Supply chain challenges have big implications for smartphones and telecom, said Michael Orlando, acting director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC), during an Intelligence and National Security Alliance webinar Tuesday. A recent White House summit focused on supply chain issues (see 2104130005). A smartphone “consists of numerous components -- battery, antenna, integrated circuit, the screen,” Orlando noted. “Those components are made from raw materials” that “have to be extracted from around the world and then shipped to various factories to build those components,” he said. The components are then shipped to another factory to be assembled, he said. The supply chain has many vulnerabilities, Orlando said: “An adversary can target any point of that long, complicated process. They could cut off access to components, steal technology or introduce infected components.” The semiconductor supply chain has risen to the “top of the policy agenda” in Washington, said Semiconductor Industry Association CEO John Neuffer. Chips are “driving the technologies of the future,” including 5G and AI, he said. The best way to “provide security is through technical leadership,” and the U.S. is falling behind, said Tower Semiconductor CEO Russell Ellwanger. Within weeks of the pandemic's start, Dell got 90% of its factory capacity back, said Cameron Chehreh, chief technology officer of the federal business. “That was a direct result of the diversification in the supply chain -- prescreening suppliers” and “ensuring that we had great resiliency,” he said. That's critical as more people live online and need new computers, he said.
EU efforts to quash dissemination of terrorist content online moved forward Tuesday as the European Parliament Civil Liberties Committee recommended approval of a measure on "the misuse of hosting services for terrorist purposes." European Council government ministers have greenlighted the regulation, which is expected to be approved by the full parliament later this month. Hosting service providers play a key role in the digital economy but are sometimes abused by third parties for carrying out illegal activities online, a March 18 EC memo said. Of particular concern is their misuse by terrorist groups and their supporters to spread content to radicalize and recruit followers, it said. In light of their central role and the technology and capabilities associated with the services they provide, hosting services "have particular societal responsibilities" to protect their services from misuse while preserving fundamental rights. The regulation shouldn't affect the application of directive 2000/31/EC, which grants intermediaries exemption from liability from illegal content, nor would it hamper national authorities and courts from imposing liability if hosting services violate the conditions, the memo said. The measure would apply to information society service providers that store and disseminate to the public information and material provided by a user of the service on request, regardless of whether the storing is "of a mere technical, automatic and passive nature." Providers of "mere conduit" or "caching" services -- along with other services in other layers of the internet infrastructure that don't involve storage, such as domain name registries and registrars and providers of domain name systems -- would be outside the scope. Terrorist content is often spread through services set up in third countries, so this would apply to "all providers of relevant services in the Union" that let people or entities in one or more EU countries use those services and that have a substantial connection to the countries. The legislation calls for harmonized rules on procedures for taking down terrorist content. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy & Technology, European Digital Rights and Internet Governance Project joined about 60 civil society groups in panning this. They argued it would incentivize online platforms to continue to use automated content moderation tools such as upload filters to the detriment of free speech, and that it lacks sufficient judicial oversight.
The U.S. and EU are aligning more closely on a range of digital issues, speakers said Monday at a webcast interview with European Commission Vice President Margrethe Vestager and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va. Asked what their priorities are for the U.S.-EU digital relationship, Vestager said some key issues, such as secure supply chains, the approach to AI and the stance on regulating the technology sector, are obvious. Warner called for collaboration on values-based tech development that includes standards and rules on transparency and other issues. His key concern is the failure to create joint cybersecurity norms and policies, an omission he warned could be devastating. Cybersecurity must be part of every EU and U.S. discussion, Vestager said. Tech won't be successful if it's unsafe and people don't trust it, she said. Barriers to online manipulation of democracies must be integrated into everything stakeholders do and into digital skills people need as the first line of defense. When China or Russia sends hackers against a private entity or government, it will succeed without shared concepts of security services in Europe and the U.S., Warner said. On AI, Vestager noted that upcoming EC rules aim to be balanced and that their ban on certain uses of the tech will affect a limited number of cases. Warner hoped the U.S. embraces AI without subjecting people to discrimination, but this technology hasn't penetrated the U.S. policy world much yet. On content moderation on platforms, Vestager said the Digital Services Act sets up a systemic redress mechanism that balances the need to take down illegal content while preserving freedom of expression and imposes accountability on companies to ensure operations don't create risks. Platforms aren't doing enough to address disinformation, Warner said: Content moderation in the U.S. will come about in bits and pieces because the country has been so slow in addressing it.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should grant a preliminary injunction against California's 2018 net neutrality law, said an amicus brief (in Pacer, case No. 21-15430) filed Tuesday by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, California Chamber of Commerce, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Telecommunications Industry Association and CALinnovates after a federal judge denied an injunction in February (see 2102230072). The law "raises more questions than it answers," the groups said, because there's "no principled way to limit regulation of the internet to a single state." Net neutrality rules should be set at the federal level, said TechFreedom in its amicus brief supporting an injunction. Leaving this issue up to the states "will leave everyone stuck, indefinitely, with inconsistent and contradictory state rules," it argued. “The problem is not simply that this state law conflicts with the current federal standards,” said Corbin Barthold, TechFreedom director-appellate litigation, in a statement. “Even if the federal government and a group of states all had identical net neutrality laws, the state laws would remain preempted by federal law."
Consumer groups supported Sprint repaying $41.7 million to California LifeLine for erroneously received reimbursements, and urged the California Public Utilities Commission to keep open its investigation. The CPUC plans to vote April 15 on resolution UEB-008 to adopt a settlement with Sprint and acquirer T-Mobile. The CPUC Enforcement Division alleged Sprint failed to comply with federal non-usage rules from July 2017 to August 2019 by claiming reimbursement for LifeLine discounts provided to about 3 million participants who should have been de-enrolled. Under the settlement, Sprint agreed to pay it back with interest, and T-Mobile agreed to compliance measures over the next year. The CPUC learned of the issue after talking to the Oregon Public Utility Commission about its investigation finding the same Sprint problem in its state, which led to the FCC adopting a $200 million settlement with T-Mobile (see 2011040050). The CPUC should approve the resolution and keep the probe open, said The Utility Reform Network, Greenlining Institute and Center for Accessible Technology, in comments emailed Thursday to the service list in docket R.20-02-008. “If customers were denied services or were delayed in receiving services,” require the carrier “to present a plan to provide remedies and restitution directly to those consumers or ... to present a plan for an equitable remedy that could provide resources for outreach and education to benefit the program.”
The FCC released an initial list Thursday of providers participating in the $3.2 billion emergency broadband benefit program (see 2103260047). Some big ISPs are on the list while others aren't, our review found. The commission plans to announce regular updates as more providers are approved, said a spokesperson. Among those participating so far are Cable One, Comcast, Consolidated Telephone and Windstream. AT&T and its affiliates, including BellSouth, Southwestern Bell and Pacific Bell, are also participating. Most providers will offer discounts for fixed broadband services. Several larger providers were notably missing from the list, including Frontier, Lumen, T-Mobile, UScellular, Tracfone, and Altice. It couldn't immediately be confirmed whether any of those companies' affiliates are participating. Most of the apparently missing companies didn't respond to questions about whether they plan to participate. A spokesperson for Lumen didn't answer our question about its participation but again said it's "reviewing the program's rules" (see 2103040049). Verizon, missing from the initial list, previously told us it will participate. Charter was approved to participate, but the company hasn't filed its confirmation yet. "We will do so shortly," emailed a spokesperson. A spokesperson for Altice said the company was approved to participate and is looking into why it was omitted from the list.
NTIA plans a virtual meeting April 29 at noon EDT about the multistakeholder process on promoting IoT software component transparency, says Thursday’s Federal Register (see 2012100021).
The Commerce Department wants input by April 28 on how it should structure its internet and communications technology and services preclearance or licensing process. It said it won't have an ICTS licensing regime in place by May 19, as predicted by the previous administration. “While the Department understands that business decisions must often be made within tight timeframes, the Department may not be able to determine whether a particular ICTS transaction qualifies for a license or pre-clearance without detailed information and analysis," said Monday's Federal Register. "Considering this tension, should the Department issue decisions on a shorter timeframe if that could result in fewer licenses or pre-clearances being granted, or would the inconvenience of a longer timeframe for review be outweighed by the potential for a greater number of licenses or pre-clearances being issued?” DOC didn't comment Wednesday on when it might have ICTS rules ready.
Colorado senators supported studying social media regulation. They voted 20-14 Monday for an amended bill (SB-132) to set up a committee to report by Jan. 1 on “whether and how the general assembly could address, through legislation, consumer protection concerns related to digital communications platforms,” including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Senate President Pro Tempore Kerry Donovan (D) agreed at an earlier meeting to study rather than to regulate immediately (see 2103230070). The bill goes next to the House.
The FTC won’t petition the Supreme Court to review its antitrust case against Qualcomm, the agency announced Monday (see 2010280058). Acting Chairwoman Rebecca Kelly Slaughter cited the “significant headwinds facing the Commission” here and continues "to believe that the district court’s conclusion that Qualcomm violated the antitrust laws was entirely correct and that the court of appeals erred in concluding otherwise.” Bold antitrust enforcement is needed more than ever, she said: “I am particularly concerned about the potential for anticompetitive or unfair behavior in the context of standard setting and the FTC will closely monitor conduct in this arena.” The company didn’t immediately comment.