Who Needs Hackers When You Have Balloons?

Episode 442 of the Cyberlaw Podcast

The latest episode of The Cyberlaw Podcast gets a bit carried away with the China spy balloon saga. Guest host Brian Fleming (filling in while I'm at the Canadian Ski Marathon), along with guests Gus Hurwitz, Nate Jones, and Paul Rosenzweig, share insights (and bad puns) about the latest reporting on the electronic surveillance capabilities of the first downed balloon, the Biden administration's "shoot first, ask questions later" response to the latest "flying objects," and whether we should all spend more time worrying about China's hackers and satellites.

Gus shares a few thoughts on the State of the Union address and the brief but pointed calls for antitrust and data privacy reform. Sticking with big tech and antitrust, Gus recaps a significant recent loss for the FTC and discusses what may be on the horizon for FTC enforcement later this year.

Pivoting back to China, Nate and Paul discuss the latest reporting on a forthcoming (at some point) executive order intended to limit and track U.S. outbound investment in certain key aspects of China's tech sector. They also ponder how industry may continue its efforts to narrow the scope of the restrictions and whether Congress will get involved. Sticking with Congress, Paul takes the opportunity to explain the key takeaways from the not-so-bombshell House Oversight Committee hearing featuring former Twitter executives.

Gus next describes his favorite ChatGPT jailbreaks and a costly mistake for an AI chatbot competitor during a demo.

Paul recommends a fascinating interview with Sinbad.io, the new Bitcoin mixer of choice for North Korean hackers, and reflects on the substantial portion of the DPRK's GDP attributable to ransomware attacks.

Finally, Gus questions whether AI-generated "Nothing, Forever" will need to change its name after becoming sentient and channeling Dave Chapelle.

To wrap things up in the week's quick hits, Gus briefly highlights where things stand with Chip Wars: Japan edition and Brian covers coordinated US/UK sanctions against the Trickbot cybercrime group, confirmation that Twitter's sale will not be investigated by CFIUS, and the latest on SEC v. Covington.

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

[Daddyhill]

In 2009 as I recall, Chinese hackers successfully penetrated Google’s security and did some number of unpleasant things to Google’s infrastructure. Afterwards a warning circulated among US BBS and Chan users: “Never get into a hacking war with the Chinese.” Sound wisdom I believe, and all the more so given the failure and exposure of US/Israel’s less-than-competent Stuxnet attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2007. So all the balloon surveillance brouhaha puzzles me. If China is relying on low-altitude intelligence gathering with balloons, it must mean that they do not have advanced high-altitude high-definition satellite surveillance capabilities. On the other hand, if their satellite surveillance is up to snuff, there’s no reason for us to be all that concerned about the balloons, which may be aerial red herrings. In any case, it seems most likely that NATO intel agencies are learning far more about Chinese intel work than they are learning about us.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don’t like how it messed up the electronics on the F-35.

[Michael P]

Simple physics give balloons big advantages over any actual satellite. Synthetic apertures only take one so far.

[Commenter_XY]

All I know is Thursday, for the Thursday thread, my big question is going to be: What’s the law about shooting shit down over your border?

[Michael P]

https://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf is the governing international treaty, particularly Article 3 and Article 3 bis. Without permission to use the airspace, state aircraft get zero protection and civil aircraft must land when and where directed.

[John F. Carr]

Article 3 bis was adopted after the Soviet Union shot down a civilian airliner, killing hundreds including a U.S. Congressman.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It doesn’t quite say it here, but there is the “harbor of safe refuge” rule, dating from the days of sail, that an aircraft in distress on the high seas may land without permission. Remember when the Chinese fighter hit our spy plane back circa 2001 and it somehow managed to land on the Chinese military base?

[Commenter_XY]

Michael P, you come through yet again with helpful info. Thank you!!!

Q: Why doesn’t article 5 apply?

[reasonable]

Stewart, I’ve recently started listening to your podcast and love the spirited debate that they foster.