Connect with us

Privacy

As States Take Action Against TikTok, Major Privacy Legislation Seems Unlikely

Californians’ opposition to the ADPPA’s preemption provision may be the end of the comprehensive bipartisan privacy bill.

Published

on

WASHINGTON, December 7, 2022 — The comprehensive privacy legislation currently stalled in Congress could provide a strong solution to growing privacy and cybersecurity threats, including significant concerns about TikTok’s data collection practices, according to panelists at a Broadband Breakfast event Wednesday.

The American Data Privacy and Protection Act is a long-awaited bipartisan effort that garnered widespread support before being held back by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., due to its preemption provision. California officials have claimed that the ADPPA is weaker than the state’s existing privacy law.

If the ADPPA fails to pass now, it is even less likely to pass under a Republican-controlled House that will probably favor even less preemption, said Cameron Kerry, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center for Technology Innovation. “We may be back to impasse before we get to some kind of new compromise, and I don’t know that any new compromise can be better than what’s on the table today.”

Despite Pelosi’s opposition to the bill, the state law is actually fairly similar to the ADPPA, said Lauren Zabierek, executive director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Cyber Project.

“There’s a couple of things where maybe California is just a little bit stronger, but there’s a lot of areas where it seems that the federal bill is actually much stronger,” she added.

This claim is backed up by a thorough comparison chart created in July by the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Several industry groups also expressed agreement in a letter to Pelosi, noting that the ADPPA includes algorithmic bias testing, limits on targeted advertising to kids and other protections not present in the California law.

TikTok takes the digital privacy spotlight, with several states announcing limited bans

Social media platform TikTok is at the center of many privacy and cybersecurity debates, with the Federal Communications Commission’s Brendan Carr saying in November he believed banning the platform altogether was the only path forward.

Rick Lane, CEO of Iggy Ventures, said that he supported a general TikTok ban and predicted that it would happen within the next six months.

“The ability to collect very large amounts of data from Americans in order to build their AI is a core piece of the CCP’s efforts in terms of domination in world markets,” he said.

Brandon Pugh, policy counsel at the R Street Institute, agreed that Congress will likely call for further investigation into the security concerns surrounding TikTok, although not necessarily impose a complete ban.

In the absence of a national standard, states are likely to continue creating a disparate patchwork of privacy laws, Pugh said.

State governments are already mobilizing against TikTok. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott both announced Wednesday that TikTok would be prohibited on government devices. These directives followed a Nov. 29 executive order issued by South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem that similarly banned the app from the devices of government employees and contractors.

Several other states have indicated that they will soon follow suit.

In a separate attack on the platform, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita filed two lawsuits against TikTok on Wednesday, calling the app “a malicious and menacing threat.”

The lawsuits claim that TikTok’s data collection practices violate consumer protection laws and that the company falsely markets the app as being safe for teenagers while presenting them with inappropriate content.

Child-specific privacy bill seems more likely to pass

Another piece of bipartisan privacy legislation making its way through Congress is the Kids Online Safety Act, which would create a broad “duty of care” requirement for tech platforms to shield underage users from harmful content. Broadband Breakfast panelists predicted that it is likely to pass during the lame duck period.

The group on the webcast indicated general support for KOSA, while also saying that it shouldn’t come at the cost of a more comprehensive federal privacy bill. The ADPPA already includes several protections for children, such as prohibiting targeted advertising to anyone 16 and under.

Several industry experts and organizations have raised more substantive concerns over KOSA.

“Instead of protecting kids, KOSA actively harms them—a pretty terrible tradeoff for violating the First Amendment, which this bill also does,” said Ari Cohn, free speech counsel for TechFreedom, in a press release Wednesday. Cohn was not on the Broadband Breakfast panel.

Online services would have to verify the ages of all users to comply with KOSA, Cohn argued, and this would violate users’ right to read and communicate anonymously.

TechFreedom was not alone in raising concerns. Organizations including Ranking Digital Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union opposed KOSA in a letter to senate leadership. The bill would force internet providers to use invasive filtering and monitoring tools and incentivize increased consumer data collection, they argued.

Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. Watch the event on Broadband Breakfast, or REGISTER HERE to join the conversation.

Wednesday, December 7, 2022, 12 Noon ET – What to Expect from Congress on Social Media and Privacy Regulation

With both Republicans and Democrats having concerns about social media and data privacy, how will the new Congress tackle these issues in the 118th Congress next year? We’ll also review the status of the substantial American Data Privacy and Protection Act in the 117th Congress. At one point, it seemed primed to become the strongest federal privacy legislation ever passed. Now, it might not even make it to the House floor after opposition to its preemption provisions.

Meanwhile, the Big Tech privacy landscape is rapidly shifting: Apple’s steps toward consumer privacy are cutting into ad revenue for companies like Meta, and Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr has called for a complete ban of TikTok over data privacy concerns. What, if anything, will the 118th Congress do in response?

Panelists:

  • Cameron Kerry, Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Governance Studies, Center for Technology Innovation, Brookings Institution
  • Rick Lane, CEO, Iggy Ventures
  • Brandon Pugh, Resident Senior Fellow and Policy Counsel, Cybersecurity and Emerging Threats, R Street Institute
  • Lauren Zabierek, Executive Director, Cyber Project, Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
  • Drew Clark (moderator), Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast

Panelist resources:

Cameron Kerry is a global thought leader on privacy, artificial intelligence, and cross-border challenges in information technology. He joined Governance Studies and the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings in December 2013 as the first Ann R. and Andrew H. Tisch Distinguished Visiting Fellow. Previously, Kerry served as general counsel and acting secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, where he was a leader on a wide of range of issues including technology, trade, and economic growth and security.

Rick Lane is a tech policy expert, child safety advocate, and the founder and CEO of Iggy Ventures. Iggy advises and invests in companies and projects that can have a positive social impact. Before starting Iggy, Rick served 15 years as the Senior Vice President of Government Affairs of 21st Century Fox and was the first eCommerce and Internet Technology director for the US Chamber of Commerce.

Brandon Pugh is a Resident Senior Fellow and Policy Counsel for the R Street Institute’s Cybersecurity and Emerging Threats team, where he leads the data privacy and security portfolio. He also serves as an international law officer in the Army Reserve. Previously, he served in elected and appointed office, managed a cyberwarfare publication, and was counsel for a state legislature, among other roles.

Lauren Zabierek is the Acting Executive Director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the Executive Director of the Center’s Cyber Project, a policy-relevant research program. She is a graduate of the Kennedy School, a US Air Force veteran and a former civilian analyst in the Intelligence Community.

Drew Clark (moderator) is CEO of Breakfast Media LLC, the Editor and Publisher of BroadbandBreakfast.com and a nationally-respected telecommunications attorney. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, he served as head of the State Broadband Initiative in Illinois. Now, in light of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, attorney Clark helps fiber-based and wireless clients secure funding, identify markets, broker infrastructure and operate in the public right of way.

Photoillustration from the Electronic Frontier Foundation

WATCH HERE, or on YouTubeTwitter and Facebook.

As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.

SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTube channel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch on YouTubeTwitter and Facebook

See a complete list of upcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Online events.

Reporter Em McPhie studied communication design and writing at Washington University in St. Louis, where she was a managing editor for the student newspaper. In addition to agency and freelance marketing experience, she has reported extensively on Section 230, big tech, and rural broadband access. She is a founding board member of Code Open Sesame, an organization that teaches computer programming skills to underprivileged children.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

FCC

Proposed Rules to Limit Unwanted Calls Will Not Protect Consumers, Says CTIA

The proposed rules will not protect consumers and will limit consumer’s ability to receive important messages from carriers.

Published

on

Image from DFT Communications

WASHINGTON, June 5, 2023 – Wireless trade association CTIA expressed concerns with provisions in the Federal Communications Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released in May that would strengthen consumer consent for robocalls and robotexts by allowing consumers to decide which robocalls and texts they wish to receive.  

The draft proposals will not protect consumers and instead will “limit the ability of consumers to receive important, time-sensitive information about their wireless service,” said CTIA. These time-sensitive messages can include bill reminders, international roaming alerts, and fraud alerts, among others.  

The notice as currently written does not acknowledge any record support, policy reason or benefits that the proposed limitations to the current framework would deliver, read the report by CTIA. 

CTIA urged the FCC to add questions to the notice to clarify the unique relationship between wireless service providers and their consumers and the substantial consumer benefits that have resulted under the current framework. 

The action is a response to the rising number of telemarketing and robocalls, stated the Notice. “We believe the rules the commission adopts here strike an appropriate balance between maximizing consumer privacy protections and avoiding imposing undue burdens on telemarketers,” read the Notice. 

The Notice seeks to revise the current Telephone Consumer Protection Act rules and adopt new ones that would provide consumers with options for avoiding unwanted telephone solicitations. The ruling would include a national do-not-call registry for all telemarketing calls. 

 

Continue Reading

China

Experts Debate TikTok Ban, Weighing National Security Against Free Speech

Although many experts agree TikTok poses a threat, some believe a ban is the wrong solution.

Published

on

WASHINGTON, May 26, 2023 — With lawmakers ramping up their rhetoric against TikTok, industry and legal experts are divided over whether a ban is the best solution to balance competing concerns about national security and free speech.

Proponents of a TikTok ban argue that the app poses an “untenable threat” because of the amount of data it collects — including user location, search history and biometric data — as well as its relationship with the Chinese government, said Joel Thayer, president of the Digital Progress Institute, at a debate hosted Wednesday by Broadband Breakfast.

These fears have been cited by state and federal lawmakers in a wide range of proposals that would place various restrictions on TikTok, including a controversial bill that would extend to all technologies connected to a “foreign adversary.” More than two dozen states have already banned TikTok on government devices, and Montana recently became the first state to ban the app altogether.

TikTok on Monday sued Montana over the ban, arguing that the “unprecedented and extreme step of banning a major platform for First Amendment speech, based on unfounded speculation about potential foreign government access to user data and the content of the speech, is flatly inconsistent with the Constitution.”

Thayer contested the lawsuit’s claim, saying that “the First Amendment does not prevent Montana or the federal government from regulating non expressive conduct, especially if it’s illicit.”

However, courts have consistently held that the act of communicating and receiving information cannot be regulated separately from speech, said David Greene, civil liberties director and senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

“This is a regulation of expression — it’s a regulation of how people communicate with each other and how they receive communications,” he said.

Stringent regulations could protect privacy without suppressing speech

A complete ban of TikTok suppresses far more speech than is necessary to preserve national security interests, making less intrusive options preferable, said Daniel Lyons, nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

TikTok is currently engaged in a $1.5 billion U.S. data security initiative that will incorporate several layers of government and private sector oversight into its privacy and content moderation practices, in addition to moving all U.S. user data to servers owned by an Austin-based software company.

This effort, nicknamed Project Texas, “strikes me as a much better alternative that doesn’t have the First Amendment problems that an outright TikTok ban has,” Lyons said.

Greene noted that many online platforms — both within and outside the U.S. — collect and sell significant amounts of user data, creating the potential for foreign adversaries to purchase it.

“Merely focusing on TikTok is an underinclusive way of addressing these concerns about U.S. data privacy,” he said. “It would be really great if Congress would actually take a close look at comprehensive data privacy legislation that would address that problem.”

Greene also highlighted the practical barriers to banning an app, pointing out that TikTok is accessible through a variety of alternative online sources. These sources tend to be much less secure than the commonly used app stores, meaning that a ban focused on app stores is actually “making data more vulnerable to foreign exploitation,” he said.

TikTok risks severe enough to warrant some action, panelists agree

Although concerns about suppressing speech are valid, the immediate national security risks associated with the Chinese government accessing a massive collection of U.S. user data are severe enough to warrant consideration of a ban, said Anton Dahbura, executive director of the Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute.

“Will it hurt people who are building businesses from it? Absolutely,” he said. “But until we have safeguards in place, we need to be cautious about business as usual.”

These safeguards should include security audits, data flow monitoring and online privacy legislation, Dahbura continued.

Thayer emphasized the difference between excessive data collection practices and foreign surveillance.

“I think we all agree that there should be a federal privacy law,” he said. “That doesn’t really speak to the fact that there are potential backdoors, that there are these potential avenues to continue to surveil… So I say, why not both?”

Lyons agreed that TikTok’s “unique threat” might warrant action beyond a general privacy law, but maintained that a nationwide ban was “far too extreme.”

Even if further action against TikTok is eventually justified, Greene advocated for federal privacy legislation to be the starting point.  “We’re spending a lot of time talking about banning TikTok, which again, is going to affect millions of Americans… and we’re doing nothing about having data broadly collected otherwise,” he said. “At a minimum, our priorities are backwards.”

Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. Watch the event on Broadband Breakfast, or REGISTER HERE to join the conversation.

Wednesday, May 24, 2023 – Debate: Should the U.S. Ban TikTok?

Since November, more than two dozen states have banned TikTok on government devices. Montana recently became the first state to pass legislation that would ban the app altogether, and several members of Congress have advocated for extending a similar ban to the entire country. Is TikTok’s billion-dollar U.S. data security initiative a meaningful step forward, or just an empty promise? How should lawmakers navigate competing concerns about national security, free speech, mental health and a competitive marketplace? This special session of Broadband Breakfast Live Online will engage advocates and critics in an Oxford-style debate over whether the U.S. should ban TikTok.

Panelists

Pro-TikTok Ban

  • Anton Dahbura, Executive Director, Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute
  • Joel Thayer, President, Digital Progress Institute

Anti-TikTok Ban

  • David Greene, Civil Liberties Director and Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • Daniel Lyons, Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Moderator

  • Drew Clark, Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast

Anton Dahbura serves as co-director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Assured Autonomy, and is the executive director of the Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. Since 2012, he has been an associate research scientist in the Department of Computer Science. Dahbura is a fellow at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, served as a researcher at AT&T Bell Laboratories, was an invited lecturer in the Department of Computer Science at Princeton University and served as research director of the Motorola Cambridge Research Center.

Joel Thayer, president of the Digital Progress Institute, was previously was an associate at Phillips Lytle. Before that, he served as Policy Counsel for ACT | The App Association, where he advised on legal and policy issues related to antitrust, telecommunications, privacy, cybersecurity and intellectual property in Washington, DC. His experience also includes working as legal clerk for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen.

David Greene, senior staff attorney and civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has significant experience litigating First Amendment issues in state and federal trial and appellate courts. He currently serves on the steering committee of the Free Expression Network, the governing committee of the ABA Forum on Communications Law, and on advisory boards for several arts and free speech organizations across the country. Before joining EFF, David was for twelve years the executive director and lead staff counsel for First Amendment Project.

Daniel Lyons is a professor and the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at Boston College Law School, where he teaches telecommunications, administrative and cyber law. He is also a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on telecommunications and internet regulation. Lyons has testified before Congress and state legislatures, and has participated in numerous proceedings at the Federal Communications Commission.

Drew Clark (moderator) is CEO of Breakfast Media LLC. He has led the Broadband Breakfast community since 2008. An early proponent of better broadband, better lives, he initially founded the Broadband Census crowdsourcing campaign for broadband data. As Editor and Publisher, Clark presides over the leading media company advocating for higher-capacity internet everywhere through topical, timely and intelligent coverage. Clark also served as head of the Partnership for a Connected Illinois, a state broadband initiative.

Graphic by SF Freelancer/Adobe Stock used with permission

WATCH HERE, or on YouTubeTwitter and Facebook.

As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.

SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTube channel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch on YouTubeTwitter and Facebook.

See a complete list of upcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Online events.

Continue Reading

Cybersecurity

Lawmakers Should Incentivize Cybersecurity in Private Sector: Cisco Executive

One weak link can threaten the entire system.

Published

on

Photo of Jeetu Patel of CISCO

WASHINGTON, May 25, 2023 – A Cisco executive urged Congress at a Semafor event Thursday to provide more incentives for companies to ensure their cybersecurity posture is up to date. 

While Jeetu Patel, general manager of security at the information technology giant, didn’t specify what types of incentives can be used, he said the incentives must push private infrastructure to have high security standards. 

Both private and public sectors have a part to play in improving the nation’s security, he noted, adding private companies must build products that are secure by design. 

There is “tremendous” need for cross-nation coordination around cyberattacks, said Patel. He urged lawmakers to democratize cybersecurity by simplifying the process, adding the nation must be united to gain traction against attackers.

The cybersecurity industry has not made conversations simple to follow or technology easy to use, he said. Simplifying cybersecurity is the only way we can democratize it and when it’s democratized, it can be made universal, said Patel. 

He warned that the country cannot let the financial constraints of a few companies put the whole system at risk. Regardless of how affluent a country is, the weakest link controls the strength of the chain, he said. 

Artificial Intelligence will change cybersecurity fundamentally, he noted. It is important to remember that AI tools are also available to attackers. Currently, the majority of attacks stem from fraudulent emails which AI can make more personalized and difficult to discern from real communication, he said.  

Cybersecurity defenses must evolve

We need to develop an idea of civic responsibility for tech innovators and students in STEM fields, added Suzanne Spaulding, senior advisor of Homeland Security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Civic responsibility is the antidote to disinformation and is the change central to democracy, she continued.  

Spaulding warned companies against relying on existing cybersecurity measures. Resilience is about having layers of plans and assuming they all will fail, she said.  

This comes at a time of Congressional focus on cybersecurity. In March, two bills were introduced by Senators Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., to establish pilot programs in the Department of Defense and Homeland Security that would hire civilian cybersecurity personnel in reserve. 

In 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order on improving American cybersecurity capabilities following the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack and SolarWinds breach in 2020.   

Continue Reading

Signup for Broadband Breakfast News



Broadband Breakfast Research Partner

Trending