have been victimized and is now replacing credit card theft as cyber-criminals’ preferred scam of choice in 2016. Carbonite reports that ransomware attacks grew 300% from Q1 2015 to Q1 2016. The Cisco 2016 Midyear Cybersecurity Report described one campaign that attacked at least 90,000 servers per day and netted cybercriminals about $34 million in annual profits.
- The Honorable Phillip J. Bond, former US Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology (bio)
- Dante Disparte, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Risk Cooperative (bio)
- Richard Downing, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (bio)
- Ryan Naraine, Kapersky Lab (bio)
- Danielle Sheer, General Counsel, Carbonite (bio)
View Flickr Photos
UK-USDOJ Proposed United States – United Kingdom Agreement on Secure and Privacy – Protective Exchange of Electronic Data for the Purposes of Countering Serious Crime, Including Terrorism
Due to the global popularity of U.S. electronic communications services, foreign countries increasingly require access to electronic evidence held by U.S. providers for their legitimate public safety needs. Yet the labor-intensive mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) process has struggled to meet the exponential growth in demand for such evidence, and it requires foreign countries to satisfy unfamiliar U.S. legal standards. Countries have responded to these challenges with threats to cut off or fine such services or require data to be stored locally.
Some, like the U.K., have enacted laws to compel the production of electronic communications data held outside their borders when it pertains to a U.K. crime, but U.S. law prohibits providers from disclosing the contents of communications directly to foreign governments, with few exceptions. This is so even when the offenders and victims are all U.K. citizens, and the only connection to the United States is that the data happens to be located here – for purely technological and business reasons. So how does an American company respond to a foreign production order when doing so may violate U.S. law? What solutions are there to resolve these potential conflicts? And what are the risks if nothing is done?
We’ll check in on transatlantic efforts by the US and UK governments to develop a framework to resolve this impasse while at the same time providing robust protections for privacy and civil liberties. Providers, governments, academics, and others agree the status quo is unsustainable. But what mechanisms should we adopt and what protections for privacy and civil liberties should be built into such frameworks? This is an important topic at the crossroads of public safety, civil liberties, diplomacy, and tech policy that will undoubtedly become a major issue in the coming year.
Kevin Adams – First Secretary, Home Affairs, U.K. Embassy (Bio)
Margaret Stewart Nagle – Head of Americas Government Affairs, Yahoo (Bio)
Gregory T. Nojeim – Senior Counsel – Center for Democracy & Technology (Bio)
Brad Wiegmann – Deputy Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, U.S.Department of Justice (Bio)
Andrew Woods – Assistant Professor of Law – University of Kentucky School of Law (Bio)
Carrie Cordero – Principal – Cordero Advisory Services, LLC (Bio)
Date: Friday, June 15th, 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm
Location: Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2226
Follow: @NetCaucusAC | #XPondWarrants