Tag: posts

The Still-Untold Story of Electric Grid Insecurity

It’s a story that has everything, except a reporter ready to tell it. A hostile state attacking the US power grid is a longstanding and quite plausible national security concern. The Trump administration was galvanized by the threat, even seizing Chinese power equipment when it arrived in the US to do a detailed breakdown of the gear and then issuing an executive order and follow-up rulings designed to cut Chinese products out of the US grid supply chain.

Yet now the Biden administration has suspended this order for 90 days – the only Trump cybersecurity order to be called into question so far. Industry lobbying? Chinese maneuvering? Tech uncertainty?  No one knows, but Brian Egan and I sketch the outlines of an irresistible story that will surely reward a persistent journalist.

The SolarWinds story, meanwhile, needs a new moniker, as the compromises spread beyond SolarWinds distributions, reaching victims like Malwarebytes. Increasingly, it looks as though Microsoft and its cloud are the common denominators, Sultan Meghji and I observe, but that’s one moniker the story will never acquire.

In other cyber TTP news, the Chinese are stealing airline passenger reservation data, Sultan notes. Maybe they’re just trying to find out when Mike Pompeo next plans to come to China so they can meet him at the airport and enforce their latest sanctions – no Great Wall tours for you, Mr. Secretary!

This is our last week of Trumpian cyber news, so we wallow in it. President Trump also issued a last-minute order calling for an assessment of the security risks of Chinese drones, Maury Shenk tells us. And Brian unpacks the other last-minute Trump administration order requiring U.S. U.S. cloud providers to know which foreigners they are selling virtual machines to.

I claim victory in my short letter to Secretary Mnuchin, suggesting that, instead of jamming a cryptocurrency regulation through on his watch, he concentrate on convincing Secretary-designate Yellen to carry the project through.  If he took my advice, it seems to have worked. Sultan reports that she is showing signs of wanting to “curtail” cryptocurrency. In other news, Sultan boldly predicts the advent of interplanetary cryptocurrency in Elon Musk’s lifetime.

Brian and I unpack the latest Cyberspace Solarium Commission product—its persuasive Transition Book for the Biden administration. I predict that the statutorily mandated cybersecurity director it recommends will have to be subordinated to the Deputy National Security Adviser for cybersecurity if the office is to be accepted in the White House.

And in quick hits: Maury covers the surprisingly robust European enforcement of employee protections against video surveillance. I explain Parler’s loss in trying to overturn the AWS ban that pushed it off the internet. Sultan explains why the Biden Peloton is a cybersecurity risk, and I tip my hat to the President’s physical fitness. I summarize the Mike Ellis story; he held the job NSA’s general counsel for about a day before a political witch-hunt caught up with him, and he may never serve another day.

And, finally, a little schadenfreude for the European Parliament, which is being investigated by the EU’s lead data regulator for poor cookie notices on a website it set up for MEPs to book coronavirus tests. The complainant? Max Schrems, who is now well on his way to becoming as unpopular with European politicos as he is in the U.S.

And more!

Download the 346th 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/3a2zmAL
via IFTTT

The Still-Untold Story of Electric Grid Insecurity

It’s a story that has everything, except a reporter ready to tell it. A hostile state attacking the US power grid is a longstanding and quite plausible national security concern. The Trump administration was galvanized by the threat, even seizing Chinese power equipment when it arrived in the US to do a detailed breakdown of the gear and then issuing an executive order and follow-up rulings designed to cut Chinese products out of the US grid supply chain.

Yet now the Biden administration has suspended this order for 90 days – the only Trump cybersecurity order to be called into question so far. Industry lobbying? Chinese maneuvering? Tech uncertainty?  No one knows, but Brian Egan and I sketch the outlines of an irresistible story that will surely reward a persistent journalist.

The SolarWinds story, meanwhile, needs a new moniker, as the compromises spread beyond SolarWinds distributions, reaching victims like Malwarebytes. Increasingly, it looks as though Microsoft and its cloud are the common denominators, Sultan Meghji and I observe, but that’s one moniker the story will never acquire.

In other cyber TTP news, the Chinese are stealing airline passenger reservation data, Sultan notes. Maybe they’re just trying to find out when Mike Pompeo next plans to come to China so they can meet him at the airport and enforce their latest sanctions – no Great Wall tours for you, Mr. Secretary!

This is our last week of Trumpian cyber news, so we wallow in it. President Trump also issued a last-minute order calling for an assessment of the security risks of Chinese drones, Maury Shenk tells us. And Brian unpacks the other last-minute Trump administration order requiring U.S. U.S. cloud providers to know which foreigners they are selling virtual machines to.

I claim victory in my short letter to Secretary Mnuchin, suggesting that, instead of jamming a cryptocurrency regulation through on his watch, he concentrate on convincing Secretary-designate Yellen to carry the project through.  If he took my advice, it seems to have worked. Sultan reports that she is showing signs of wanting to “curtail” cryptocurrency. In other news, Sultan boldly predicts the advent of interplanetary cryptocurrency in Elon Musk’s lifetime.

Brian and I unpack the latest Cyberspace Solarium Commission product—its persuasive Transition Book for the Biden administration. I predict that the statutorily mandated cybersecurity director it recommends will have to be subordinated to the Deputy National Security Adviser for cybersecurity if the office is to be accepted in the White House.

And in quick hits: Maury covers the surprisingly robust European enforcement of employee protections against video surveillance. I explain Parler’s loss in trying to overturn the AWS ban that pushed it off the internet. Sultan explains why the Biden Peloton is a cybersecurity risk, and I tip my hat to the President’s physical fitness. I summarize the Mike Ellis story; he held the job NSA’s general counsel for about a day before a political witch-hunt caught up with him, and he may never serve another day.

And, finally, a little schadenfreude for the European Parliament, which is being investigated by the EU’s lead data regulator for poor cookie notices on a website it set up for MEPs to book coronavirus tests. The complainant? Max Schrems, who is now well on his way to becoming as unpopular with European politicos as he is in the U.S.

And more!

Download the 346th 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/3a2zmAL
via IFTTT

End of the Road for the Emoluments Clauses litigation

On January 23, 2021–only three days after the inauguration–the first Emoluments Clauses case was filed in the Southern District of New York. Four years later, almost to the date, the Supreme Court found this challenge, and a related case from Maryland, were moot.

Readers of this blog have no doubt followed my work on this case with Seth Barrett Tillman. Over the past four years, we filed nearly two dozen briefs in three District Courts, three Circuit Courts, and the Supreme Court. Plus, we wrote many op-eds, blog posts, and gave countless media interviews. I was also able to attend oral arguments in each of the District Courts, and two of the Circuit Courts.

In time, I will have much more to say about these cases. For now, I am grateful that the Supreme Court granted our motion for leave to file amicus briefs. Here are the Supreme Court’s first, last, and only words on the Emoluments Clauses:

20-330 TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S. V. CREW, ET AL.

The motion of Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Professor Lawrence A. Hamermesh for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).

20-331 TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL.

The motion of Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3iK02Kt
via IFTTT

How COVID-19 Made School Choice a Priority

In this week’s installment of The Reason Roundtable, Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie comment on the latest malfeasance at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and explain how COVID-19 highlights the importance of National School Choice Week.

Discussed in the show:
1:16: Policy news from California and the CDC
11:06: Are we “turning the corner” on COVID-19 cases?
16:54: COVID and National School Choice week.
24:13: Peter tells us exactly what public sector unions are about.
32:05: Email question of the week.
36:48: We had an inauguration last week.
51:32: Media recommendations for the week.

This week’s links:

• “How the CDC Bungles Testing of Early COVID-19 Quarantine Patients,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

• a Twitter thread of the weirdest things Trump did

• “Surge of Student Suicidees Pushes Las Vegas School to Reopen,” by Erica L. Green

• “Chicago Teachers Union Refuses Order to Go Back to Classrooms,” by Robby Soave

• “As Teachers Unions and Bureaucrats Battle, Families Choose Alternative Schools,” by J.D. Tuccille

• “In 2020, Teachers Unions and Police Unions Showed Their True Colors,” by Peter Suderman

• “The Washington Post Tried To Memory-Hole Kamala Harris’ Bad Joke About Inmates Begging for Food and Water,” by Eric Boehm

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

Today’s sponsor: Get an up-close look at the history of the Constitution with the Institute for Justice’s new podcast, Bound by Oath. Available wherever you check out podcasts.

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

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2KQf8S8
via IFTTT

End of the Road for the Emoluments Clauses litigation

On January 23, 2021–only three days after the inauguration–the first Emoluments Clauses case was filed in the Southern District of New York. Four years later, almost to the date, the Supreme Court found this challenge, and a related case from Maryland, were moot.

Readers of this blog have no doubt followed my work on this case with Seth Barrett Tillman. Over the past four years, we filed nearly two dozen briefs in three District Courts, three Circuit Courts, and the Supreme Court. Plus, we wrote many op-eds, blog posts, and gave countless media interviews. I was also able to attend oral arguments in each of the District Courts, and two of the Circuit Courts.

In time, I will have much more to say about these cases. For now, I am grateful that the Supreme Court granted our motion for leave to file amicus briefs. Here are the Supreme Court’s first, last, and only words on the Emoluments Clauses:

20-330 TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S. V. CREW, ET AL.

The motion of Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Professor Lawrence A. Hamermesh for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).

20-331 TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL.

The motion of Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3iK02Kt
via IFTTT

How COVID-19 Made School Choice a Priority

In this week’s installment of The Reason Roundtable, Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie comment on the latest malfeasance at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and explain how COVID-19 highlights the importance of National School Choice Week.

Discussed in the show:
1:16: Policy news from California and the CDC
11:06: Are we “turning the corner” on COVID-19 cases?
16:54: COVID and National School Choice week.
24:13: Peter tells us exactly what public sector unions are about.
32:05: Email question of the week.
36:48: We had an inauguration last week.
51:32: Media recommendations for the week.

This week’s links:

• “How the CDC Bungles Testing of Early COVID-19 Quarantine Patients,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

• a Twitter thread of the weirdest things Trump did

• “Surge of Student Suicidees Pushes Las Vegas School to Reopen,” by Erica L. Green

• “Chicago Teachers Union Refuses Order to Go Back to Classrooms,” by Robby Soave

• “As Teachers Unions and Bureaucrats Battle, Families Choose Alternative Schools,” by J.D. Tuccille

• “In 2020, Teachers Unions and Police Unions Showed Their True Colors,” by Peter Suderman

• “The Washington Post Tried To Memory-Hole Kamala Harris’ Bad Joke About Inmates Begging for Food and Water,” by Eric Boehm

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

Today’s sponsor: Get an up-close look at the history of the Constitution with the Institute for Justice’s new podcast, Bound by Oath. Available wherever you check out podcasts.

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

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2KQf8S8
via IFTTT

California Gov. Gavin Newsom Issues Surprise Retraction of Controversial Stay-at-Home Order

Gavin-Newsom-Gage-Skidmore-Flickr

In a surprise move, California public health officials are lifting a controversial stay-at-home order. The rule had forbidden people in affected regions from socializing with members outside their households and imposed a raft of restrictions on businesses in much of the state.

“California is slowly starting to emerge from the most dangerous surge of this pandemic yet,” said California Health and Human Services Secretary Mark Ghaly in a press release today. “Californians heard the urgent message to stay home when possible and our surge after the December holidays did not overwhelm the health care system to the degree we had feared.”

“Today we can start to see some real light at the end of the tunnel,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom at a press conference this afternoon.

The stay-at-home order, issued in early December, divided the state into five regions. The rules snapped into effect whenever a region’s hospital intensive care unit (ICU) capacity fell below 15 percent.

Where it was in effect, the order banned restaurants from operating outdoor dining and kept personal services businesses, such as nail salons, from operating at all. Retail businesses were required to operate at 20 percent capacity.

Before its snap repeal, the order was in effect in three regions: Southern California, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Bay Area. It had been lifted in the Sacramento region and had never gone into effect in the Northern California region. At his press conference, Newsom shared state projections showing that all regions of the state would have more than 15 percent ICU capacity by February 21.

Those restrictions were more severe than the state’s prior Blueprint for a Safer Economy. That system put counties into one of four color-coded tiers, each with different conditions for which businesses were allowed to open and at what capacity they could operate. But even in the most restrictive “purple” tier, outdoor dining was allowed.

The regional stay-at-home order sparked widespread resistance. Many restaurants continued to keep their outdoor dining patios open in protest. Sheriffs departments across the state said they wouldn’t enforce the order. Local governments and business associations threatened or filed lawsuits. The order also boosted efforts to recall Newsom.

The sudden lifting of the order, which leaked Sunday afternoon, came as a surprise to state legislators, many of whom learned the news from Twitter.

The snap reversal of the order, coming on the heels of intense criticism and non-compliance, has sparked accusations that the governor was bending to political considerations.

The state will now return to the four-tiered “blueprint” system. All but three of the state’s counties are currently in that most restrictive “purple” tier, although Newsom said in his press conference that this would be reevaluated tomorrow.

Counties are allowed to set more restrictive reopening conditions than what the state mandates. It will be a while before the precise practical effects of today’s decision are clear.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36bNNkB
via IFTTT

California Gov. Gavin Newsom Issues Surprise Retraction of Controversial Stay-at-Home Order

Gavin-Newsom-Gage-Skidmore-Flickr

In a surprise move, California public health officials are lifting a controversial stay-at-home order. The rule had forbidden people in affected regions from socializing with members outside their households and imposed a raft of restrictions on businesses in much of the state.

“California is slowly starting to emerge from the most dangerous surge of this pandemic yet,” said California Health and Human Services Secretary Mark Ghaly in a press release today. “Californians heard the urgent message to stay home when possible and our surge after the December holidays did not overwhelm the health care system to the degree we had feared.”

“Today we can start to see some real light at the end of the tunnel,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom at a press conference this afternoon.

The stay-at-home order, issued in early December, divided the state into five regions. The rules snapped into effect whenever a region’s hospital intensive care unit (ICU) capacity fell below 15 percent.

Where it was in effect, the order banned restaurants from operating outdoor dining and kept personal services businesses, such as nail salons, from operating at all. Retail businesses were required to operate at 20 percent capacity.

Before its snap repeal, the order was in effect in three regions: Southern California, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Bay Area. It had been lifted in the Sacramento region and had never gone into effect in the Northern California region. At his press conference, Newsom shared state projections showing that all regions of the state would have more than 15 percent ICU capacity by February 21.

Those restrictions were more severe than the state’s prior Blueprint for a Safer Economy. That system put counties into one of four color-coded tiers, each with different conditions for which businesses were allowed to open and at what capacity they could operate. But even in the most restrictive “purple” tier, outdoor dining was allowed.

The regional stay-at-home order sparked widespread resistance. Many restaurants continued to keep their outdoor dining patios open in protest. Sheriffs departments across the state said they wouldn’t enforce the order. Local governments and business associations threatened or filed lawsuits. The order also boosted efforts to recall Newsom.

The sudden lifting of the order, which leaked Sunday afternoon, came as a surprise to state legislators, many of whom learned the news from Twitter.

The snap reversal of the order, coming on the heels of intense criticism and non-compliance, has sparked accusations that the governor was bending to political considerations.

The state will now return to the four-tiered “blueprint” system. All but three of the state’s counties are currently in that most restrictive “purple” tier, although Newsom said in his press conference that this would be reevaluated tomorrow.

Counties are allowed to set more restrictive reopening conditions than what the state mandates. It will be a while before the precise practical effects of today’s decision are clear.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36bNNkB
via IFTTT