Category: reason

How long before grid attacks become the new normal?

In the news roundup, David Kris digs into rumors that Chinese malware attacks may have caused a blackout in India at a time when military conflict was flaring on the two nation’s Himalayan border. This leads us to Russia’s targeting of the U.S. grid and to uneasy speculation on how well our regulatory regime is adapted to preventing successful grid attacks.

The Biden administration is starting to get its legs under it on cybersecurity. In its first major initiative, Maury Shenk and Nick Weaver tell us, it has called for a set of studies on how to secure the supply chain in several critical products, from rare earths to semiconductors. As a reflection of the rare bipartisanship of the issue, the President’s order is weirdly similar to Sen. Tom Cotton’s call to “beat China” economically.

Nick explains the most recent story on how China repurposed an NSA attack tool to use against U.S. targets. Bottom line: It’s embarrassing for sure, but it’s also business as usual for attack teams. This leads us to a surprisingly favorable review of the Cyber Threat Alliance’s recent paper on how to run a Vulnerability Equities Process.

Maury explains the new rules that Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter will face in India.

Among other things, the rules will require India-based “grievance officers” to handle complaints. I am unable to resist suggesting that, if ever there were a title that the wokeforce at these companies should aspire to, it’s Chief Grievance Officer.

Nick and I make short work of two purported scandals—ICE investigators using a private utility database to enforce immigration law and the IRS purchasing cellphone location data. I argue that the first story is the work of ideologues who would loudly protest ICE access to the White Pages. And the second is a nonstory largely manufactured by Sen. Wyden.

In a story that isn’t manufactured, David and I predict that the Supremes will agree to decide the scope of cellphone border searches.  More than that, we conclude, the Ninth Circuit will lose. The hard question is how broadly the Court decides to rule once it has kicked the Ninth Circuit rule to the curb.

Maury reports that Facebook and Google have pushed the Aussie government into a compromise on paying Aussie media fees for links. Facebook gets the credit for being willing to shoot the family members the government was holding hostage (although in Facebook’s case, the hostage was probably a second cousin once removed). Maury predicts that the negotiations will be tougher once the European Union starts rounding up its hostages.

In quick hits, I claim credit for pointing out years ago that sooner or later the crybullies would come for  “quantum supremacy.” And they have. Maury and I note the rise of audits for AI bias. He’s mildly favorable; I am not. And I close by noting the surprisingly difficult choices illustrated by Pro Publica’s story on how the content moderation sausage was made at Facebook when the Turkish government demanded that a Kurdish group’s postings be taken down.

And more!

Download the 351st Episode (mp3)

You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3r8WCnZ
via IFTTT

After 5 Relists, SCOTUS Grants Cert in Puerto Rico Case Biden SG Will Probably Switch Positions On

In September, Acting Solicitor Jeff Wall filed a cert petition in United States v. Vaello-Madero. This appeal from the First Circuit presented the question of whether Congress violated the Fifth Amendment by excluding Puerto Rico from a social security program. At the time, then-candidate Biden tweeted that “This ends when I’m elected President.” In other words, his administration would not take this position.

The briefing concluded on November 24, and the petition was distributed for conference on December 11. The case was then relisted five times. Finally, it was granted on February 26. Usually when a case is relisted several times, a Justice is working on a dissent from denial of cert. But here, after percolation, there was apparently enough support for a grant.

It is also possible that the Court was waiting for Acting SG Elizabeth Prelogar to withdraw the cert petition. Amy Howe observed at SCOTUSBlog:

Last month, Democratic lawmakers and religious leaders urged President Joe Biden to withdraw the lawsuit and give Puerto Rico residents access to SSI benefits, but Biden’s acting solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, did not take any action in the case after replacing Wall. The justices granted the government’s petition on Monday; absent any further developments, the case will likely be scheduled for oral argument in the fall.

But that petition was not withdrawn. And the Biden administration will now have to reverse its position.

In rare cases, the Solicitor General will decline to defend a lower-court judgment. But usually in those cases, the losing party petitioned the Court for review. Here, the SG of one administration petitioned the Court for review, then the SG of another administration will agree with the lower-court decision.

As a result, the Court may appoint an amicus to defend the position taken by the SG’s former cert petition. Or the Court could DIG the case altogether.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3uJZnOJ
via IFTTT

After 5 Relists, SCOTUS Grants Cert in Puerto Rico Case Biden SG Will Probably Switch Positions On

In September, Acting Solicitor Jeff Wall filed a cert petition in United States v. Vaello-Madero. This appeal from the First Circuit presented the question of whether Congress violated the Fifth Amendment by excluding Puerto Rico from a social security program. At the time, then-candidate Biden tweeted that “This ends when I’m elected President.” In other words, his administration would not take this position.

The briefing concluded on November 24, and the petition was distributed for conference on December 11. The case was then relisted five times. Finally, it was granted on February 26. Usually when a case is relisted several times, a Justice is working on a dissent from denial of cert. But here, after percolation, there was apparently enough support for a grant.

It is also possible that the Court was waiting for Acting SG Elizabeth Prelogar to withdraw the cert petition. Amy Howe observed at SCOTUSBlog:

Last month, Democratic lawmakers and religious leaders urged President Joe Biden to withdraw the lawsuit and give Puerto Rico residents access to SSI benefits, but Biden’s acting solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, did not take any action in the case after replacing Wall. The justices granted the government’s petition on Monday; absent any further developments, the case will likely be scheduled for oral argument in the fall.

But that petition was not withdrawn. And the Biden administration will now have to reverse its position.

In rare cases, the Solicitor General will decline to defend a lower-court judgment. But usually in those cases, the losing party petitioned the Court for review. Here, the SG of one administration petitioned the Court for review, then the SG of another administration will agree with the lower-court decision.

As a result, the Court may appoint an amicus to defend the position taken by the SG’s former cert petition. Or the Court could DIG the case altogether.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3uJZnOJ
via IFTTT

Punish Politicians for the Right Reasons

Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie gather on this week’s Reason Roundtable to reflect with fresh fury on the latest bureaucratic bottle-necking and duty dereliction. And they find some bits of good news for you too.

Discussed in the show:

0:24: New York is…not well.

23:56: What’s the takeaway of comparing Democrat- and Republican-run states in the face of pandemic management? (Look forward to a feature piece diving even deeper into this by Matt Welch.)

31:23: Weekly Listener Question: What does the Roundtable suggest to replace the current vaccine approval process?

46:45: Biden bombed Syria, and we’re reminded that behind the “he’s not Trump” hype, he’s still just a “status-quo institutionalist.”

49:13: Media recommendations for the week.

This week’s links:

Send your questions either by email to roundtable@reason.com or by voicemail to 213-973-3017. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Audio production by Ian Keyser.
Assistant production by Regan Taylor.
Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2OdPSXn
via IFTTT

U.N. Human Rights Officials Call For Investigation of Navalny Poisoning

dreamstime_xl_42309336

Two United Nations human rights officials pressed today for an international investigation into the August 2020 poisoning of Russian political dissident Alexei Navalny. Only state actors, they claim, could have carried out the attack.

Navalny fell into a coma while on a domestic flight in Russia last summer. He was medically evacuated to Germany, where a novel form of the nerve agent Novichok was found to be in his system. Novichok is a banned neurotoxin developed by the Soviet and then Russian governments.

Agnès Callamard, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, and Irene Khan, the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, released a statement today calling for a “credible and transparent” investigation into Navalny’s poisoning. They expressly accused the Russian government of culpability.

“We believe that poisoning Mr. Navalny with Novichok might have been deliberately carried out to send a clear, sinister warning that this would be the fate of anyone who would criticise and oppose the government,” the statement says. “Novichok was precisely chosen to cause fear.”

The officials claim that the use of the nerve agent and the attackers’ expertise in handling the dangerous substance point to the Kremlin’s complicity.

“Mr. Navalny was under intensive government surveillance at the time of the attempted killing, making it unlikely that any third party could have administered such a banned chemical without the knowledge of the Russian authorities,” they wrote in a December letter to the Russian government.

After spending several months recovering in Germany, Navalny was arrested upon his return to Russia for violating the terms of his parole for a 2014 fraud conviction. The arrest sparked weeks of protests throughout the country.

Despite Navalny’s argument that he had been taken to Germany while comatose, left the country as soon as he was medically able, and informed prison officials of his whereabouts, a judge still sentenced him to more than two and a half years in a penal colony.

Last week, Amnesty International revoked Navalny’s status as a prisoner of conscience because of past comments the organization claimed “amounted to advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, violence or hostility.” (Navalny has used a derogatory term for ethnic Georgians, and he called for their expulsion from the country during Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008. Navalny has since apologized for the epithet but has stood by several nationalist positions he has taken.) Amnesty International’s definition of “prisoner of conscience” excludes those who have “advocated violence or hatred,” and it has concluded that Navalny no longer makes the cut.

Nonetheless, the group continues to support Navalny’s release. “There should be no confusion: nothing Navalny has said in the past justifies his current detention, which is purely politically motivated,” the organization declared in an official statement. “Navalny has been arbitrarily detained for exercising his right to freedom of expression, and for this reason we continue to campaign for his immediate release.“

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3q0kpoI
via IFTTT

Punish Politicians for the Right Reasons

Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie gather on this week’s Reason Roundtable to reflect with fresh fury on the latest bureaucratic bottle-necking and duty dereliction. And they find some bits of good news for you too.

Discussed in the show:

0:24: New York is…not well.

23:56: What’s the takeaway of comparing Democrat- and Republican-run states in the face of pandemic management? (Look forward to a feature piece diving even deeper into this by Matt Welch.)

31:23: Weekly Listener Question: What does the Roundtable suggest to replace the current vaccine approval process?

46:45: Biden bombed Syria, and we’re reminded that behind the “he’s not Trump” hype, he’s still just a “status-quo institutionalist.”

49:13: Media recommendations for the week.

This week’s links:

Send your questions either by email to roundtable@reason.com or by voicemail to 213-973-3017. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Audio production by Ian Keyser.
Assistant production by Regan Taylor.
Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2OdPSXn
via IFTTT

U.N. Human Rights Officials Call For Investigation of Navalny Poisoning

dreamstime_xl_42309336

Two United Nations human rights officials pressed today for an international investigation into the August 2020 poisoning of Russian political dissident Alexei Navalny. Only state actors, they claim, could have carried out the attack.

Navalny fell into a coma while on a domestic flight in Russia last summer. He was medically evacuated to Germany, where a novel form of the nerve agent Novichok was found to be in his system. Novichok is a banned neurotoxin developed by the Soviet and then Russian governments.

Agnès Callamard, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, and Irene Khan, the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, released a statement today calling for a “credible and transparent” investigation into Navalny’s poisoning. They expressly accused the Russian government of culpability.

“We believe that poisoning Mr. Navalny with Novichok might have been deliberately carried out to send a clear, sinister warning that this would be the fate of anyone who would criticise and oppose the government,” the statement says. “Novichok was precisely chosen to cause fear.”

The officials claim that the use of the nerve agent and the attackers’ expertise in handling the dangerous substance point to the Kremlin’s complicity.

“Mr. Navalny was under intensive government surveillance at the time of the attempted killing, making it unlikely that any third party could have administered such a banned chemical without the knowledge of the Russian authorities,” they wrote in a December letter to the Russian government.

After spending several months recovering in Germany, Navalny was arrested upon his return to Russia for violating the terms of his parole for a 2014 fraud conviction. The arrest sparked weeks of protests throughout the country.

Despite Navalny’s argument that he had been taken to Germany while comatose, left the country as soon as he was medically able, and informed prison officials of his whereabouts, a judge still sentenced him to more than two and a half years in a penal colony.

Last week, Amnesty International revoked Navalny’s status as a prisoner of conscience because of past comments the organization claimed “amounted to advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, violence or hostility.” (Navalny has used a derogatory term for ethnic Georgians, and he called for their expulsion from the country during Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008. Navalny has since apologized for the epithet but has stood by several nationalist positions he has taken.) Amnesty International’s definition of “prisoner of conscience” excludes those who have “advocated violence or hatred,” and it has concluded that Navalny no longer makes the cut.

Nonetheless, the group continues to support Navalny’s release. “There should be no confusion: nothing Navalny has said in the past justifies his current detention, which is purely politically motivated,” the organization declared in an official statement. “Navalny has been arbitrarily detained for exercising his right to freedom of expression, and for this reason we continue to campaign for his immediate release.“

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3q0kpoI
via IFTTT

Democrats Demand Bureaucrats Regulate Bureaus More Heavily

reason-blumenthal

Are you sitting down? Well, maybe you shouldn’t be, given the risks posed by America’s stock of dangerously unregulated furniture. A new bill in Congress aims to prevent deaths from tipped-over dressers.

“The furniture industry has been allowed to self-regulate for too long—and with tragic consequences, as a child is injured by tipped furniture every 17 minutes,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.) in a press release promoting the Stop Tip-overs of Unstable, Risky Dressers on Youth (STURDY) Act. “As kids spend more time at home due to the pandemic, unanchored or top-heavy furniture poses a greater than ever risk.”

Sens. Blumenthal, Bob Casey (D–Penn.), and Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) introduced the STURDY Act last Thursday. The legislation would require the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to develop more rigorous standards for dressers and other free-standing “clothing storage units” to prevent them from tipping over.

Deaths from falling furniture have attracted increased attention recently. According to the CPSC, which has released a series of reports on these incidents, 571 people, including 451 children, have died in the last 20 years from accidents involving unstable TVs, furniture, and appliances.

Most of these fatalities involved either falling TVs or falling furniture. Incidents involving only a tipped-over dresser or bureau, the subject of the STURDY Act, have produced 115 deaths in two decades.

“The nation’s furniture tip-over epidemic is particularly insidious because the danger is all around us, inside our homes—unless parents, grandparents, and other caregivers use special kits to strap or anchor furniture to wall,” wrote Consumer Reports in its 2018 investigation of the topic.

In that investigation, Consumer Reports conducted tip-over tests on 17 commercially available dressers. They found that nine of these dressers could fall over when a 50-pound weight was hung from the open top drawer. Only five dressers managed to withstand a 60-pound weight being hung from an open top drawer. (The idea was to simulate a child pulling on the front of a dresser.)

Blumenthal’s bill would require dressers and other “clothing storage units” to undergo similar simulations of a 60-pound child pulling on the dresser, as well as other real-world uses that could result in tip-over. It would also require new warning requirements to inform consumers of the danger of these collapsing cabinets.

The STURDY Act was first introduced in 2019. It passed the House but never made it through the Senate.

That same year ASTM International, an organization that develops voluntary technical standards for testing materials and products, revised its dresser stability standard to cover clothing storage units as short as 27 inches. The old standards covered only dressers that were 30 inches or taller.

The American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA) has raised a number of issues with the STURDY Act, saying the vague language in the bill would give furniture makers and sellers no clear guidance on how to comply with the new rules. The group also suggested several amendments to the bill, including a proposal that its requirements be limited to products intended for children.

Every preventable death is a tragedy, particularly when the victim is a child. It is nevertheless worth noting that approximately five of the 50 million children in the U.S. under the age of 12 die each year from falling furniture, according to a 2020 CPSC report.

The costs of the new regulations would meanwhile be borne by millions of consumers, including those who don’t have children. Four of the five dressers that withstood Consumer Reports’ 60-pound test cost more than $500. All dressers that cost less than $100 failed the 60-pound test.

A $150, 30-inch-tall dresser from IKEA did pass the 60-pound test, prompting Consumer Reports to say this proves that “a stable, affordable dresser at this height is possible.” But if such a dresser already exists on the marketplace, regulations mandating it into existence are unnecessary. The primary effect of stricter rules would be to eliminate the cheapest products. Would safety be ill-served by allowing childless adults on a budget to continue to purchase those?

Parents concerned about rickety dressers also have the option of securing furniture to the walls with straps and furniture anchors. Since 2015, the CPSC has run an “Anchor It!” educational campaign to encourage parents to do just that. Given the rarity of deaths from wobbly wardrobes and the existence of safe, affordable alternatives, it would be wise for legislators to shelf their STURDY Act proposal.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3bRfv8r
via IFTTT