The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Why CISOs should support renewal of FISA's section 702
Because it's a good new cybersecurity tool
Lawfare has published an op-ed on this topic by Rick Salgado and me. The gist is that the government has been adapting FISA section 702 to thwart cyberspies and ransomware gangs. We argue that this gives CISOs a stake in the debate over renewing 702:
For Section 702 to be an effective weapon against cyberattacks, CISOs must become informed participants in the debate. If you are one of the many CISOs who think the government should do more to thwart attacks on your networks, your voice in defense of 702 is critical. But you should also hold the government's feet to the fire to make 702's potential real, through effective real-time threat sharing.
Perhaps the easiest way for corporate CISOs to get started is by educating company government affairs staff. Once you've explained what Section 702 could do to protect the company—especially if the government adopts measures to quickly share information with CISOs—you just need to ask that the company's public stance on Section 702 take into account the big contribution the law could make toward protecting the company's own networks.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This assumes two things -- first that we can always trust the government to be beneficent and second that we should blindly presume the first.
Sadly, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Forget the FBI and Trump (which is in dispute) and go back two decades to the Boston FBI Office and Whitey Bulger (which the FBI admits happened, has admitted it in Federal court).
The question of "but who will guard the guardians" has never been answered -- and it's why I come back to the errors of presuming that the government's intentions will always be beneficent.
Sounds like you're assuming government can never be beneficent - which is not true either.
Under Clinton, they increased spying power to aid for terrorism, swearing it would onky be used for that.
They immediately used it against drugs. When asked, they just said ha ha the law doesn’t actually say terrorism only.
This is the mind you are dealing with. “We will only use it for such and such” is a weasley, known, proven lie.
Good citizens should keep an eye on this kind of argument. A jaundiced eye from experience.
He's not assuming that it can never be beneficent - he's saying that it will never be so, at least in the long run.
History, unfortunately, strongly supports his assumption.
The people in government and it's institutions are only beneficent when they fear the population.
Right now, the people in the Federal Government who run its institutions are unmoored from any accountability, and they know it.
They are the single greatest threat to human freedom the modern world faces.
How can someone be wrong across centuries?!?
We can always assume they will be incompetent, though.
Recently, the ODNI disclosed that in 2021 the FBI performed 3.4 million queries of its 702 database for American identities...It turns out that the bulk of the queries were efforts to identify victims of a single cyberattack
What else were these queries used for besides identifying American victims? Even if the number of queries has been reduced, what stops this database from being abused?
Baker's earlier post on Section 702 has some answers on my question about database restrictions.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/01/why-would-the-government-need-a-warrant-to-warn-me-im-about-to-be-hacked/
No.
If it's published on Lawfare, then it's not good for the citizens, but is definitely good for the evil federal rulers.