Cybersecurity Privacy Practical Implications
Concerning Privacy and Cybersecurity Policy
- Senate Cybersecurity Information Sharing Bill Proposed: Senators Dianne Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss have proposed the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014. The Senate bill is similar to the House Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which was opposed by civil liberties organizations and would have been vetoed by the White House if enacted. Like CISPA, the Senate bill allows companies to monitor private communications on their networks and to disclose user activity to the government. The bill would also exempt companies from liability for monitoring communications or disclosing user information. However, the Senate bill makes some attempt to limit the collection of personally identifiable information. EPIC recently won a five-year court battle with the NSA and obtained National Security Presidential Directive 54. The directive was issued by President Bush in 2008 and is the foundational legal document for U.S. cybersecurity policies. The Presidential Directive reveals the government’s long-standing interest in enlisting private sector companies to monitor user activity. For more information, see EPIC: Cybersecurity. (Jun. 20, 2014)
- EPIC v. NSA: EPIC Obtains Presidential Directive for Cybersecurity: After almost five years, EPIC has obtained National Security Presidential Directive 54. The previously classified Presidential Directive contains the full text of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative and "establishes United States policy, strategy, guidelines, and implementation actions to secure cyberspace." This Directive, which is the foundational legal document for all cybersecurity policies in the United States, evidences government efforts to enlist private sector companies, more broadly monitor Internet activity, and develop offensive cybersecurity capability. EPIC first sought public release of NSPD-54 with a Freedom of Information Act request, submitted to NSA in June 2009. After the agency failed to disclose the document, EPIC filed suit. When a federal district court ruled in 2013 that the Presidential Directive was not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, EPIC then filed an appeal with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The document has now been disclosed to EPIC. The case is EPIC v. NSA, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in D.C. Circuit Court. EPIC has several related FOIA cases with the NSA pending in federal court. For more information see EPIC - EPIC v. NSA (Cybersecurity Authority). (Jun. 6, 2014)
- New Documents Reveal Close Ties Between NSA and Tech Companies, PBS Special to Air: New e-mails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal former NSA Director Keith Alexander's close communication with technology companies regarding emerging cybersecurity threats. The CEOs of Google, Apple, Microsoft, and other technology companies were invited to classified briefings as part of the "Enduring Security Framework," a government initiative focused on sharing "cyber threat information with the private sector." EPIC previously sued the NSA to obtain records about the agency's collaboration with Google on cybersecurity, following the China hack in January 2010. In that case, the NSA refused to confirm or deny the existence of any records responsive to EPIC's request. EPIC had previously urged Google to routinely encrypt cloud-based services. PBS Frontline begins a two-part special this week that explores NSA surveillance and the role of tech companies. For more information, see EPIC v. NSA: Google/NSA Relationship and EPIC: Cybersecurity. (May. 12, 2014)
- DHS Releases Cybersecurity Report, NSA Role Remains Murky: The Department of Homeland Security had published the first Privacy and Civil Liberties Assessment Report. The report examined several federal agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, regarding cybersecurity activities. Executive Order 13636, "Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity," requires the reports as well as the creation of a cybersecurity framework. Last year, EPIC recommended civilian control of domestic Cybersecurity and clarification of the NSA's involvement. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Assessment Report and the cybersecurity framework both fail to clarify the NSA's role in cybersecurity. For more information, see EPIC: Cybersecurity Privacy Practical Implications. (Apr. 25, 2014)
- EPIC v. NSA: EPIC Appeals Lower Court Decision on Presidential Directive: EPIC has filed its opening brief in EPIC v. NSA. EPIC is seeking to obtain NSPD-54, a Presidential Directive on cyber security that was widely circulated to federal agencies and senior policy advisors. EPIC submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the NSA for NSPD-54 and several related documents. The NSA turned over some of the materials to EPIC but withheld the Directive. EPIC then sued the agency to force disclosure of the document but a court ruled sue sponte that the NSA did not have control over NSPD-54, and thus it was not an "agency record" subject to release. It was the first time a federal court had ruled that a Presidential Directive was not subject to FOIA. In the appeal, EPIC argued that the agency has the document and therefore bears the burden of proving it is not an "agency record." EPIC also pointed out that the lower court failed to apply the control test followed by other courts, and that the NSA itself never claimed that NSPD-54 was not an agency record. For more information, see EPIC: Presidential Directives and Cybersecurity and EPIC v. NSA: NSPD-54 Appeal. (Apr. 1, 2014)
- EPIC Accepts NSA's Settlement Offer, Receives Attorneys Fees: EPIC has accepted the NSA's offer to settle a Freedom of Information Act case EPIC v. NSA. EPIC sought both National Security Presidential Directive 54, a Presidential Directive setting out the scope of the NSA's authority over computer networks in the United States, as well as documents related to NSPD 54. EPIC received some of the documents as a result of the lawsuit, "substantially prevailing" under the FOIA, and prompting the NSA to make a settlement offer to EPIC. As a consequence, EPIC will receive attorneys fees from the NSA. EPIC is simultaneously appealing the lower court's determination that NSPD-54 is not an "agency record" subject to the FOIA. It was the first time a federal court has ruled that a Presidential Directive is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. For the appeal, EPIC has already filed a Statement of the Issue, and the parties are waiting for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to set a briefing schedule. For more information, see EPIC v. NSA - Cybersecurity Authority. (Feb. 11, 2014)
- EPIC Files Appeal, Challenging Secrecy of Presidential Directives : EPIC has filed a Statement of the Issue Presented with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. EPIC is appealing a lower court decision that NSPD 54 -- a Presidential Directive setting out the scope of the NSA's authority over computer networks in the United States -- is not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. EPIC sought the Presidential Directive, signed by President Bush in January 2008, from the National Security Agency after the White House disclosed the existence of the Directive but not the substance. After the agency failed to respond to EPIC's FOIA request, EPIC filed an administrative appeal, and then a lawsuit. The lower court ruled in EPIC v. NSA that the Presidential Directive is not subject to the FOIA because it was not under "the control" of the NSA. It was the first time a federal court has ruled that an Presidential Directive is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. EPIC is now asking the Court of Appeals to determine, "Whether the district court erred in holding that a Presidential Directive in the possession of a federal agency is not an agency record subject to the FOIA." For more information, see EPIC v. NSA: Cybersecurity Authority. (Jan. 22, 2014)
- Federal Appeals Court Rules that Legal Policy Memos Can Be Withheld From the Public: The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled that the FBI may withhold a memo prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel concerning the law governing "exigent letter" requests to telephone companies for call records. The decision affirmed an earlier opinion that the memo was privileged advice, and exempt from disclosure under the Freedom information Act. The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that the memo was "working law" and not simply advice from government lawyers. However, the Court of Appeals found that the FBI had not itself adopted the advice of government lawyers. In a different case where the Department of State followed the guidance of Justice Department lawyers, EPIC filed a "friend" of the court brief in support of the New York Times and the ACLU and argued for the release of opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel. For more information, see EPIC v. NSA: Cybersecurity Authority and EPIC: New York Times v. DOJ. (Jan. 3, 2014)
- EPIC Appeals Secrecy of Presidential Cybersecurity Directive: EPIC has filed a notice of appeal with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in EPIC v. NSA. In that case, EPIC sought NSPD 54, a presidential policy directive outlining the scope of the NSA's authority over computer networks in the United States. A federal district court ruled that the directive is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act because it was not under "the control" of the federal agencies and officials who received it. It is the only time a federal court has ruled that presidential directives in the possession of federal agencies are not subject to the FOIA. EPIC is appealing the decision. For more information, see EPIC v. NSA: Cybersecurity Authority (Dec. 17, 2013)
- EPIC Urges Clarification of NSA's Role in Cybersecurity: EPIC has submitted comments on the National Institute of Standards and Technology's cybersecurity policy proposal. Pursuant to an Executive Order, the federal agency is charged with defining a "cybersecurity framework" for the federal government. EPIC reiterated previous comments that emphasized civilian control, adherence to the Fair Information Practices, and compliance with the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act. In light of revelations that the National Security Agency's has weakened key security standards, EPIC urged NIST to clarify the NSA's involvement in the development of the federal policy. For more information, see EPIC: Cybersecurity Practical Implications and EPIC: EPIC v. NSA (Cybersecurity Authority). (Dec. 13, 2013)
Cybersecurity encompasses an array of challenges to protect digital information and the systems they depend upon to affect communication. The interconnected world of computers forms the Internet, which offers new challenges for nations because regional or national borders do not control the flow of information as it is currently managed. The Internet, in the most basic sense, works like any other remote addressing system, for example, a telephone number corresponds to a particular device, a home or building address corresponds to a particular geographic location. The Internet's addressing system is called the Internet Protocol (IP).
Each computer network and computing device designed to communicate over the Internet must have a unique address to send or receive messages. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is responsible for the task of managing these addresses so that each unique Internet device (computer, cell phone, personal digital device) has a unique IP number designation. This Internet addressing system translates these numbers into World Wide Web addresses best known by the extensions .com, .edu, .net, and .org. This addressing system makes it very easy for people to find the people and Web addresses they are seeking. IP registration information or WHOIS data on Internet address holders is a source of contention between privacy/free speech/human rights advocates and law enforcement and commercial and government interests.
Privacy interest in cybersecurity involves establishing protocols and effective oversight regarding when, why, and how government agencies may gain access to personal information that is collected, retained, used, or shared. U.S. businesses and government share responsibility for the insecurity of consumer online personal information. There is no single federal minimum standard for data protection that enforces fair information practices (FIPs). Fair information practices regulate and enforce consumer privacy rights regarding data collection, retention, use, and sharing of personal information. The federal approach has focused not on the protection of personal information, but on the purpose of the information collection.
The history of U.S. government agencies conducting sanctioned and unsanctioned surveillance of domestic communication by colluding with telecommunications and wire communication companies is well known. (The Puzzle Palace, Inside the National Security Agency America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization (1983)- James Bamford) Domestic surveillance first began as a means of acquiring information on criminal activities and quickly moved to documenting people's engagement in social or political activities and their exercise of constitutionally protected rights to expression and assembly. Fundamentally, control of society is, in large part, about the ability of government to control communications.
One key challenge facing digital communications users is that this medium suits those inclined to spy unlike any other form of surveillance because the intruder can hide the fact that a communication has been compromised. The National Security Agency is no amateur at delving into personal communications that are secured by law or design from snooping.
Consumer Cybersecurity Interest
Online consumers have been victimized by cyber-threats in the form of spyware; malicious computer viruses, worrms, or malware; and fraud or abusive sales tactics that lure consumers to invest in bogus products or services. Online consumers routinely fall victim to identity theft, as well as spam, phishing or pharming attacks.
Consumers are also facing the challenge of determining which products or services to trust to provide goods and services as advertised.Political Advocacy and Academic Cybersecurity Interest
For individuals and organizations that rely on the Internet for research, access to information, collaboration, political participation, fundraising, coalition building, campaigns, advocacy, organized dissent, political speech, watchdog actions against government and businesses, freedom of expression, dissemination of information or for outreach to constituencies--cybersecurity does matter a great deal.
Threats posed to political activity include deceptive campaign tactics that deface Websites, target donations for theft, create denial of service attacks on Websites, or send messages that are deceptive or misleading regarding the rules for voter participation on election day. If responses to cyber-attacks deny advocates access to the Internet and/or advanced communications networks, this would deny them the means to engage in a wide range of activities that could include election protection efforts during public elections, mobilize supporters for public protests, educate consumers, or empower constituencies to know and understand policy that impacts their lives. Academics and researchers must have a trustworthy and reliable means of exchanging ideas, participating in discussions, and collaborating on projects that advance their areas of research interest.Business Cybersecurity Interest
Large and small companies have cyber-threats within and outside of their control such as data breaches, theft of company secrets, spying, attacks on computer networks, and damage to critical systems. Many companies are considering the challenges of cybersecurity and looking to new business applications such as cloud computing to secure data. However, cloud computing has enormous security and privacy risks relating to dependence on untrustworthy or unevaluated third parties.
New business and government services such as electronic health records and development and updating of critical infrastructure such as the Smart Grid each offer new cybersecurity privacy challenges for consumers.National Security Cybersecurity Interest
The cyber-threats to any nation can range from disruption of an agency's networks or information services to the public to cyber-warfare. Depending on the agency, type of cyber-attack, its scope, duration, and effectiveness, the consequences for the online and offline operation of local, federal, or state government components can range from annoying delays in communications to serious damage to infrastructure threatening life or property.
Cyber-attacks or incidents that threaten the command and control structure of the national government or its assets including national defense, emergency response, and economic systems are of growing concern. The digital infrastructure of the nation must be treated as a strategic national asset. The new mission is to deter, detect, and defend against disruptions and attacks of all descriptions.
Cyberspace is global, but the freedoms that are protected by constitutional rights, human rights norms, and legal institutions are defined by treaty or geography. Cybersecurity may be defined by governments, but will have a lasting impact on many rights and civil liberties enjoyed by free people throughout the world who engage in cyber-communications. Freedom of expression, freedom of association, economic opportunity, and political discourse may be redefined by the course the United States charts for cybersecurity.
Decisions about how to define cybersecurity and who will define it may affect Internet anonymous speech, freedom of expression, free speech, and access to information. Those who have worked on Network Neutrality understand what manipulation of communications over the Internet might mean. However, in the realm of federal cybersecurity, transparency and oversight might not be part of the process.
The Obama Administration has engaged agencies of the federal government, large corporations, technology companies, technologists, legal scholars, and policy experts in the deliberative process related to establishing policy to secure cyberspace.Cyberspace Policy Review
On May 29, 2009, President Barack Obama announced the Administration's plan to address the growing issue of digital information insecurity. The Administration engaged multiple participants to develop this plan.
Much of the nation's critical infrastructure is connected in some way to computer networks. Addressing digital communication system vulnerabilities touches on important privacy and security questions that must be answered. The President began this discussion on cybersecurity by stating:
It is now clear that this cyber-threat is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation. It's also clear that we are not as prepared as we should be as a government or as a country. In recent years some progress has been made at the federal level, but just as we failed in the past to invest in our physical infrastructure: our roads, our bridges, and rails. We failed to invest in the security of our digital infrastructure. No single official oversees cybersecurity policy across the federal government and no single agency has the responsibility or authority to match the scope and scale of the challenge...
The Obama Administration is challenging federal government agencies, large technology companies, corporate America, academics and digital media users to join efforts to secure the Internet and telecommunications systems from every form of cyber-threat or menace.
The goal of the Administration is to pursue a new aggressive and comprehensive approach to cybersecurity that would address all forms of cyber-based threats. The category of threats will include those faced by consumers, corporations, critical infrastructure, and networked local, state, and federal government agencies. Internet or networked computer based communications have moved beyond an option to a necessary tool for a highly interconnected world. The Internet has fundamentally changed the social, cultural, business, political, and educational experiences of people.
The Cyberspace Policy Review set out 10 near-term actions. According the Whitehouse.gov Cybersecurity Factsheet, the Administration has completed or will soon complete all of those items:
- Appoint a cybersecurity policy official responsible for coordinating the Nation’s cybersecurity policies and activities; establish a strong NSC directorate, under the direction of the cybersecurity policy official dual-hatted to the NSC and the NEC, to coordinate interagency development of cybersecurity-related strategy and policy. ◊ Complete. Howard A. Schmidt has been appointed as the Cybersecurity Coordinator.
- Prepare for the President’s approval an updated national strategy to secure the information and communications infrastructure. This strategy should include continued evaluation of CNCIactivities and, where appropriate, build on its successes. ◊ Complete. The direction and needs highlighted in the Cyberspace Policy Review and previous national cybersecurity strategy are still relevant, and we have updated that strategy on targeted cyber issues, such as identity management and international engagement.
- Designate cybersecurity as one of the President’s key management prioritiesand establish performance metrics. ◊ Complete. All senior executives and senior leadership have been informed that cybersecurity is one of the President’s key management priorities for the Federal Government. We have established metrics through the CyberStats program, and we have also worked with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to update the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) metrics by which departments and agencies are graded on their cybersecurity. Together, we are shifting the Federal Government’s approach to cybersecurity from a static, paper-based certification and accreditation to a dynamic, relevant process based upon continuous monitoring and risk assessment.
- Designate a privacy and civil liberties official to the NSC cybersecurity directorate. ◊ Complete. Our second Director for Privacy and Civil Liberties official joined us from the Federal Trade Commission in December 2010.
- Convene appropriate interagency mechanisms to conduct interagency-cleared legal analyses of priority cybersecurity-related issues identified during the policy-development process and formulate coherent unified policy guidance that clarifies roles, responsibilities, and the application of agency authorities for cybersecurity-related activities across the Federal government. ◊ Complete. We have developed a formal interagency process as we continue to address policy and legal issues. As part of that process, we identified additional authorities that the executive branch needs to fulfill its mission, and we have requested those authorities as part of our legislative package.
- Initiate a national public awareness and education campaign to promote cybersecurity. ◊ Complete. We have created the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) with the dual goals of a cyber-savvy citizenry and a cyber-capable workforce, including raising awareness for consumers, enhancing cybersecurity education, and improving the structure, preparation, and training of the cybersecurity workforce. After the 2010 National Cyber Security Awareness Month, DHS launched a year-round national awareness campaign, which has held events around the country.
- Develop U.S. Government positions for an international cybersecurity policy framework and strengthen our international partnerships to create initiatives that address the full range of activities, policies, and opportunities associated with cybersecurity. ◊ Complete. We have finished and will soon release the International Strategy for Cyberspace, which provides a unified foundation for the nation’s international engagement on cyberspace issues.
- Prepare a cybersecurity incident response plan; initiate a dialog to enhance public-private partnerships with an eye toward streamlining, aligning, and providing resources to optimize their contribution and engagement. ◊ Complete. The National Cyber Incident Response Plan (NCIRP) was developed and tested during a national cyber exercise, Cyber Storm III. It is now in the final stages of being updated, based upon our experience using the plan in different cyber exercises.
- In collaboration with other EOPentities, develop a framework for research and development strategies that focus on game-changing technologies that have the potential to enhance the security, reliability, resilience, and trustworthiness of digital infrastructure; provide the research community access to event data to facilitate developing tools, testing theories, and identifying workable solutions. ◊ Complete. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has finalized a Cyber Research and Development Framework. Public release of the plan is expected to occur in May 2011.
- Build a cybersecurity-based identity management vision and strategy that addresses privacy and civil liberties interests, leveraging privacy-enhancing technologies for the Nation. ◊ Complete. The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC) was released on April 15, 2011. The Department of Commerce will stand up a program office to coordinate the federal government and private sector in implementing this effort.
The White House proposed cybersecurity legislation in May 2011. According to the White House, the proposed legislation will help safeguard personal data, help protect our national security by addressing threats to critical infrastructure, and help the government protect federal networks while at the same time creating stronger privacy and civil liberties protections. The Whitehouse.gov Fact Sheet on the Proposal highlights the following features of the legislation:National Data Breach Reporting Penalties for Computer Criminals Voluntary Government Assistance to Industry, States, and Local Governments Voluntary Information Sharing with Industry, States, and Local Governments Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity PLans Increase of Effort and Resources to Protect the Federal Network
On January 5, 2011, Representative Bennie Thompson (D-MS) sponsored H.R. 174, the Homeland Security Cyber and Physical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2011. H.R. 174 "seeks to enhance DHS’ cybersecurity capacity by authorizing the DHS Office of Cybersecurity and Communications and creating a new Cybersecurity Compliance Division to oversee the establishment of performance-based standards responsive to the particular risks to the (1) .gov domain and (2) critical infrastructure networks, respectively." (Source: Press Release). It was referred to the House Committee of Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies.
The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies has held several hearings on the issue of cybersecurity. On June 24, 2011, the subsommittee held a hearing entitled "Examining the Homeland Security Impact of the Obama Administration’s Cybersecurity Proposal." (http://homeland.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-hearing-examining-homeland-security-impact-obamaadministrations-cybersecurity). On April 15, 2011, the subcommittee held a hearing entitled “The DHS Cybersecurity Mission: Promoting Innovation and Securing Critical Infrastructure.” On March 16, 2011, the subsommittee held a hearing entitled "Examining the Cyber Threat to Critical Infrastructure and the American Economy."National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC)
One objective of the White House's Cyberspace Policy Review was to develop a national plan for a public secure Internet identification program:
"The Federal government - in collaboration with industry and the civil liberties and privacy communities - should build a cyber security-based identity management vision and strategy for the Nation that considers an array of approaches, including privacy-enhancing technologies. The Federal government must interact with citizens through a myriad of information, services and benefit programs and thus has no interest in the protection of the public's private information as well."Based on the White House's recommendations, an inter-agency writing team developed and released a Draft plan of the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC) in June 2010. NSTIC is seen as an acceleration and expansion of the initiatives developed by ICAM to the public domain. The Draft identified what it called the Identity Ecosystem - "a user-centric online environment, a set of technologies, policies, and agreed upon standards that securely supports transactions ranging from anonymous to fully authenticated and from low to high value." The Draft was published on IdeaScale, and was open for the public to submit comments. (The page has since been removed, though MSNBC has maintained a screenshot.)
- A complete enumeration of the sources of the problems identified in the draft
- A clear plan for privacy protection
- A strategy for the protection of private communications by fair information practices
- The assignment of responsibility of government agencies to oversee authorities, courts, and credential users regarding constitutional rights
- The assurance that Internet users can continue to create, control, and own web content.
EPIC also emphasized the importance of applying Fair Information Practices to all personally identifiable information that is collected, retained or used, and recommended an explicit statutory provision that would apply protections in the Federal Privacy Act to all credential-related information.
On January 7, 2011, White House Cybersecurity Coordinator, Howard Schmidt and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke appeared at an event at Stanford University in California. In his speech, Locke detailed many potential threats on the Internet, claiming that the "cyber threat" was "one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation." In order to lead the government's efforts on digital identity, Locke announced the creation of a National Program Office at the Department of Commerce, housed under the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), that would be responsible for a digital identity framework.
As described by Secretary Locke in his announcement: The new Program Office would spearhead the development of NSTIC, though implementation would be outsourced to the private market, eliminating the need for a single overseer or a central database. (However, because the federal government will not be maintaining the databases of information, they will not be subject to the protections provided in the Federal Privacy Act of 1974). The digital identity program is also designed to be entirely voluntary to users. In addition to private industry, the General Services Administration and the Department of Homeland Security were also slated to assist with development of the new programs.
For the full NSTIC page, see EPIC: NSTICInternational Strategy for Cyberspace
On May 16, 2011, the White House announced the International Strategy for Cyberspace (ISC). The ISC outlines the United States' approach to cyber issues. The ISC states the goal of a "future for cyberspace that is open, interoperable, secure, and reliable." Policy priorities include:Promoting International Standards and Innovative, Open Markets Protecting Our Networks: Enhancing Security, Reliability, and Resiliency Internet Governance: Promoting Effective and Inclusive Structures Internet Freedom: Supporting Fundamental Freedoms and Privacy Department of Commerce's Cybersecurity Policy Framework
On June 8, 2011, The Department of Commerce announced a new policy framework for cybersecurity and businesses online. The Department of Commerce Green Paper proposes voluntary codes of conduct for companies that do business online but are not part of the critical infrastructure sector. The framework makes specific policy recommendations, including:
- Establish nationally recognized but voluntary codes of conduct to minimize cybersecurity vulnerabilities. For example, the report recommends that businesses employ present-day best practices, such as automated security, to combat cybersecurity threats and that they implement the Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) protocol extensions on the domains that host key Web sites. DNSSEC provides a way to ensure that users are validly delivered to the web addresses they request and are not hijacked.
- Developing incentives to combat cybersecurity threats. The report also recommends exploring and identifying incentives that could include reducing “cyberinsurance” premiums for companies that adopt best practices and openly share details about cyberattacks for the benefit of other businesses.
- Improve public understanding of cybersecurity vulnerabilities through education and research. Programs like the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education should target awareness and training to the I3S and develop methods for cost/benefit analyses for cybersecurity expenditures.
- Enhance international collaboration on cybersecurity best practices to support expanded global markets for U.S. products. This should include enhanced sharing of research and development goals, standards, and policies that support innovation and economic growth.
The Green Paper was the product of the Internet Policy Task Force. The Department of Commerce launched the Internet Policy Task Force in April 2010. The Department of Commerce is seeking public comment on the Green Paper.
- Coalition Letter Outlining Concerns Regarding Lack of Civil Society Presence in Decision Making
- White House Cybersecurity Memo Title: FY 2010 Reporting Instructions for the Federal Information Security Management Act and Agency Privacy Management, April 21, 2010
- Advance Senate Armed Services Confirmation Hearing Questions for Lieutenant General Keith Alexander, USA Nominee for Commander, United States Cyber Command (Hearing Date April 15, 2010
- Remarks on Internet Freedom, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State at The Newseum, Washington, DC, January 21, 2010
- Privacy and Technology Experts Reply to Clinton's Remarks by Urging Ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Privacy, January 28, 2010
- EPIC FOIA for National Security Presidential Directive 54
- Obama Administration: Cyberspace Policy Review
- Critical Infrastructure Protection and the Endangerment of Civil Liberties
- DHS Cybersecurity Documents
- DHS: A Road Map to Cybersecurity
- CRS Analysis of the US PATRIOT Act
- White House Cyberspace Policy Review (May 29, 2009)
- President Obama's Speech on Cyber-security (May 29, 2009)
- EPIC's Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on "Creating the Department of Homeland Security: Consideration of the Administration's Proposal" (July 9, 2002)
- EPIC's Testimony to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on "Securing Our Infrastructure: Private/Public Information Sharing" (May 8, 2002)
- EPIC's Letter to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, on H.R. 3482, The Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002(February 26, 2002)
- EPIC's Testimony to the House Government Reform Committee on H.R. 4246, The Cyber Security Information Act (June 22, 2000)
- EPIC's Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on "CyberAttack: The National Protection Plan and its Privacy Implications" (PDF, 128K) (February 1, 2000)
- EPIC Press Release on "National Plan for Information Systems Protection" (February 1, 2000)
- Memo from Ronald D. Lee, Associate Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice to Jeffrey Hunker, Director, Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office regading the National Information Systems Protection Plan, March 8, 1999. Obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act.
- Memo from Jeffrey Hunker, CIAO to CICG Members regarding "Offsite Materials." Obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act.
- White House "National Plan for Information Systems Protection" (PDF, 912K) (January 7, 2000)
- Executive Summary of "National Plan for Information Systems Protection" (PDF, 664K) (January 7, 2000)
- White House Press Release on "Cyber-Security" (January 7, 2000)
- Transcript of White House Press Briefing on "Cyber-Security" (January 7, 2000)
- European Parliament: Report ont he existence of a global system for interception of privacy and commercial communications(ECHELON intercept system) (2001/2098(INI))
- EPIC FOIA for disclosure of National Security Presidential Directive 54
- NSA FOIA Request for Classified Supplement from Cyber Command Nominee Alexander
- E-Deceptive Campaign Practices: Internet Technology and Democracy 2.0
- Critical Infrastructure Protection and the Endangerment of Civil Liberties (October 1998)
- Surfer Beware: Notice is Not Enough (1998)
- Surfer Beware I (1997)
- EPIC Privacy Guidelines National Information Infrastructure (1994)
- National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC)
- NIPC "CyberNotes" (published every two weeks)
- Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO)
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- A look at the Critical Infrastructures FBI
- United States Department of Defense
- Defense Information Systems Agency
- The Defense Intelligence Agency
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- The National Security Institute
- Terrorism Research Center
- American Bar Association Standing Committee On Law and National Security
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Infrastructure Assurance Center
- Office of the Director of Central Intelligence
- Federation of American ScientistsComprehensive Guide to Information Warfare Resources
- The Information Warfare Research Center
- Centre for Infrastructural Warfare Studies (CIWARS)
- The Institute for Advanced Study of Information Warfare
- National Archives and Records Administration
- The Government Printing Office (Research site)
- Institute for Telecommunication Science (ITS is the research and engineering branch of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce.)
- Information Infrastructure Task Force (implements the Administration's vision for the National Information Infrastructure)
- White House cyber security plan to cite e-health", Health IT, By Mary Mosquera, Wednesday, May 12, 2010
- A House insider's view of U.S. cybersecurity policy, Federal Computer Week, Ben Bain, May 6, 2010
- Summit in Dallas targets cybercrime, Dallas Morning News, By VICTOR GODINEZ, May 3, 2010
- Whitehouse: Congress needs clarity on who handles cybersecurity, the Hill, By Tony Romm - May 3, 2010
- Cyber-Security Survey Shows Distrust Between Public and Private Sectors, Government Technology, May 3, 2010
- FBI Names Cybersecurity Division Chief, Elizabeth Montalbano, InformationWeek, April 26, 2010
- Meeting of the Minds Over Fed Cybersecurity, Government Info Security
- Politicians jockey for cybersecurity positioning, Federal Computer Week, Ben Bain, April 23, 2010
- FCC launches NOI on voluntary cybersecurity certification program - NOI seeks to implement National Broadband Plan information security recommendation, Association of Corporate Council, April 22, 20101
- Politicians jockey over cybersecurity positioning, By Ben Bain, Federal Computer Week, April 21, 2010
- DHS Fills 2 Key Cybersecurity Posts, Government Info Security, April 21, 2010
- Four myths about cyber-security, Sync-blog.com, April 20
- Cyber Command nominee lays out rules of engagement, Ben Bain, Federal Computer Week, April 16, 2010
- Pick to lead cyber command lays out battle plans, Ben Bain, Federal Computer Week, April 15, 2010
- Cyber security, FEMA meeting on Obama's agenda, Washington Post, May 29, 2009.
- Computer Security Review Due This Week, Helene Cooper, N.Y. Times, May 26, 2009.
- Cyber Terror Arsenal Grows. Niall McKay, Wired News, October 16, 1998.
- An Electronic Pearl Harbor? Not Likely. George Smith, Issues in Science and Technology, Fall 1998.
- American Military Intervention: A User's Guide. The Heritage Foundation's look at military intervention.
- Protecting America's Critical Infrastructures. Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office factsheet on PDD 63.
- White House Fact Sheet: Protecting America's Critical Infrastructures: PDD 63. May 22, 1998.
- The President's speech on infrastructure protection at the U.S. Naval Academy.
- Statement of Dr. Jeffrey A. Hunker (Director, Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office).
- Is Cyberterrorism a Real Threat?. Reuters.
- Reno Unveils Center to Protect Infrastructure. Heather Harreld and Torsten Busse, Federal Computer Week.
- Networks: DOD's First Line Of Defense. George Leopold, Electronic Engineering Times, October 13, 1997.
- Testimony Before the House Science Subcommittee in behalf of the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board. Willis H. Ware, Chairman, June 19, 1997.
- Report to the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. James Ellis, David Fisher, Thomas Longstaff, Linda Pesante, and Richard Pethia, CERT Coordination Center Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, January 1997.
- Press Release ñ House Science Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) introduced H.R. 1903, the Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997, legislation aimed at strengthening computer security throughout the federal government.
- Reflections on the 1997 Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP) Report. Clark Staten, The Emergency Responce and Research Institute.
- The Information Warfare Challenges of a National Information Infrastructure. Ronald Knecht and Ronald A. Gove.
- Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Information Warfare. November 1996.
- Security and the National Infrastructure in the Computer Age. Judith Nocella, University of Buffalo, Fall 1996.
- What is Information Warfare?. Martin C. Libicki, March 1996.
- Papers on Network Centric Warfare.
- The Clipper Chip: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).
- Overview of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
- List of websites related to the Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Cybersecurity Infrastructure Surveillance Laws
- US PATRIOT ACT
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Federally Funded State Managed Fusion Centers
- Office of National Intelligence Director's Information Sharing Environment
- DHS Einstein Program (I, II, III)
- National Security Presidential Directive 54 (Amended by George Bush)
Cybersecurity Legislation in the 111th Congress
- H.R.2165: Bulk Power System Protection Act of 2009 (Barrow)
- S. 3193: International Cyberspace and Cybersecurity Coordination Act of 2010 (Kerry)
- Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2010, (Lipinski)
- S. 773: Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (Rockefeller)
- S. 778: To establish, within the Executive Office of the President, the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor (Rockefeller)
- S. 1438: Fostering a Global Response to Cyber Attacks Act (Gillibrand)
- S. 921: U.S. ICE Act of 2009 (Carper)
- H.R. 1319: Informed P2P User Act (Bono Mack)
- Cyberwar Commander Survives Senate Hearing, Wired Magazine, Threat Level Blog, April 15, 2010
- DHS Announces National Cybersecurity Awareness Campaign Challenge Deadline April 30, 2010
- U.S. to Reveal Rules on Internet Security, By JOHN MARKOFF, New York Times, March 1, 2010
- Google Asks Spy Agency for Help With Inquiry Into Cyberattacks, By JOHN MARKOFF, New York Times, February 4, 2010
- Privacy experts see room for improvement from Obama, By Andrew Noyes, CongressDaily, September 9, 2009
- Cybersecurity Plan Doesn't Breach Employee Privacy, Administration Says, By Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post, September 19, 2009
- Obama Set to Create A Cybersecurity Czar With Broad Mandate, Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post, May 26, 2009
- National Cyber Security Czar Steps Down, March 9, 2009
- Cybersecurity Plan to Involve NSA, Telecoms DHS Officials Debating The Privacy Implications, By Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post Staff Writer, July 3, 2009