Carbon Chemist

Tag: congress

  • The House Passed the Bill That Could Ban TikTok—and It Wasn’t Close

    The House Passed the Bill That Could Ban TikTok—and It Wasn’t Close

    [ad_1]

    This morning, the US House of Representatives voted to essentially ban TikTok, unless Chinese-owned Bytedance divests from the app entirely. If passed in the Senate, TikTok would have about six months to untangle itself from its China-based owner.

    In speeches leading up to the vote on H.R. 7521, known as the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, members of Congress highlighted the many security concerns with the app, including the potential for employees at the Chinese company to access American user data, and the spread of pro-China propaganda.

    In a statement released just after the vote, Representative Sara Jacobs, who opposed the bill, said, “As a member of both the House Armed Services and House Foreign Affairs Committees, I am keenly aware of the threat that PRC information operations can pose, especially as they relate to our elections … Banning TikTok won’t protect Americans from targeted misinformation or misuse of their personal data, which American data brokers routinely sell and share.”

    Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said she worried the bill could be used to force the sale of other social media platforms, particularly mentioning X, which is now owned by Elon Musk.

    Last week, many TikTok users opened the app to see a notice warning them that Congress was planning to ban the service, and urging them to call their representatives. Congressional offices were, apparently, flooded with calls from concerned users. This move may have backfired, demonstrating to several members of Congress the power the app had to shape users’ behavior. In her statement in support of the bill, Republican representative Ashley Hinson asked, “What if TikTok sent out an alert saying that elections were canceled?”

    But Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove noted that Chinese influence operations are not restricted to TikTok. In November 2023, Meta announced that it had removed a massive Chinese influence operation from its platforms that had targeted the US. Some smaller networks had also targeted users in India and Tibet.

    Prominent TikTok creators question the bill. “It’s unclear that this bill is going to actually protect Americans, but I don’t think that’s really the goal,” says Charlotte Palermino, CEO and founder of skin-care brand Dieux, a popular creator on TikTok and other platforms. “I find it to be very silly, but I think that it’s a nice encapsulation of American politics today, where we have people that do not understand technology trying to regulate it.”

    Palermino sees TikTok Shop as a valuable tool for small businesses and says shuttering TikTok would have a negative short-term effect on Dieux. “Losing that would be challenging,” she says. While she’s confident Dieux could pivot to focus on other platforms, she suspects a TikTok ban could seriously impact other independent and up-and-coming brands within the United States in a big way. “It will hurt their business.”

    The bill will now move to the Senate. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence chair Mark R. Warner, Democrat of Virginia, and vice chair Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, issued the following statement shortly after the House vote: “We are united in our concern about the national security threat posed by TikTok—a platform with enormous power to influence and divide Americans whose parent company ByteDance remains legally required to do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party. We were encouraged by today’s strong bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives, and look forward to working together to get this bill passed through the Senate and signed into law.”

    This is not the first attempt to regulate TikTok, as lawmakers have long been concerned about the app as a potential security threat. Last year, Senator Warner proposed the RESTRICT Act, which would have allowed the US government to ban tech from adversary countries. The state of Montana approved an app ban, though it was blocked by a federal judge before it could come into effect.

    Earlier this year, President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign joined TikTok. Still, Biden recently told reporters that he would sign the House’s TikTok ban into law if it was approved in the Senate.

    TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Andrew Couts, Kate Knibbs, and Makena Kelly contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • TikTok Is Facing Its Greatest Threat Yet

    TikTok Is Facing Its Greatest Threat Yet

    [ad_1]

    On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives is expected to vote on a bill that would force TikTok’s owner, Bytedance, to sell off the app or face an outright ban.

    The bill, called the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, was sponsored by a group of nearly two dozen Republicans and Democrats. It was introduced last week and advanced out of committee at lightning speed by a unanimous vote. The bill would make it unlawful for apps controlled by companies based in adversarial countries—Bytedance is located in China—to be distributed nationwide. If enacted, Bytedance would be required to sell off TikTok if the company wanted the app to remain available in the US.

    Congress has tried and failed to ban TikTok over the past few years, but this is the closest it’s gotten to making it a reality. Still, the politics of a ban have never been hazier. While bills regulating US-based tech companies have largely stalled out, this TikTok ban is on its way to the floor.

    In January, President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign joined TikTok, despite the app’s alleged risks to national security. Still, Biden has said that he’ll sign the bill if it makes it through the Senate. On the other hand, former president Donald Trump is pushing lawmakers against the bill even though his administration tried to ban the app several times. “If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business,” Trump posted to Truth Social last week. “I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!”

    Last year, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testified to the House Energy and Commerce Committee in his company’s first appearance on Capitol Hill. Chew was grilled on a number of issues, including child safety and the national security risks TikTok is said to pose for American users. Shortly after the hearing, Virginia senator Mark Warner introduced the RESTRICT Act, which would have allowed the secretary of commerce to bar foreign technologies and companies from operating in the US on national security grounds. Support for that bill waned over constitutional concerns that it would provide the executive branch too much authority.

    The current House Republican bill tries to avoid similar constitutional problems. Specifically, it creates a process for the bill’s rules to apply to other foreign-controlled companies, despite its explicit naming of Bytedance. Companies would have 165 days to divest their apps before being removed from US app stores. In January, Chew testified for a second time with other Big Tech CEOs, like Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, for a hearing on child safety.

    Responding to the bill, a TikTok spokesperson told WIRED, “This legislation has a predetermined outcome: a total ban of TikTok in the United States. The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their constitutional right to free expression. This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US Lawmaker Cited NYC Protests in a Defense of Warrantless Spying

    US Lawmaker Cited NYC Protests in a Defense of Warrantless Spying

    [ad_1]

    The second slide in Turner’s presentation featured the tweet by Foldi, which likewise references a march on Schumer’s home. That protest, however, took place nearly a month after the first. HPSCI’s claim that Hamas may have incited the demonstration appears solely based on this remark by Foldi, who claims the protesters were responding to a call issued by a pro-Palestinian group known as Samidoun.

    However, that wasn’t the case.

    The only evidence of the Palestinian group’s involvement is that the protest was included on a calendar maintained by Samidoun on its website. The calendar currently lists more than 5,000 protests that have taken place around the world, from Australia and England to Finland, Nigeria, Iceland, and Japan. The same site bears a disclaimer that notes the list includes protests not organized by Samidoun, and visitors are encouraged to submit details about events being organized in their respective countries.

    Foldi went on to portray Samidoun as having been “banned from Germany and booted from numerous payment processors over suspicions of acting as a Hamas front group.”

    A German branch of Samidoun was dissolved in November, but not as a result of evidence it had ties to Hamas. Rather, the group, formed to protest the imprisonment of Palestinians, was accused of spreading “anti-Jewish conspiracy theories,” an allegation that the organizers vehemently deny, while noting their ranks boast many Jewish members.

    For obvious reasons, Germany has some of the strictest antisemitism laws in the world, enabling Berlin to issue blanket bans against protests aimed at raising awareness of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Such bans would be unlawful in the United States under its constitution.

    Branches of Samidoun have also faced bans by payment processors overseas. This also happens frequently in the United States. The bar for being banned by a payment process is notably far below having terrorism ties.

    Payment processors last year severed ties with a French branch of the group, known as Collectif Palestine Vaincra, a result of the French government attempting to dissolve the organization under allegations it was “anti-Jewish.” This attempt was blocked by a French court in May, however, after it found the Macron government’s allegations of “antisemitism” against the group “unfounded.”

    Neither Foldi nor Samidoun immediately responded to requests for comment.

    That the chairman of a US intelligence committee chose such questionable examples during a presentation aimed at garnering support for a US surveillance authority gave many Republican staffers pause.

    None of the House sources who spoke to WIRED work for lawmakers that could be credibly accused of showing anything but support for the Israeli government. Yet all agreed the issue of domestic surveillance transcends political ideology—one of the purest examples of the “pendulum politics” that define America’s two-party system.

    “What we know for sure is this,” a Republican aide says, “However the government decides to treat left-wing protesters today, that’s how we should expect protesters in our party to be treated under future administrations.”

    A House Democratic staffer—half-jokingly referencing the Cold War doctrine of “mutually assured annihilation”—says that they agreed “wholeheartedly” with the sentiment. “Our fates are aligned,” they say. “That’s the best defense we have.”

    “Political protest is literally how America was founded. It’s in our DNA,” says Jason Pye, senior policy analyst at the nonprofit FreedomWorks. “Whether you agree with these protestors or not is irrelevant.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Leak Shows Alarm in Congress Over a Russian ‘Threat’ Is a Real Anomaly

    Leak Shows Alarm in Congress Over a Russian ‘Threat’ Is a Real Anomaly

    [ad_1]

    Turner’s press release notably went further than HPSCI’s letter, pressing US president Joe Biden to personally “declassify all information” concerning the threat. The next day, Turner issued a second statement declaring he’d worked closely “with the Biden administration” before notifying Congress. Naft, the HPSCI spokesperson, clarified by email that Turner had worked with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on the language describing the threat contained in the Dear Colleague letter. (Naft stressed Turner had “NEVER” stated he’d cooperated with the White House.)

    Turner’s second statement added that HPSCI had voted 23–1 to make the disclosure. According to the committee’s own rules, a vote is not required to bring classified material to the attention of the chairmen and ranking members of other committees; only House-wide alerts require a vote. It is unclear which HPSCI member voted against the disclosure, as no official roll call was taken.

    A senior congressional source tells WIRED the Dear Colleague letter was always destined to cause panic. It is widely understood that the letters are not a secure form of communication and are often disclosed to reporters and others working off the Hill.

    Only four times in the past decade and a half, according to WIRED’s review of the system, has HPSCI used a Dear Colleague letter to draw attention to classified material—outside of routine budgetary concerns.

    The first such message is dated March 2009 and pertains to two classified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports. The subject of the reports is undeclared. A second letter was issued by HPSCI and signed by former congressperson Devin Nunes on January 10, 2017, informing members of a classified report on “Russian activities and intentions in the recent US election.”

    Neither letter is marked urgent.

    A third letter informing members about the option to review classified material is dated February 24, 2010; however, it makes clear the material was made available at the request of the intelligence community (IC). It is one of numerous letters in which HPSCI is seen lobbying on the spy agencies’ behalf—in this case, to support a renewal of the 9/11-era USA PATRIOT Act, today defunct due to a lack of support in Congress.

    A plurality of HPSCI’s Dear Colleague letters are aimed at whipping support for bills that reauthorize or advance US spy powers. Others urge lawmakers to vote against legislation that would enhance Americans’ privacy protections. One such letter reads simply: “Don’t Handcuff the FBI and Intelligence Community.”

    Six other letters are invitations to classified briefings held by intelligence agencies. HPSCI routinely acts as a mediator between the agencies and members of Congress, arranging briefings and other events on the intelligence community’s behalf.

    HPSCI sent an additional three Dear Colleagues letters the morning after its “urgent” warning about Russia went out: Each asked members to support various amendments to a FISA bill during an upcoming vote that HPSCI’s chair was, simultaneously, working to get called off.

    Sources told WIRED that Johnson’s decision to delay the vote on FISA came amid a sudden threat by Turner to kill the bill the moment it got to the floor. Turner was motivated to stop the bill’s progress at any cost, they said, due to the growing odds of a rival committee passing amendments of their own—to dramatically curtail the FBI’s domestic surveillance abilities.

    Updated 2/22/2024, 3:55 pm EST: Clarified the procedural requirements for bringing classified information to the attention of members of the House of Representatives.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Anne Neuberger, a Top White House Cyber Official, Is Staying Surprisingly Optimistic

    Anne Neuberger, a Top White House Cyber Official, Is Staying Surprisingly Optimistic

    [ad_1]

    Anne Neuberger, the Biden administration’s deputy national security adviser for cyber, tells WIRED about emerging cybersecurity threats—and what the US plans to do about them.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Leak of Russian ‘Threat’ Part of a Bid to Kill US Surveillance Reform, Sources Say

    Leak of Russian ‘Threat’ Part of a Bid to Kill US Surveillance Reform, Sources Say

    [ad_1]

    While redirecting blame away from Turner and his cohorts, the claim is both false and deceptive, relying on assertions that, while farcical perhaps to legal experts, would be impossible for the public at large (and most of the press) to parse alone.

    The text that Fox News’ intelligence sources are referring to—which can be read on the final page of the bill online—does nothing, in reality. It does not require, nor does it prevent, anyone in the government from taking any action whatsoever. Nor does it have any impact on FISA, the statute from which Section 702 derives its power.

    The controversial text states that the nation’s top intelligence official “may submit” information to Congress regarding how “law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community” purchase “commercially available data about United States persons.” Essentially, it grants the intelligence community permission to do something that it does not actually need permission to do.

    The language was included not to “totally screw” FISA, but to ensure that the phrase “commercially available data” appears at least once in the text, for reasons that are as benign as they are elusive to casual followers of legislative procedures.

    One of the most popular amendments suggested to the Section 702 bill, discussed openly by lawmakers for months, is one that would prevent the government from purchasing data that normally requires a warrant. To counter arguments that these purchases are unrelated (which is to say, not “germane”) to the 702 program, the language in the final section, accomplishing nothing else, was added. A placeholder, effectively.

    A senior source close to the Judiciary Committee said it would have been impossible for Turner not to know the amendment was coming and the surprise expressed by his staff in the Fox News piece and elsewhere appeared to those in the know as pure theater.

    Four aides, recordings of several public hearings, and a slew of reporting confirm that Turner had been aware for weeks, if not months, that restrictions on commercially-available data would be one of the key amendments offered up by Judiciary members. The aides added that he’d also privately agreed to allow Judiciary members to offer their amendments. Prior to the bill being pulled, Representatives Warren Davidson and Zoe Lofgren had issued a relevant joint statement publicly: “It makes little sense to rein in warrantless surveillance under one authority when the government can simply fall back on other available techniques to acquire similar information,” they said.

    Only after forcing Johnson to cancel the vote did the germaneness of the measure become a justification for tanking the entire process.

    “No one actually thinks the Intelligence Committee cares about this,” says an aide working for a Judiciary member. “It’s the amendment they’re freaking out about. They don’t want the intelligence community to have to ask judges before they do anything.”

    “For all the downplaying the agencies have done, telling us repeatedly they aren’t purchasing our data that often, Turner just blew weeks of negotiation to defend this one thing,” said the same aide. “To me, that says something about how much the government actually cares about this.”

    Update: 2/16/24, 3:35 pm ET: Added details about a letter calling for Turner to step down as Intel chair.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Section 702 Surveillance Fight Pits the White House Opposite Reproductive Rights

    Section 702 Surveillance Fight Pits the White House Opposite Reproductive Rights

    [ad_1]

    As a result, most House members remain confused as to when 702 surveillance would actually end if Congress fails to take action. Reformers say fomenting a sense of urgency to salvage the spy program—ultimately deemed vital even by many of its loudest critics—mostly plays into the administration’s hand, as it serves up “what-if” scenarios concerning possible terrorist attacks to lawmakers still on the fence. A group of senior congressional aides told WIRED last month that discussions about the program have been plagued for weeks by “scare tactics” and disinformation campaigns, with intelligence officials privately using images of Hamas to imply a growing domestic threat.

    Rumors have circulated about a “secret session” being called this week, a rare procedure in which Congress meets behind closed doors. The session has been reported as called off, but a source with knowledge of recent developments tells WIRED that White House national security advisors are still expected to meet privately with lawmakers—one final attempt to dissuade them from supporting privacy reforms.

    Last week, speaker Johnson and House minority leader Steve Scalise privately signed off on what they’d planned to advertise as a “compromise” bill, the latest in a string of schemes aimed at preserving the 702 program with as few changes as possible. It drew immediate criticism from civil liberties organizations such as the Brennan Center for Justice, which said it had been “carefully crafted” to preserve the “status quo.” The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) said the House leadership bill was a “compromise” in name only, aligning clearly with the priorities of the spy agencies over those fighting for reform.

    Multiple sources, however, say the bill ultimately gained acceptance on the condition that both members of the House Judiciary and House Intelligence Committees would be allowed to offer amendments this week that would be subject to a floor vote. The amendment supported by the National Partnership for Women & Families is destined to be among them.

    Police and intelligence agencies regularly purchase millions of dollars worth of sensitive information from data brokers each year, according to a December 2021 study of public records by the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), a civil liberties-focused nonprofit. This data can include phone location data and health data collected by medical apps, which could be used to identify people seeking abortion care.

    The Congressional Research Service (CRS), which provides Congress with legal and policy analysis, noted in 2022 that federal law includes “relatively little constraints” on law enforcement gaining access to sensitive data, including geolocation data and health data collected by apps and fitness trackers. The lack of constraints is particularly true for information sold by data brokers, which are “generally not regulated by any specific privacy statute,” according to CRS. While abortion-related information obtained from data brokers is known to have been used by anti-abortion activists, the CRS notes that it could equally be used by police investigating violations of state-level abortion laws.

    The primary federal law regulating data broker activities is the FTC Act, which gives the Federal Trade Commission the authority to penalize companies that fail to disclose how the data they sell may be used. In January, the FTC banned X-Mode Social, a Virginia-based data broker now named Outlogic, from selling “sensitive location data” that “could be used to track people’s visits to sensitive locations such as medical and reproductive health clinics, places of religious worship and domestic abuse shelters” after the company allegedly failed to institute “appropriate safeguards” against the use of precise location data by third parties.

    In July 2022, US president Joe Biden issued an executive order instructing the FTC chair to “consider actions” that aim to further “protect consumers’ privacy when seeking information about and provision of reproductive healthcare services.” The House Judiciary Committee’s amendment, which US spy agencies oppose, would strengthen these protective efforts far beyond the remit of the FTC Act.

    In a “dear colleagues” email obtained by WIRED, Jerrold Nadler, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, and representative Zoe Lofgren wrote Wednesday that the so-called “compromise” bill “closely tracks” with the demands of the intelligence community, “bypassing commonsense reforms,” including the amendment now endorsed by the National Partnership for Women & Families, which Lofgren and Nadler describe as strictly written to stop the government from “buying its way around the Fourth Amendment.”

    “The implications for Americans’ privacy rights are staggering,” they said, refuting claims that the data-broker issue is unrelated to surveillance conducted under the 702 program. “It makes little sense to rein in warrantless surveillance under one authority when the government can simply fall back on other available techniques to acquire similar information.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A Backroom Deal Looms Over Section 702 Surveillance Fight

    A Backroom Deal Looms Over Section 702 Surveillance Fight

    [ad_1]

    Johnson, notably, previously voted in favor of legislation that would have drastically reformed the 702 program with a slew of privacy protections.

    Despite the uncommon bipartisan support for reforming Section 702, sources familiar with the negotiations say pro-privacy amendments have a history of dying in backroom deals. An amendment proposed last summer to ban the US military from tracking Americans’ cellphones without a warrant was snuffed out in a closed-door session despite winning widespread support in the House. Yet another amendment—which would have done little to interfere with the federal government’s domestic surveillance work—likewise gained support in the House two years ago. But even this half-measure ultimately found itself on the chopping block after negotiations were moved into rooms open to neither the public nor the press.

    The effectiveness of this latest round of pro-privacy bipartisanship came as a surprise to many in the national security establishment. Congressional sources say that a year ago, only a feeble resistance to reauthorizing the surveillance was anticipated. Even its biggest detractors openly acknowledge that the 702 program is likely vital to the US national defense, crucial to investigations of terrorist threats, acts of espionage, and the constant deluge of cyberattacks aimed at US companies and national infrastructure.

    To the contrary, a serious challenge to continuing the program under status-quo conditions did arise in the fall of 2023. Compounded by the sudden fight over the House speakership in October, the smooth reauthorization of Section 702 became a distant fantasy. Working groups established in the House to find common ground eventually disintegrated, leaving only two discernible factions in their wake: One, which believes the FBI should apply for warrants before accessing US calls, texts, and emails intercepted by US spies. And another that says warrants are too much of a burden for investigators.

    What’s counted toward compromise since then might best be described as a “rounding error.” Lawmakers opposed to warrants agreed in December that the FBI should obtain a warrant before accessing 702 data in investigations that lack a foreign component. But of the hundreds of thousands of Americans queried by the bureau each year, only a small fraction fall into this category—fewer than 1 percent, according to some civil liberties experts.

    The Section 702 program was last extended in December until April, when certifications issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court expire, ending a requirement that American companies cooperate with the intelligence community’s wiretap demands. Some experts have forecast that the intelligence community may begin to apply for new certifications as early as next month, allowing the surveillance to continue uninterrupted for an additional year, even if Congress fails to act.

    It is often the last resort of congressional leaders to block privacy-enhancing bills from reaching the floor for a vote—even if the result is that a surveillance program goes suddenly unauthorized by Congress. Letting a program expire is often preferable to allowing a vote to take place if it runs the risk of enshrining unwanted restrictions in the law.

    Expired surveillance programs can find ways to carry on. US lawmakers introduced bills twice last year, for instance, with measures aimed at banning FBI surveillance techniques technically rendered unlawful four years after Congress failed to reauthorize Section 215: a package of surveillance tools provided by the 9/11-era Patriot Act legislation.

    House leaders—Democrats at the time—faced similar popular opposition to continuing the 215 surveillance under status-quo conditions. Rather than risk a vote that might permanently kill the programs, it was simply allowed to expire. Since then, the FBI has continued availing itself of the surveillance techniques, year after year, “grandfathering” in a bevy of new cases.

    [ad_2]

    Source link