It was a big week for deep fakes generated by artificial intelligence. Sultan Meghji, who’s got a new AI startup, walked us through three stories that illustrate the ways AI will lead to more confusion about who’s really talking to us. First, a fake Biden robocall urged people not to vote in the New Hampshire primary. Second, a bot purporting to offer Dean Phillips’s views on the issues was sanctioned by OpenAI because it didn’t have Phillips’s consent. Third, fake nudes of Taylor Swift led to a ban on Twitter searches for her image. And, finally, podcasters used AI to resurrect George Carlin and got sued by his family. The moral panic over AI fakery meant that all of these stories were long on “end of the world” and short on “we’ll live through this.”

Regulators of AI are not doing a better job of maintaining perspective. Mark MacCarthy reports that New York City’s AI hiring law, which has punitive disparate-impact disclosure requirements for automated hiring decision engines, seems to have persuaded NYC employers that they aren’t making any automated hiring decisions, so they don’t have to do any disclosures. Not to be outdone, the European Court of Justice has decided that pretty much any tool to aid in decisions is likely to be an automated decision making technology subject to special (and mostly nonsensical) data protection rules.

Is AI regulation creating its own backlash? Could be. Sultan and I report on a very plausible Republican plan to attack the Biden AI executive order on the ground that its main enforcement mechanism relies, the Defense Production Act, simply doesn’t authorize what the order calls for.

Speaking of regulation, Maury Shenk covers the EU’s application of the Digital Markets Act to big tech companies like Apple and Google. Apple isn’t used to being treated like just another company, and its contemptuous response to the EU’s rules for its app market could easily lead to regulatory sanctions. Looking at Apple’s proposed compliance with the California court ruling in the Epic case and the European Digital Market Act, Mark says it's time to think about price regulating mobile app stores.

Even handing out big checks to technology companies turns out to be harder than it first sounds. Sultan and I talk about the slow pace of payments to chip makers, and the political imperative to get the deals done before November (and probably before March). 

Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore. is still flogging NSA and the danger of government access to personal data. This time, he’s on about NSA’s purchases of commercial data. So far, so predictable. But this time, he’s misrepresented the facts by saying without restriction that NSA buys domestic metadata, omitting NSA’s clear statement that its netflow “domestic” data consists of communications with one end outside the country.  

Maury and I review an absent colleague’s effort to construct a liability regime for insecure software. Jim Dempsey's proposal looks quite reasonable, but Maury reminds me that he and I produced something similar twenty years ago, and it’s not even close to adoption anywhere in the U.S.  

I can’t help but rant about Amazon’s arrogant, virtue-signaling, and customer-hating decision to drop a feature that makes it easy for Ring doorbell users to share their videos with the police. Whose data is it, anyway, Amazon? Sadly, we know the answer. 

It looks as though there’s only one place where hasty, ill-conceived tech regulation is being rolled back. Maury reports on the People’s Republic of China, which canned its video game regulations, and its video game regulator for good measure, and started approving new games at a rapid clip, after a proposed regulatory crackdown knocked more than $60 bn off the value of its industry. 

We close the news roundup with a few quick hits:

• Outside of AI, VCs are closing their wallets and letting startups run out of money

•  Apple launched an expensive dud – the Vision Pro

•  Quantum winter may be back as quantum computing turns out to be harder than hoped

• Speaking of winter, self-driving cars are going to need snow tires to get through the latest market and regulatory storms overtaking companies like Cruise 

Finally, as a listener bonus, we turn to Rob Silvers, Under Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland Security and Chair of the Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB). Under Rob’s leadership, DHS has proposed legislation to give the CSRB a legislative foundation. The Senate homeland security committee recently held a hearing about that idea. Rob wasn’t invited, so we asked him to come on the podcast to respond to issues that the hearing raised – conflicts of interest, subpoena power, choosing the incidents to investigate, and more.

Download 489th 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@gmail.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.

The Supreme Court heard argument last week in two cases seeking to overturn the Chevron doctrine that defers to administrative agencies in interpreting the statutes that they administer. The cases have nothing to do with cybersecurity, but Adam Hickey thinks they’re almost certain to have a big effect on cybersecurity policy. That’s because Chevron is going to take a beating, if it survives at all. That means it will be much tougher to repurpose existing law to deal with new regulatory problems. Given how little serious cybersecurity legislation has been passed in recent years, any new cybersecurity regulation is bound to require some stretching of existing law – and to be easier to challenge.

Case in point: Even without a new look at Chevron, the EPA was balked in court when it tried to stretch its authorities to cover cybersecurity rules for water companies. Now, Kurt Sanger tells us, EPA, FBI, and CISA have combined to release cybersecurity guidance for the water sector. The guidance is pretty generic; and there’s no reason to think that underfunded water companies will actually take it to heart. Given Iran’s interest in causing aggravation and maybe worse in that sector, Congress is almost certainly going to feel pressure to act on the problem. 

CISA’s emergency cybersecurity directives to federal agencies are a library of flaws that are already being exploited. As Adam points out, what’s especially worrying is how quickly patches are being turned into attacks and deployed. I wonder how sustainable the current patch system will prove to be. In fact, it’s already unsustainable; we just don’t have anything to replace it.

The good news is that the Russians have been surprisingly bad at turning flaws into serious infrastructure problems even for a wartime enemy like Ukraine. Additional information about Russia’s attack on Ukraine’s largest telecom provider suggests that the cost to get infrastructure back was less than the competitive harm the carrier suffered in trying to win its customers back. 

Companies are starting to report breaches under the new, tougher SEC rule, and Microsoft is out of the gate early, Adam tells us. Russian hackers stole the company’s corporate emails, it says, but it insists the breach wasn’t material. I predict we’ll see a lot of such hair splitting as companies adjust to the rule. If so, Adam predicts, we’re going to be flooded with 8-Ks. 

Kurt notes recent FBI and CISA warnings about the national security threat posed by Chinese drones. The hard question is what’s new in those warnings. A question about whether antitrust authorities might investigate DJI’s enormous market share leads to another about the FTC’s utter lack of interest in getting guidance from the executive branch when it wanders into the national security field. Case in point: After listing a boatload of “sensitive location data” that should not be sold, the FTC had nothing to say about the personal data of people serving on U.S. military bases. Nothing “sensitive” there, the FTC seems to think, at least not compared to homeless shelters and migrant camps.

Michael Ellis takes us through Apple’s embarrassing failure to protect users of its Airdrop feature.

Adam is encouraged by a sign of maturity on the part of OpenAI, which has trimmed its overbroad rules on not assisting military projects.

Apple, meanwhile, is living down to the worst Big Tech caricature in handling the complaints of app developers about its app store. Michael explains how Apple managed to beat 9 out of 10 claims brought by Epic and still ended up looking like the sorest of losers.

Michael takes us inside a new U.S. surveillance court just for Europeans, but we end up worrying about the risk that the Obama administration will come back to make new law that constrains the Biden team. 

Adam explains yet another European Court of Justice decision on GDPR. This time, though, it’s a European government in the dock. The result is the same, though: national security is pushed into a corner, and the data protection bureaucracy takes center stage. 

We end with the sad disclosure that, while bad cyber news will continue, cyber-enabled day drinking will not, as Uber announces the end of Drizly, its liquor delivery app.

Download 488th 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@gmail.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.

Returning from winter break, this episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast covers a lot of ground. The story I think we’ll hear the most about in 2024 is the remarkable exploit used to compromise several generations of Apple iPhone. The question I think we’ll be asking for the next year is simple: How could an attack like this be introduced without Apple’s knowledge and support? We don’t get to this question until near the end of the episode, and I don’t claim great expertise in exploit design, but it’s very hard to see how such an elaborate compromise could be slipped past Apple’s security team. The second question is which government created the exploit. It might be a scandal if it were done by the U.S. But it would be far more of a scandal if done by any other nation. 

Jeffery Atik and I lead off the episode by covering recent AI legal developments that simply underscore the obvious: AI engines can’t get patents as “inventors.” But it’s quite possible that they’ll make a whole lot of technology “obvious” and thus unpatentable.

Paul Stephan joins us to note that National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has come up with some good questions about standards for AI safety. Jeffery notes that U.S. lawmakers have finally woken up to the EU’s misuse of tech regulation to protect the continent’s failing tech sector. Even the continent’s tech sector seems unhappy with the EU’s AI Act, which was rushed to market in order to beat the competition and is therefore flawed and likely to yield unintended and disastrous consequences.  A problem that inspires this week’s Cybertoonz.

Paul covers a lawsuit blaming AI for the wrongful denial of medical insurance claims. As he points out, insurers have been able to wrongfully deny claims for decades without needing AI. Justin Sherman and I dig deep into a NYTimes article claiming to have found a privacy problem in AI. We conclude that AI may have a privacy problem, but extracting a few email addresses from ChatGPT doesn’t prove the case. 

Finally, Jeffery notes an SEC “sweep” examining the industry’s AI use.

Paul explains the competition law issues raised by app stores – and the peculiar outcome of litigation against Apple and Google. Apple skated in a case tried before a judge, but Google lost before a jury and entered into an expensive settlement with other app makers. Yet it’s hard to say that Google’s handling of its app store monopoly is more egregiously anticompetitive than Apple’s.

We do our own research in real time in addressing an FTC complaint against Rite Aid for using facial recognition to identify repeat shoplifters.  The FTC has clearly learned Paul’s dictum, “The best time to kick someone is when they’re down.” And its complaint shows a lack of care consistent with that posture.  I criticize the FTC for claiming without citation that Rite Aid ignored racial bias in its facial recognition software.  Justin and I dig into the bias data; in my view, if FTC documents could be reviewed for unfair and deceptive marketing, this one would lead to sanctions.

The FTC fares a little better in our review of its effort to toughen the internet rules on child privacy, though Paul isn’t on board with the whole package.

We move from government regulation of Silicon Valley to Silicon Valley regulation of government. Apple has decided that it will now require a judicial order to give government’s access to customers’ “push notifications.” And, giving the back of its hand to crime victims, Google decides to make geofence warrants impossible by blinding itself to the necessary location data. Finally, Apple decides to regulate India’s hacking of opposition politicians and runs into a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) buzzsaw. 

Paul and Jeffery decode the EU’s decision to open a DSA content moderation investigation into X.  We also dig into the welcome failure of an X effort to block California’s content moderation law.

Justin takes us through the latest developments in Cold War 2.0. China is hacking our ports and utilities with intent to disrupt (as opposed to spy on) them. The U.S. is discovering that derisking our semiconductor supply chain is going to take hard, grinding work.

Justin looks at a recent report presenting actual evidence on the question of TikTok’s standards for boosting content of interest to the Chinese government. 

And in quick takes, 

• I celebrate the end of the Reign of Mickey Mouse in copyright law

• Paul explains why Madison Square Garden is still able to ban lawyers who have sued the Garden

• I note the new short-term FISA 702 extension

• Paul predicts that the Supreme Court will soon decide whether police can require suspects  to provide police with phone passcodes

• And Paul and I quickly debate Daphne Keller’s amicus brief for Frances Fukuyama in the Supreme Court’s content moderation cases

Download 486th 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@gmail.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.