The FBI: Lost in Cyberspace?

Episode 427 of the Cyberlaw Podcast

This episode features Nick Weaver, Dave Aitel and I exploring a Pro Publica story (and forthcoming book) on the FBI's difficulties in seeking to become the nation's principal resource on cybercrime and cybersecurity. We end up concluding that, for all its strengths, the bureau's structural weaknesses in addressing cybersecurity are going to thwart its ambitions for years to come.

Speaking of being thwarted for years, the effort to decouple U.S. and Chinese tech sectors continues apace. Nick and Dave weigh in on the latest (rumored) initiative -- cutting off China's access to U.S. quantum computing and AI technology -- and what that could mean for U.S. semiconductor companies, among others.

We could not stay away from the Elon Musk-Twitter story, which briefly had a national security dimension, due to news that the Biden Administration was considering a Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review of the deal. That's not a crazy idea, but in the end,  we are skeptical that it will amount to much.

Dave and I exchange views on whether it is logical for the Administration to pursue cybersecurity labels for cheap Internet of things (IoT) devices. He thinks it makes less sense than I do, but we agree that the end result will be to crowd the cheapest competitors from the market.

Nick and I discuss the news that Kanye West is buying Parler. Neither of us thinks much of the deal as an investment.

And in updates and quick takes:

• I see a real risk for Google in the Texas Attorney General's lawsuit over the company's use of facial recognition.
• Nick unpacks the dispute between Facebook and The Wire, India's answer to Pro Publica, over The Wire's claim of bias in favor of incumbent Indian politicians. If you had the impression that Facebook has the better of that argument, you're right.
• And in another platform v. press, story, TikTok's parent ByteDance has been accused by Forbes of planning to use TikTok to monitor the location of specific Americans. TikTok has denied the story. I predict that neither the story nor the denial is enough to bring closure. We'll be hearing more.

Download the 427th 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 [e-mail]. 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

Comments

[Bill Falcon]

CFIUS on Elon Musk.."not a crazy idea"..wtf? Really? You don't toe the bolshie line and you are a security risk? Maybe we should have peace is now a security risk?

[Dan Schiavetta]

1) Only Republican Presidents can fire the FBI Director for political reasons
2) despite the fact that no Director has ever been a Democrat
3) the pervasive infiltration of cyberspace by an underworld-controlled Russian leadership
4) the clear preference by Russian leaders for the Republican Party.

These factors, unmentioned here, skew the analysis considerably.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You live in a different universe.

[Dan Schiavetta]

All of these things are true and have been proven over and over

[Calliope]

Weird how Putin only invades countries when Democrats are in office.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh really dropped his "I am not a wingnut hack -- I am an academic libertarian" ball the day he invited Stewart Baker -- an unreconstructed right-wing authoritarian -- to join the Volokh Conspiracy.

Prof. Volokh doesn't make that mistake often -- he never brags about the Federalist Society's relationship with the Journal of Free Speech, for example.

Carry on, clingers. So far as stale, ugly thinking could carry anyone in modern America, that is.

[Michael D]

1) The question should not be about Republicans firing FBI Directors, all 7 who were not acting Directors, but why more were not fired. Why, for example, did every President from FDR to LBJ fail to fire J. Edgar Hoover?

2) The administration of law should be non-partisan to the greatest degree possible. No Director of the FBI has ever struck me as particularly aligned with either party.

3) You make it sound as if Russia is alone in using cyber warfare and the US is not fully engaged. Do not be so blind as to believe our government is any less culpable than that of Russia’s.

4) Yawn. I wonder if it occurred to you that in a choice between Trump and Hillary, a protagonist nation like Russia would prefer to avoid the warmongering Hillary so as to avoid a full-scale war? And I would venture to say that Biden’s election was the event that triggered Biden’s horrible decision to invade Ukraine. Why would Russia want a man who supports war every chance it came to a vote, whose connections to Ukraine pose a bias toward the government of Ukraine and who eventually restored Victoria Nuland to the State Dept. signaling the US intentions for Ukraine’s future.

[Dan Schiavetta]

An ahistorical analysis.

Explain to me why intelligence services were unanimous in finding that Russia tried to help Trump win in 2016. Explain to me why you were not embarrassed (as most Americans were) when, with Putin standing next to him, Trump said he didn't believe them. Trump actually tried to collude with Russia, remember? (At least he thought he was colluding. His people were too stupid to realize they were being set up by non-governmental Russians.) And he suggested that the U.S. and Russia get together to form a cybersecurity force. Explain that.

The rules as to FBI Directors were changed due to Hoover. The 10-year term was deliberately chosen so as to keep the appointment free from political interference. Don't you think Bill Clinton would have loved to fire Louis Freeh? Trump pissed all over that idea by firing Comey (and admitting that he did it to stop his people from being investigated). This gave carte blanche to future Republican Presidents, knowing that Republican "caucuses" in the Congress are now just an appendage of the White House.

[Michael D]

"Explain to me why intelligence services were unanimous in finding that Russia tried to help Trump win in 2016. Explain to me why you were not embarrassed (as most Americans were) when, with Putin standing next to him, Trump said he didn’t believe them. Trump actually tried to collude with Russia, remember? (At least he thought he was colluding. His people were too stupid to realize they were being set up by non-governmental Russians.) And he suggested that the U.S. and Russia get together to form a cybersecurity force. Explain that."

There was a time when people such as yourself knew the intelligence agencies of this and probably every country were untrustworthy and formed self-serving agendas with the selective use of intelligence in order to create a narrative they wanted to direct.

The only reason you would question that analysis is because it was DT who raised the issue. But Progressives used to make that same argument for the 50+ years prior. Suddenly, it is bad?

Trump came to office suggesting he was going to fire Comey, even before the FBI began investigating the collusion hoax. Comey pushed him over the edge but it should have happened on Jan 22, 2017. The only thing that demonstrated was that Trump's pledge to "drain the swamp" was unfulfilled. That is the only thing upon which one can lay blame, his own failure to do as he promised.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Watching a Trump fan disparage anyone else for being "untrustworthy," "self-serving," and "misleading" is remarkable.

But, of course, you don't get to be a Trump fan or current Republican with adequate education, sound judgment, self-awareness, and preferences for reason or the reality-based world..

[Michael D]

Rev, one demonstrates daily their capacity for stupidity when they make assumptions without any facts.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

"Explain to me why intelligence services were unanimous in finding that Russia tried to help Trump win in 2016. "

Weren't those some of the same guys who said the Hunter Biden laptop was "Russian disinformation"?

[Toranth]

He's also lying.
There was never any unanimous finding from the intelligence services, on any topic. The very idea is absurd - you think the DEA, ISR, NSA, NGA, and NRO are all going to care about what Russia is doing over social media? There was a DNI report, and since in was published under the Director of National Intelligence, some idiots claimed all 17 agencies had considered the topic and come to the same conclusion.
There's also the fact that the report indicated that the Russians posted support for Trump and Clinton, as part of a century long campaign of stirring up trouble in US politics.
It's the same reason the USSR supported so many black civil rights activists. I don't think El Capitan here is going to go say that the entire civil rights movement was evil because of that, though - he likes that movement, like the environmental movement, so he will happily ignore all the support Russia throws behind those groups.
Finally, you'll notice he's trying to blame someone for the acts of the third-party. Personally, I don't think rational people would blame the Democrats and Biden because Richard Spencer endorsed him for President, but Cappy and his ilk aren't exactly rational about this.

[Archibald Tuttle]

Unless and until IT professionals have a path to the top of the FBI, they will only be able to recruit back bench quality recruits.

Cyber talent needs to be respected as much as carrying a gun and a badge within the FBI before they get top talent.

That also applies to a huge fraction of corporations that do not consider IT strategic to their business. Many think of IT as like janitorial services. They too will be unable to recruit top talent.