Security experts have found that Congress itself is woefully unprepared for a cyberattack on its network. They say that Congressional networks lack the technology and security methods to prevent attacks. The danger here is that a successful hack could yield a treasure trove of classified information from lawmakers.

Speaking to The Hill, Tom Kellermann, VP of Cybersecurity for Trend Micro, says that Congress is “overly reliant on perimeter defenses that are ineffective in today’s targeted environment.” He also says that Congressional networks “lack their own appropriate levels of funding for technologies and manpower to deal with this properly.”

If hackers were interested in Congress, who would they hit? Security experts say that high-ranking lawmakers would be first on the list, but important committees like the Intelligence and Armed Services committees would also be high priority targets. These committees hold highly classified information from government agencies like the FBI and the Pentagon that would be especially desirable.

For their part, many people in Congress told The Hill that they practice “proper cyber hygiene.” That is to say that members of Congress and its employees are trained to spot phishing attempts and malware attacks. It’s a good first line of defense that could prevent incidents like the recent Apple and Facebook hacks that used an exploit in Java to gain access to systems.

As always, lawmakers can talk a good talk, but are they really doing enough to protect their networks from hackers? Congress’ cybersecurity professionals have been reportedly stepping up their game over the past few years to prevent the kind of attacks that have crippled corporations over the last few years. They do, however, emphasize the need for new cybersecurity regulations. Let’s just hope Congress can provide one devoid of CISPA’s privacy infringing ugliness.

AB 362, proposed by Democratic Assemblymember Philip Ting (San Francisco), would provide tax relief for employees who receive reimbursement from their employer for federal taxes they paid on healthcare benefits provided to their same-sex partner and dependents.

The law would apply to those who work for public entities or participating private companies who currently choose to reimburse for federal taxes paid on benefits received for their partners – those like Google and Facebook.

And it’s Facebook that’s the first to public suppor the measure.

“Facebook today announced its support of legislation introduced by California State Assemblymember Phil Ting that would provide tax relief for employees who receive reimbursement from their employer for federal taxes they paid on healthcare benefits provided to their same-sex partner and dependents. Facebook Director of Compensation & Benefits Tudor Havriliuc joined Assemblymember Ting and San Francisco Supervisor Mark Farrell at a press conference to unveil the legislation. Parity in healthcare coverage is among a host of equitable benefits Facebook provides all of its employees,” said Facebook in a post on its LGBT@Facebook page.

“At the heart of this issue is a question of fairness for same-sex couples,” said Ting. “The federal policy to tax their benefits is discriminatory, and the last thing the state of California should do is make it harder to remedy the injustice by taxing the reimbursement of these costs,” he added.

Facebook, as you probably know, is one of the most pro-LGBT companies in tech. Google could also claim that title, as well.

TechDirt reported Thursday that Sen. Ron Wyden, Internet freedom fighter, has introduced a new bill called the Data Cap Integrity Act. The bill would “give consumers the tools they need to manager their own data usage, institute industry-wide data measurement accuracy standards for ISPs, and impose disciplines to ensure that ISP data caps are truly designed to manage network congestion.”

Do you think bandwidth caps are really used to address network congestion? Or are they just used to reap more revenue? Let us know in the comments.

Wyden’s proposed bill follows a report from the New America Foundation that found ISPs were not using data caps to manage congestion, but further increase revenues off of existing subscribers. These fraudulent data caps lead to less competition and innovation in a utility where both are key to its continued evolution.

From the New America Foundation report:

ISPs often claim that caps are necessary to curb “excessive use” and only affect a small fraction of users. Although some providers are reexamining their data caps policies, many of the limits imposed several years ago have largely remained static, even as typical household bandwidth consumption has substantially increased. In 2008, Comcast reported that its median residential broadband user consumed 2.5 GB of data monthly. In 2012, Comcast reports that this number has quadrupled to a median monthly usage of 8-10 GB per consumer. Other sources report even higher usage numbers. According to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Measuring Broadband America report, the median cable broadband user in the United States consumed about 28 GB a month in mid-2012. As new Internet applications and devices continue to be created, yesterdays so called “bandwidth hogs” are today’s typical users.

Data caps encourage a climate of scarcity in an increasingly data-driven world. Broadband appears to be one of few industries that seek to discourage their customers from consuming more of their product. Thus, even as the economic and engineering rationale for data caps on wireline broadband does not hold up given the declining costs of providing service and rapid technological advancement,the proliferation of data caps is increasing. The trend is driven in large part by a woefully uncompetitive market that allows the nation’s largest providers to generate enormous profits as well as protect legacy business models from new services and innovators.

So, what’s the excuse used by ISPs to keep charging more while instituting data caps? The companies claim the cost of moving data and expanding their networks would put undue cost on the consumer. The New America Foundation’s report respectfully disagrees:

Across the board, the price for this kind of access is decreasing. TeleGeography’s IP Transit Pricing Service,a database of wholesale Internet access price quotes from 50 carriers in 70 cities globally, reports lower charges.According to its 2012 report, “Transit in major Western cities remains competitive, so the reduced costs are passed on to the broadband carriers.” As a result,“Internet traffic has been expanding at what would seem ferocious rates, but the carrier’s net cost has been generally flat to down.” In New York, for example, the median monthly lease price for a gigabit ethernet port dropped 50 percent over the last year, now costing around $3.50 per megabit.

Similarly, network equipment—the industrial routers and switches that make up broadband networks—is declining in price and increasing in processing capacity at a rate similar to personal computers. Dane Jasper, the CEO of Sonic.net, an independent ISP based in California, notes that although broadband consumption has increased, “the cost to deliver those bits, transport them, transit them, peer them off, and deliver them to the edge, has decreased at a greater pace than consumption.”

So, as you can see, there’s really no reason to still be charging high prices nor instituting data caps. In fact, the only real solution to the data consumption problem would be to just increase capacity. It would be cheap to build out networks and it would increase bandwidth for all without having to limit anybody’s bandwidth.

The best way to resolve chronic network congestion in the long term is to invest and expand capacity. Yet, a review of the publicly available financial document for some of the largest ISPs in the country shows a decline in capital expenditures—the costs associated with building, upgrading and maintaining a network, such as construction, repairs, and equipment purchases—for their wireline networks.Many ISPs are spending less money on capital expenditures now, both as a ratio to revenue but also even in raw dollars,than they have in years past.

While some cost decreases can be explained by declines in hardware and equipment costs, these trends suggest that broadband providers are content to maintain the status quo and reap these efficiencies as a bonus rather than an opportunity to increase investment.

Cable companies like Time Warner and Comcast, whose networks were originally built for television services and have now been repurposed for broadband as well, are enjoying lucrative profits on networks that have long been paid off. Some estimate that cable broadband providers enjoy gross margins as high as 95 percent, an exceptionally high rate of revenue relative to the supposed costs associated with offering the service. For these companies, selling broadband packages even to the heaviest users is still quite profitable.

Do you agree with the New America Foundation’s report? Should ISPs start building out their networks to address network congestion? Let us know in the comments.

All of this points to one problem – bandwidth caps are limiting innovation and competitiveness on the Internet. The costs are low enough to start building out the future of the Internet in the U.S. Speed and access would increase around the country while innovation, and jobs, would flock to the Internet like never before. Sen. Wyden said much the same thing when announcing his new bill:

“Internet use is central to our lives and to our economy. Future innovation will undoubtedly require consumers to use more and more data — data caps should not impede this innovation and the jobs it creates. This bill is intended to help consumers manage their data more effectively and ensure that data caps are used only to serve the legitimate purpose of addressing congestion.”

Obviously, telecoms and ISPs won’t like this bill. They’ll come crying to Congress once again with a sob story of how network congestion is a serious threat to their customers, and how bandwidth caps are the only solution. In reality, the only threat to customers comes from ISPs unwillingness to change.

It’s this unwillingness to change that is leading to the U.S. trailing behind pretty much every other developed nation in Internet accessibility and speeds. It’s kind of embarrassing, but some companies, and cities, are starting to solve the problem. Now we just need to get the major ISPs on board before more businesses that rely on the Internet start to leave the U.S. for the greener pastures of South Korea, Japan and France.

Should bandwidth caps be regulated by the government? Or do you think another solution is possible? Let us know in the comments.

What does the U.S. need to spur the economy? Is legislation geared toward startups the answer? We’d love to hear your take in the comments.

Although President Obama already signed the JOBS Act into law this year, Startup Act 2.0 is said to be an extension of it. The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act focused on simplifying the funding and regulation processes that small businesses and startups must go through and, specifically, introduced the concept of crowdfunding.

Startup Act 2.0, however, builds upon these principles but also opens the door on immigration reform. As WebProNews reported when the bill was first introduced to the Senate, it would bring about the following provisions:

• Creates a new STEM visa so that U.S.-educated foreign students, who graduate with a master’s or Ph.D. in science, technology, engineering or mathematics, can receive a green card and stay in this country where their talent and ideas can fuel growth and create American jobs. It also creates an Entrepreneur’s Visa for legal immigrants so they can remain in the United States, launch businesses and create jobs, and eliminates the per-country caps for employment-based immigrant visas, which hinders U.S. employers from recruiting the top-tier talent they need to grow.
• Makes permanent the exemption of capital gains taxes on the sale of startup stock held for at least five years, so investors can provide financial stability at a critical juncture of firm growth. It also would create a targeted research and development tax credit for young startups less than five years old and with less than $5 million in annual receipts. This R&D credit is designed to allow startups to offset employee taxes, freeing up resources to help these young companies expand and create jobs.
• Uses existing federal R&D funding to better support university initiatives designed to bring cutting-edge R&D to the marketplace more quickly, where it can propel economic growth.
• Requires government agencies to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of proposed “major rules” with an economic impact of $100 million or more. This new requirement will help determine the potential impact of proposed regulations on the formation and growth of new businesses.
• And Startup Act 2.0 directs the U.S. Department of Commerce to assess state and local policies that aid in the development of new businesses. Through the publication of reports highlighting these “best practices” from across the country, policymakers will be better equipped to encourage entrepreneurship by adopting the most effective and successful policies.

The immigration aspect of the bill is certainly significant, especially since the subject has been so controversial in Washington. Startup Act 2.0 would bring two new types of visas to the U.S., one of which would give an additional 75,000 student visas in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields the opportunity to go above the 50,000 H-1B cap. The second new visa category is for entrepreneurs that start businesses in the U.S. and obtain $100,000 in funding.

“In terms of the human capital equation and addressing immigration, it’s really a pressing priority for the industry and something that needs to be addressed,” Kevin Richards, the Senior Vice President of Federal Government Affairs at TechAmerica, tells us.

TechAmerica is a strong supporter of Startup Act 2.0 and the immigration reform that it would bring because, according to Richards, this “human capital” has been the U.S.’s “greatest advantage” over the rest of the world.

“The great success of this country has been its ability to attract talent from around the world and to have free innovative ideas to invest in a capital system,” he said.

Richards is fearful though, since new research indicates that the U.S. is falling behind in the global race for talent. The Partnership for a New American Economy found that, by 2018, there could be a shortfall of as many as 230,000 qualified science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workers.

AOL Co-founder Steve Case, who is also one of the members of President Obama’s Council of Jobs and Competitiveness and an advocate of Startup Act 2.0, made an interesting comparison about the current immigration/education system in the U.S. in a post he wrote on TechCrunch:

Imagine if we trained men and women at our Air Force and Naval Academies, equipped them with the tools they need to lead and succeed in battle, and then kicked them out of our country to join other militaries? In effect, that is what we are doing when we train the world’s most talented immigrants to innovate and start businesses at our great universities, then send them off to start companies in China, India, and South Korea.

“We really have now more of a fortress mentality approach where we have the best and brightest universities in the world, but we send these students back home to our foreign competitors,” added Richards.

“If we don’t do something now,” he continued, “we risk our future and our future competitiveness in innovation.”

At this point, nearly half of the venture-backed companies in the U.S. have had at least one immigrant founder. What’s more, some of America’s biggest technology brands, including Google, Apple, and IBM, were also founded by either an immigrant or a child of an immigrant.

But, according to Richards, these trends could change if the U.S. doesn’t lift its current caps. For instance, the H-1B cap is typically filled in one day. As a result, he believes that, if the U.S. fails to act now, technology giants will begin to appear overseas.

“The pace of innovation is something we really have to be concerned about,” said Richards. “We’re hopeful that this bill will unleash new innovation and creativity in our sector.”

Still, there are some who believe that Startup Act 2.0 doesn’t do enough to encourage entrepreneurs. Richards, however, points out that it is a “good first step” in the right direction.

While an election year is not normally a good time to get a bill passed, the economic elements this bill proposes could help it.

“The economy is gonna be the top issue on the minds of voters in the 2012 election,” explained Richards, “and if they [legislators] want to have a record to run on and to demonstrate what they’re doing here in Washington, this would be a great first step.”

The bill has been introduced in both the Senate and the House, and the hearings over it are expected to begin soon.

Is immigration reform necessary to reviving the American economy, and is this bill an effective strategy for it? Why or why not? Let us know what you think.

A group of Democrats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate have introduced similar legislation, and it’s flying under the name “Password Protection Act of 2012.” What it hopes to do is to “enhance current law to assure that compelling of coercing employees into providing access to their own private systems and data…is prohibited.”

Have you ever been asked by an employer (or future employer) to hand over your social media passwords? Did you do it? Or did you feel like it crossed the line? Let us know in the comments.

In the Senate, the legislation was introduced by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). Soon after multiple outlets ran stories on this “rising trend” within some Human Resource departments, Blumenthal was one of the first U.S. legislators to speak out against the practice. Back in March, he said that he was “deeply troubled by the practices that seem to be spreading voraciously around the country,” and went on to call the password demands an “unreasonable invasion of privacy.” With those remarks, he also informed us that he was in the process of drafting a bill that would be ready soon.

A few days later, Blumenthal teamed up with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to deliver a request to the Department of Justice. They asked that both the DOJ and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission “launch a federal investigation into a disturbing new trend.” Schumer has not left this cause either, as he is a co-sponsor of the new Password Protection Act.

Just days after that letter hit the Attorney General, a motion called “Mind Your Own Business on Passwords” failed in Congress. It would have made the employee password issue one monitored by the Federal Communication Commission. They would have had the right to declare the practice illegal.

So now these members of Congress are back with their own bills. Blumenthal’s Senate bill reads like this in the “prohibited activity” section:

acting as an employer, knowingly and intentionally -
(A) for the purposes of employing, promoting, or terminating employment, compels or coerces any person to authorize access, such as by providing a password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed, to a protected computer that is not the employer’s protected computer, and thereby obtains information from such protected computer; or
(B) discharges, disciplines, discriminates against in any manner, or threatens to take any such action against, any person – (i) for failing to authorize access described in subparagraph (A) to a protected computer that is not the employer’s protected computer; or
(ii) who has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this paragraph, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding;

Along with Blumenthal and Schumer, Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) also sponsored the bill.

In the House, the companion legislation is being introduced by Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Ed Perlmutter (D-CO). The crux of that bill is the same. Here’s some summary points from the House version of the Password Protection Act of 2012:

• No Compelled or Coerced Disclosure. The Password Protection Act prohibits an employer from forcing prospective or current employees to provide access to their own private systems as a condition of employment. Examples of prohibited actions include forcing employees to—

1. Hand over their private passwords to personal Facebook or Gmail accounts.
2. Log into a password-protected account so that the employer may browse the account’s contents.

• No Retaliation.  The Password Protection Act prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against a prospective or current employee because of a refusal to provide access to a password-protected account.
• Narrow Remedy. The Password Protection Act only prohibits adverse employment-related actions as a consequence of an employee’s failure to provide access to their own private accounts. It preserves the rights of employers to—

1. Permit social networking within the office on a voluntary basis.
2. Set their own policies for employer-operated computer systems and accounts.
3. Hold employees accountable for stealing data from their employers.

• Enforcement. Employers that violate the Password Protection Act may face financial penalties only.

“Employers should have no more right to online passwords than they would to a person’s lending history at the library or a diary in their home,” said Senator Shaheen. “As Facebook and other websites become an increasingly important part of the daily lives of millions of people, we must be vigilant in protecting online privacy. This legislation provides an important safeguard for all Americans.”

“People have an expectation of privacy when using social media like Facebook and Twitter,” said Representative Perlmutter. “They have an expectation that their right to free speech and religion will be respected when they use social media outlets. No American should have to provide their confidential personal passwords as a condition of employment. Both users of social media and those who correspond share the expectation of privacy in their personal communications. Employers essentially can act as impostors and assume the identity of an employee and continually access, monitor and even manipulate an employee ‘s personal social activities and opinions. That’s simply a step too far.”

The ACLU praises the bill for its wider scope. By focusing on computer access (as opposed to simply access to one social network like Facebook), the bill is “flexible” and is able to “evolve to cover any new service.”

But the praise is not absolute. The ACLU laments that the Password Protection Act doesn’t provide the same type of protection for students – a group that was originally wrapped up in employer-password-gate. They say that the recently-introduced SNOPA privacy bill (that also tackles the Facebook password request issue) does a better job to protect students. The ACLU is also less-than-thrilled with some of the exceptions:

The legislation also includes unnecessary exceptions. One exception allows states to exempt government employees or employees who work with children under age 13. Another allows the executive branch to exempt whole classes of workers if they come into contact with classified information, including soldiers. These sections authorize sweeping and unnecessary fishing expeditions. There are already a broad range of tools for investigating misconduct. Further, internet activities constantly create many new types of records, and these can already be used against employees in investigations. Just because you work for the government or with children, you shouldn’t forfeit the right to a private life online.

It’s obvious why an employer would want access to a prospective employee’s social media account. That’s where all the good stuff resides. If you want to make sure you’re not hiring a certain type of person – someone who disses their former employer publicly or someone who could embarrass the company with certain lifestyle choices – Facebook might be a great way to screen candidates. But there’s a line and we have to draw it. Not only is it a gargantuan invasion of privacy to be forced into giving up access to private data, but it could end up harming employers in the long run. I’m sure employers don’t want to find themselves in a situation where they are being sued for discrimination, based on something they found via a Facebook search.

While the Password Protection Act isn’t perfect, it’s on the right track. State legislatures are also moving on the issue, as the California State Assembly just unanimously approved a similar bill. Now, along with SNOPA, we have two new bills attempting to protect employees’ rights on the national level.

Do you think that there should be a national ban on this practice? Should Congress step in and outlaw it outright? Let us know in the comments.

In a press release the White House released, the President said:

“America’s high-growth entrepreneurs and small businesses play a vital role in creating jobs and growing the economy. I’m pleased Congress took bipartisan action to pass this bill.  These proposals will help entrepreneurs raise the capital they need to put Americans back to work and create an economy that’s built to last.”

What do you think the JOBS Act will do for small businesses and startups? Please share.

The bill covers several provisions, but the most prominent one is “crowdfunding.” Under this element, startups and small businesses can solicit the general public for investment, which democratizes funding efforts.

Michael McGeary, who is a strategist with venture capital firm Hattery Labs, worked with lawmakers on this bill and told us that crowdfunding was the “#1 way for direct benefits as the bill rolls out.”

“It’s gonna make it available for people all over the country to give what they can to a startup they believe in and get equity in return, which will help on both sides,” he said.

Crowdfunding will specifically help those startups that don’t need millions of dollars but that still need some to get their feet of the ground. McGeary said it would help startups become companies more quickly and also give them more growth potential. He also told us that he expects to see more companies such as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo as the JOBS Act is rolled out.

While some people have questioned the impact of crowdfunding on traditional funding methods, McGeary doesn’t believe they will be harmed in any way. In fact, he believes they will be enhanced by crowdfunding.

“Crowdfunding is not going to utterly change that system,” he said. “All it’s gonna do is make it better for more people to get more ideas to the marketplace faster.”

He went on to say that it would draw in a wider community to what’s happening in the Silicon Valley because more people will be involved. This will furthermore help to create a more transparent startup economy since the community will be bigger and more diverse.

The JOBS Act will also lighten the regulatory hurdles that small businesses must go through in the expansion of “mini public offerings” and the creation of an “IPO On-Ramp.” These provisions will not only eliminate forced IPOs, but it will also speed up the process for businesses to grow at a faster rate.

Despite the strong bipartisan support, there has been some opposition to the bill. In a post in Rolling Stone entitled “Why Obama’s JOBS Act Couldn’t Suck Worse,” Matt Taibbi discusses the fraud and scams that could take place in the stock market as a result of the law:

“In fact, one could say this law is not just a sweeping piece of deregulation that will have an increase in securities fraud as an accidental, ancillary consequence. No, this law actually appears to have been specifically written to encourage fraud in the stock markets.”

The Huffington Post also pointed to the dissatisfaction of the labor parties suggesting that the White House chose the tech community to alleviate concerns raised over the SOPA outbreak in January. Others have indicated that the law could open the door for weak IPOs.

McGeary, however, told us that he does not believe the negatives outweigh the positives. According to him, the people who are advocating the law are adamant on its success and, therefore, are determined to keep fraud away.

“There’s no investment without risk,” McGeary said.

“If bad actors do enter the system and fraud does start to proliferate through the crowdfunding system, there’s gonna be a movement afoot in Washington very quickly to make sure that any regulations that have to be changed or augmented in that way, will happen swiftly,” he added.

While McGeary believes the JOBS Act is a “great first step,” he believes that more needs to be done in terms of the startup community, especially in the areas of long term STEM education and spectrum and broadband patents.

The SEC is currently requesting feedback on the law, as it contemplates potential regulatory measures.

Do you see more concerns or benefits with the JOBS Act? Let us know in the comments.

He was referencing a bill introduced this week into legislation that will make it illegal for members of congress, federal workers, and the president himself from using information gained on the job to trade stocks or benefit in any other way. In fact, lawmakers will now have to make public any investments they make within 45 days, and some members of Congress will be required to disclose the terms of personal mortgages.

The STOCK Act, or Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge, means public officials will be on more even ground with the general public.

“If we expect that to apply to our biggest corporations and our most successful citizens, it certainly should apply to our elected officials,” Obama said.

The act comes after the Office of Congressional Ethics began investigating particular representatives who made numerous trades after the 2008 financial collapse and subsequent $700 billion economic bailout.

Is the FTC’s privacy plan good or bad? What do you think?

Although the jury is still out for what will actually happen with the recommendations, WebProNews spoke with Jules Polonetsky, the Director and Co-Chair of the Future of Privacy Forum, to learn more about what the FTC hopes to do. According to him, the FTC calls for companies to develop best practices to ensure consumer privacy. The Commission specifically focused on 5 main areas including “do not track,” mobile, data brokers, large platform providers, and promoting enforceable self-regulatory codes.

Do Not Track

When advocacy groups came up with idea of “do not track,” it received a bad reaction. The problem, which Polonetsky pointed out, was that no one really knew what it meant. Different definitions floated around that associated it with everything from an end to behavioral advertising to a super invisible button.

The FTC also gave the impression that it meant putting a stop to data collection of any kind. Many businesses were outraged since they feared it would prevent them from seeing analytics, ad reporting, and other critical areas that they depend on. However, as the idea evolved, the industry developed a symbol to show whether or not an ad is tracking data. This symbol also gives users the option to opt-out.

Although it is unclear if the FTC sees the symbol as an adequate measure for “do not track,” Polonetsky told us that the Commission did not call for legislation of it.

“It does appear that they do want something more, but they’ve clearly said, ‘We’re not calling for Do Not Track legislation. We’re happy with the industry effort, and we’d like to see something more agreed to in the W3C process,’” he said.

Mobile

According to Polonetsky, mobile is a major area of focus for the FTC. In the report, the Commission issued a clear warning that it was watching apps that target children. It also said it was aware that ads are not being labeled on mobile devices and asked for self-regulation in this area.

“It was a real call to action to press the app developers [and] the mobile companies,” said Polonetsky.

Data Brokers

While the FTC urged Congress to pass general privacy legislation, it was very specific about regulating data brokers. If you remember, WebProNews previously reported that the White House also recently released a privacy report that asked Congress to implement a privacy “Bill of Rights.” The White House primarily focused on multi-stakeholder efforts that encourage businesses to self-regulate and create codes of conduct.

Although the FTC is advocating this as well, it is also pushing toward legislation for data brokers. It wants a centralized website where data brokers identify themselves and their methods for collecting data. Through this site, the Commission wants users to have the power to visit it and correct any inaccurate data or opt-out.

Large Platform Providers

In the FTC’s preliminary report, it singled out ISPs for data collection. At that time, ad networks were attempting to partner with ISPs to utilize the data the providers gain from their inspections. While the FTC is still concerned about this issue, it is also looking at browsers, operating systems, and social networks since they too have this critical data. Polonetsky told us that this was a “wise” move on the FTC’s part.

The Commission plans to hold a workshop later this year to determine which companies need greater permission to access data.

Enforcing Self-Regulatory Codes

The FTC’s report also called for self-regulatory standards, which Polonetsky said helps to bridge the Commission’s framework to that of the White House’s. Both reports want businesses and privacy advocates to work together to develop codes of conduct. If this happens, the FTC said it would enforce the codes.

“Although they’re for legislation, they’re much more for companies actually doing stuff to show some progress that everybody can point to,” said Polonetsky.

Analysis

Although some retailers and marketers have spoken out against the FTC’s privacy proposal, others have endorsed it. In fact, Yahoo has already said it will be launching a “do not track” mechanism by early summer.

Polonetsky told us that we’re currently at a “big turning point” and that it would take time to see if businesses really take self-regulatory measures.

“If companies want to avoid legislation, show that you’re doing it,” he said. “If you want legislation, but you want it to be right, then set the path by coming up with the rules yourself.”

“We’re either gonna go forward, or it’ll continue to go around in circles,” he added.

Interestingly, Polonetsky said that there would be no privacy legislation this year due to the election year.

He did, however, point out that innovation and privacy often clash. For example, it would be difficult for businesses to collect data but then be forced to ask users for their permission before they used it to create something new and different. Most people would say they want to give their permission before their data is used, but how many people would grant it?

As Polonetsky explained, people don’t know what something is and if they like it, until they see it. Take, for instance, Facebook’s News Feed. Everyone hated it when it was first introduced, but now most people depend on it. For this reason, Polonetsky told us that it would take a lot of work to understand and balance innovation and privacy.

Would you rather have privacy or innovation? Let us know.

As a result of this influx of attacks, Congress is currently weighing legislation that would attempt to prevent cyber warfare. In fact, more than fifty bills have been introduced in Congress toward this effort.

Should cybersecurity be a top priority for the government? Share your thoughts.

Last year, WebProNews reported that cyber warfare was a very real threat and that social media played a significant role in it. Charles Dodd, a U.S. government consultant on cyber defense, told us then that terrorists are recruiting hundreds and thousands of people every couple of months through social media.

“Cyber will be the next generation warfare,” he said.

For more on his perspective, check out his complete interview:

One analyst, however, believes the rhetoric is being overblown. Jerry Brito, the Director of the Technology Policy Program at George Mason University, told us that, while there are some very real cybersecurity concerns, the issues that the proponents of legislation are pushing are misleading.

Senator Jay Rockefeller is one lawmaker that is aggressively pushing for legislation, and he spoke about the urgency of it in a hearing earlier this year.

“The threat posed by cyber attacks is greater than ever, and it’s a threat not just to companies like Sony or Google but also to the nation’s infrastructure and the government itself,” Rockefeller said at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

“Today’s cyber criminals have the ability to interrupt life-sustaining services, cause catastrophic economic damage, or severely degrade the networks our defense and intelligence agencies rely on. Congress needs to act on comprehensive cybersecurity legislation immediately.”

According to Brito, the evidence doesn’t match what’s being said. What the evidence does show, he pointed out, is distributed-denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, which happen when a server is overwhelmed. This type of attack, he explained, is what happened to the Senate and CIA and is typically from a state actor or from a group like Anonymous.

Shawn Henry, the executive assistant director of the FBI, recently gave a grim summation of the U.S.’s efforts to fight these attacks, saying: “We’re not winning.” Brito, however, believes that cybersecurity should not be measured in terms of winning or losing. While a loss of information is never good, he told us that government officials are focusing on the wrong areas.

“The threat that they [proponents of legislation] cite is that a cyber attack could cause a critical infrastructure to fail, causing blackouts,” said Brito.

“This is a very real threat – it’s bad, but when you look at what sort of damage it causes, [but] more than anything else, it is an inconvenience,” he continued.

Cyber espionage is another threat that is happening, for instance, between the U.S. and China. In an effort to prevent the threats from getting worse, the U.S. government is expected to crack down in this regard this year. However, Brito told us that while cyber espionage is a serious concern, it doesn’t result in mass casualties.

The third type of cybersecurity threats and the one that is the most dangerous is kinetic cyber weapons. Stuxnet, which was said to have targeted Iranian organizations, is an example of this type of threat. Although these weapons are extremely dangerous, Brito pointed out that even Stuxnet is yet to have any known casualties.

“There really is little evidence for us to believe that we are on the brink of real calamity,” said Brito.

At the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Hearing recently, the White House performed a classified demonstration of how the government would respond to an attack on New York City’s electrical grid. While details are classified, several people have speculated that the simulation resulted in a blackout and mass casualties. Speaking at the hearing, Senator Joe Lieberman, who is also advocating legislation, has equated the current threats to September 10th, 2001, or the eve of the tragic September 11th attacks.

“The system is blinking red – again. Yet, we are failing to connect the dots – again,” he said.

Brito, although admitting that the simulation was confidential, again, does not believe the evidence matches the rhetoric. As he explained to us, numerous blackouts have happened in history, but they have not had devastating outcomes.

“Something like a blackout, while something that is bad and something we should definitely try to avoid, it is not the end-of-the-world scenario that a lot of folks would portray it to be,” said Brito.

“If a blackout is to cause mass chaos and a panic, we’re in big trouble not just in a cyber event but just if a tree branch falls and causes a blackout,” he added.

In response to the growing threat of cyber attacks, two bills have been introduced to Congress. Sens. Lieberman, Rockefeller, and Susan Collins wrote the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, which would require companies to meet certain security standards. Senator John McCain has also introduced a bill called the Secure IT Act that focuses on information sharing instead of regulatory enforcement.

Brito told us that he does not support legislation that would compel businesses to secure their networks in a particular way. According to him, companies are aware of the problems that exist and are more than capable of taking the security steps they need to protect themselves without the government intervening.

“There is no real need it seems for companies to be told how to secure their own networks,” he said.

Instead of legislation that regulates companies, he thinks the barriers that prevent the private sector from sharing information about cyber threats with the government should be removed. Brito believes this would be a more effective approach than legislation, as long as consumer privacy is maintained.

Incidentally, in the April 2012 edition of Smithsonian, U.S. cybersecurity advisor Richard Clarke discussed these very issues, and specifically, addressed the threats with cyber espionage.

“My greatest fear,” Clarke says, “is that, rather than having a cyber-Pearl Harbor event, we will instead have this death of a thousand cuts. Where we lose our competitiveness by having all of our research and development stolen by the Chinese. And we never really see the single event that makes us do something about it. That it’s always just below our pain threshold. That company after company in the United States spends millions, hundreds of millions, in some cases billions of dollars on R&D and that information goes free to China….After a while you can’t compete.”

Ron Rosenbaum, who wrote the report, closed it by making a comparison similar to the one from Senator Lieberman:

“I left Clarke’s office feeling that we are at a moment very much like the summer of 2001, when Clarke made his last dire warning. ‘A couple people have labeled me a Cassandra,’ Clarke says. ‘And I’ve gone back and read my mythology about Cassandra. And the way I read the mythology, it’s pretty clear that Cassandra was right.’”

Where does the evidence point: toward cyber warfare or manageable cyber threats? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

California Senator Alex Padilla announced new legislation to get the driverless cars going in California similarly, after arriving at a press conference in one of Google’s cars. Here’s some video:

The bill would direct the California Highway Patrol to “develop guidelines for the safe testing and operation of autonomous vehicles in California.”

“It was pretty amazing when Google’s vehicle went into self-driving mode. The drive was smooth and safe. It worked flawlessly. It is a testament to human ingenuity and the power of technology in California,” said Padilla.

“The vast majority of vehicle accidents are due to human error,” he said. “Through the use of computers, sensors and other systems, an autonomous vehicle is capable of analyzing the driving environment more quickly and operating the vehicle more safely. Autonomous vehicles have the potential to significantly reduce traffic fatalities and improve safety on our roads and highways.”

“Advancement and deployment of autonomous vehicles will not only save lives, it will create jobs. California is uniquely positioned to be the global leader in this field,” he added.

“California is our home state,” said Google product manager Anthony Levandowski. “Our self-driving cars have safely traveled more than 200,000 miles here. We’re very fortunate to have found a supporter with a strong technical background in Senator Padilla, and we look forward to working with him throughout this process.”

In December, it was learned that Google secured the patent on its driverless car technology – specifically, “transitioning a mixed-mode vehicle to autonomous mode”.

Other states, such as Arizona, Hawaii, Florida and Oklahoma are currently considering autonomous vehicles legislation. Google’s driverless cars may be a more serious part of Google’s business in the future.