Rep. Daniel Lungren of California,Chair of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies of the House Committee on Homeland Security, is aiming at impediments to cybersecurity data sharing in a bill introduced on Dec. 15, 2011. S. 3674, the ‘‘Promoting and Enhancing Cybersecurity and Information Sharing Effectiveness Act of 2011’’ or the “PRECISE Act of 2011,” contains, among other things, a provision that would encourage corporate and industry participation in government sponsored cybersecurity programs by including legal exemptions and protections for private entity information-sharing.  A copy of the bill as introduced is available here.

Lungren’s bill is one of a number of cybersecurity bills that have been proposed in the 112th Congress. Although news reports of cyber attacks by criminals, hactivists and foreign governments make headlines almost daily, none of the proposals has gotten as far as a floor vote. An administration-backed proposal by Senator Joseph Lieberman, S. 413, was the subject of a Senate committee hearing last May, but the bill hasn’t seen further action. S. 413 takes a regulatory approach that would entail the creation of a new federal cybersecurity entity empowered to adopt regulations covering certain private entities, and provide for civil penalties for noncompliance with cybersecurity requirements.

Lungren’s bill follows on the release of a report by the House Republican Cybersecurity Task Force in October that favors targeted and limited regulation, improved information sharing, and legal protections for sharing information.

A Voluntary Approach

The Lungren bill would create a National Cybersecurity Authority tasked with serving as a “focal point” for federal government cybersecurity efforts, including, among many other duties, the facilitation of cybersecurity information sharing among and between Federal and State agencies and local governments, the private sector, academia and international partners. From the government side, the Secretary of Homeland Security would be directed to share certain information concerning cybersecurity threats and mitigation efforts with Federal agencies, State and local government representatives and “appropriate critical infrastructure information systems owners and operators” (a defined category). The Authority would also be tasked with studying cybersecurity threats and risks, and compiling information about risk assessments and responses, among other things. But the bill confers no new regulatory authority.

National Information Sharing Organization Nonprofit

The Lundgren bill would also direct the creation of a cybersecurity nonprofit organization, a “National Information Sharing Organization,” that would facilitate the sharing of cybersecurity information provided by the private sector. One purpose of the proposed nonprofit would be to serve as a national clearinghouse for the exchange of cyber threat information between and among public and private entities. Designated Federal agencies would be required to participate in the nonprofit, but participation by other entities would be voluntary.

Like any nonprofit, a key element would be the composition of the Board of Directors. Significantly, the Board of the proposed NISO would be dominated by private sector representatives, and in particular, by commerce and industry representatives. The Board would include one representative of the Department of Homeland Security; four representatives from at least three different federal agencies with significant responsibility for cybersecurity; and ten representatives from the private sector, of whom  two would be from the “privacy and civil liberties community.” The remainder of the Board would consist of ten representatives of the following “critical infrastructure sectors and subsectors” – banking and finance; communications; defense industrial base; energy and electricity; energy, oil and natural gas; health care and public health; and information technology.

Rulemaking

The Board of Directors would have the power to establish a charter setting out rules for information-sharing, including the treatment and ownership of intellectual property provided by or to the organization; limitations on liability, and “consideration of any necessary measures to mitigate antitrust concerns.” The charter would also cover such topics as privacy and civil liberties protections, public transparency and oversight, and security requirements for the handling of information received from private and governmental sources.

Liability Protection

A key element of the Lundgren bill is its exemptions from existing laws, including a blanket exemption from antitrust laws, and detailed provisions protecting against the disclosure or use of information provided to the proposed NISO.

Information shared with or provided to the proposed NISO, or to a federal agency through the nonprofit, would be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Further, information shared with the proposed NISO could not be shared with any other federal or state entity, or with any third party in any civil action, without the written consent of the person or entity submitting the information. Similarly, such information could not be shared with any officer or employee of the United States unless to further the investigation or prosecution of a criminal act or to disclose to an appropriate Congressional committee. The exemption also contains parallel provisions pertaining to state and local government.

Pros and Cons

Representative Lundgren held a hearing on the  the draft bill on December 6, 2011. The hearing  included testimony in support of the bill from Symantec Corp., and Prof. Gregory E. Shannon of Carnegie-Mellon’s CERT cybersecurity entity. Testimony from the Congressional Research Service discussed the precedents for, and pros and cons of, the type of quasi-government entity envisioned by the draft bill.

Also speaking in support of the draft bill was the Center for Democracy and Technology, although that organization’s support was tempered by several privacy and data security-related concerns.

The CDT’s prepared testimony provides helpful comparisons between the draft bill, Sen. Lieberman’s S.413, and the Obama Administration proposal from which the Lieberman bill derives. The CDT pointed out that while private entities would share data anonymously through the NISO, any individual personally identifiable information included in the data they shared would not be required to be anonoymized or minimized. The CDT also criticized language in the exemptions provision of the draft bill that would appear to broadly encompass all existing federal privacy laws such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Prospects for Passage

Although both houses of Congress seem to agree that cybersecurity legislation is needed, their diametrically different approaches would have to be reconciled in order for such legislation to pass both houses. There doesn’t seem to be much chance of such a reconciliation as we move into an election year. Nevertheless, Sen. Harry Reid sent a letter on November to his Republican counterpart seeking bipartistan cooperation in advancing cybersecurity legislation.

According to Rep. Honda’s remarks of August 1,2011

. . . the bill addresses concerns that have been raised about whether the Federal Government is doing enough to address potential health and safety risks associated with nanotechnology. The NANO Act requires the development of a nanotechnology research strategy that establishes research priorities for the Federal Government and industry that will ensure the development and responsible stewardship of nanotechnology. This strategy will help to resolve the uncertainty that is one of the major obstacles to the commercialization of nanotechnology–uncertainty about what the risks might be and uncertainty about how the Federal Government might regulate nanotechnology in the future.

• The NANO Act also includes a number of provisions to create partnerships, raise awareness, and implement strategic policies to resolve obstacles and promote nanotechnology. It will: create a public-private investment partnership to address the nanotechnology commercialization gap; establish a tax credit for investment in nanotechnology firms; authorize a grant program to support the establishment and development of nanotechnology incubators; establish a Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center for “nano-CAD” tools; establish grant programs for nanotechnology research to address specific challenges in the areas of energy, environment, homeland security, and health; establish a tax credit for nanotechnology education and training program expenses; establish a grant program to support the development of curriculum materials for interdisciplinary nanotechnology courses at higher education institutions; direct NSF to establish a program to encourage manufacturing companies to enter into partnerships with occupational training centers for the development of training to support nanotechnology manufacturing; and call for the development of a strategy for increasing interaction on nanotechnology interests between DOE national labs and the informal science education community.

Title I, “Investment in Nanotechnology Industry”, directs the Secretary of Commerce to “establish the Nanomanufacturing Investment Partnership (NIP) . . .with private sector investments”, contingent on the private sector raising $100,000,000 within two years of the NANO act being passed and signed into law. Although it’s unstated in the text of the bill, should the private sector fail to raise the $100,000,000 by the end of the two years, the NIP would not be established and Title I rendered moot.

The NIP’s purpose would be to

provide funding for precommercial nanomanufacturing research and development projects, . . .  through funding mechanisms described in subsection (c) in a manner so as to advance the commercialization of nanomanufacturing technologies to address critical scientific and engineering needs of national importance, especially with respect to projects that would not be adequately funded or pursued by the private sector or pursuant to the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act or other law, and to increase the commercial application of federally supported research results. . . .at least 85 percent of the funding provided by the Nanomanufacturing Investment Partnership under this section shall be provided to startup companies.

The funding would be in the form of “direct investments . . .contracts, loans, or loan guarantees, unsecured subordinated debt, or any other mechanism designed to advance nanomanufacturing technologies”. In turn, the start-up enterprises that received investments from NIP would “return to the Nanotechnology Investment Partnership. . .. fair and reasonable amounts resulting from the commercialization of technologies developed with funding provided by the Nanotechnology Investment Partnership.”

An Advisory Board consisting of

(A) representatives of each investor providing more than $10,000,000 to the Nanomanufacturing Investment Partnership, whose votes shall–

 

(i) be distributed proportional to the size of their investment in the Nanomanufacturing Investment Partnership; and

 

(ii) collectively amount to 40 percent of the votes on the Advisory Board; and

 

(B) independent experts on nanomanufacturing and finance appointed by the President from among representatives of government, industry, and academia, whose votes shall collectively amount to 60 percent of the votes on the Advisory Board.

 

would be established to assist the Secretary of Commerce in making awards.

Section 102 of the NANO Act would create a tax credit to encourage the purchase of “qualified technology developer stock”, defined as  meaning “. . . any common stock in a C Corporation or any membership unit in a state registered limited liability company  . . . “

The act defines a “qualified technology developer as “. . .  any entity

`(A) which is a C corporation or limited liability company organized under the laws of any State or of the United States,

 

`(B) which is a small business concern (as defined in section 3(a) of the Small Business Act), and

 

`(C) with respect to which a certification under subsection (d) is in effect. . . .

 

 

`(d) Certification-

 

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, in consultation with the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, shall certify an entity under this subsection if such entity demonstrates by the submission of such information as required by the Secretary that not less than 51 percent of its activities relate to the development, production, and sale of products using nanotechnology.

 

`(2) REVOCATION- The Secretary shall revoke the certification of any entity which is certified under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that–

 

`(A) the proceeds from any qualified nanotechnology developer stock issued by such entity are used during the 5-year period following such issue for a purpose other than the development, production, or sale of products using nanotechnology, or

 

`(B) such entity no longer meets the requirements of paragraph (1).

 

Section 103 would direct the Secretary of Commerce to award competitive grants for the acquisition/renovation of space to serve as nanomanufacturing “incubators”, defined as meaning

an entity affiliated with or housed in a degree-granting institution that provides space and coordinated and specialized services to entrepreneurial businesses that work in the field of nanotechnology commercialization and that meets selected criteria during the businesses’ startup phase, including providing services such as shared office space and services, access to equipment, access to telecommunications and technology services, flexible leases, specialized management assistance, access to financing, and other coordinated business or technical support services.

Other grants would be awarded to develop “curricula related to nanotechnology;

 (II) providing services for commercialization, including preparing providing services to appropriate businesses including corporate charters, partnership agreements, and basic contracts, assistance with patents, trademarks, and copyrights, and technology acquisition services; or

(III) providing programming for entrepreneurs working in nanotechnology housed in an incubator;

Other grants would be awarded “for feasibility studies for determining the need for or siting of incubators, and for “research regarding best practices for incubator programs. . . .”

The Secretary of Commerce

shall establish a Nanotechnology Startup Advisory Council composed of industry leaders, business and marketing professionals, venture capitalists, attorneys, and nanotechnology researchers.

 

(2) PURPOSE- The purpose of the Nanotechnology Startup Advisory Council is to ensure that emerging nanotechnology companies create a sound foundation for new business.

 

Title II, “Research and Development Directions”, contains provisions directing the Secretaries of Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to establish grant programs for nanotechnology research “to address the need for “clean, cheap, renewable energy”,”sensors and other materials related to Homeland Security needs”, “Health related applications of nanotechnology”, and “technologies for the remediation of pollution and other environmental protection technologies”.

Title III, “Environmental Nanotechnology Applications”, requires the Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, not later tahn one year following enactment of the NANO Act to

. . . after consultation with appropriate Federal agencies and industry, transmit to the Congress a report containing a nanotechnology research strategy that establishes priorities for the Federal Government and industry that will ensure the development and responsible stewardship of nanotechnology. The report shall include recommendations regarding the funding levels the Director anticipates the agencies charged with implementing this research strategy will require

Title IV, “Education” would create a tax credit

for the taxable year an amount equal to 50 percent of nanotechnology education and training program expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer for the benefit of–

 

`(A) in the case of a taxpayer engaged in a trade or business, an employee of the taxpayer, or

 

`(B) in the case of a taxpayer who is an individual not so engaged, such individual. . . .

`(c) Nanotechnology Education and Training Program Expenses- For purposes of this section–

 

`(1) IN GENERAL- The term `nanotechnology education and training program expenses’ means expenses paid or incurred by reason of the participation of the taxpayer (or any employee of the taxpayer) in any nanotechnology education and training program. Such expenses shall include expenses paid in connection with–

 

`(A) course work,

 

`(B) certification testing,

 

`(C) programs carried out under the Act of August 16, 1937 (50 Stat. 664, chapter 663; 29 U.S.C. 50 et seq.) which are registered by the Department of Labor, and

 

`(D) other expenses that are essential to assessing skill acquisition.

 

`(2) NANOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAM- The term `nanotechnology education and training program’ means a training program in nanotechnology workplace disciplines or other skill sets which is provided in the United States by an accredited college, university, private career school, postsecondary educational institution, a commercial nanotechnology provider, or an employer-owned nanotechnology training organization. . . .

SEC. 402. ELIGIBLE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION.

 

(a) In General- Section 25A(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to eligible educational institution) is amended to read as follows:

 

`(2) ELIGIBLE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION- The term `eligible educational institution’ means–

 

`(A) an institution–

 

`(i) which is described in section 101(b) or 102(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and

 

`(ii) which is eligible to participate in a program under title IV of such Act, or

 

`(B) a commercial nanotechnology training provider (as defined in section 30E(c)(3)).’.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) would be directed to establish a competitive grant program to assist with the cost of developing “curriculum materials for interdisciplinary nanotechnology courses at institutions of higher learning”. NSF would also be required, through the Advanced Technological Education Program, to “establish a program to encourage manufacturing companies to enter into partnerships with occupational training centers for the development of training to support nanotechnology manufacturing.”

Title V, “Public Outreach”, directs the Secretary of Energy

Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall transmit to the Congress a report containing a strategy for increasing interaction on nanotechnology issues between scientists and engineers at the Department of Energy’s National Laboratories and in the informal science education community, to enable researchers to use their expertise to assist in the development of appropriate nanotechnology exhibitions for school age children and the general public.

H.R. 2745 has been referred to the House Committees on Science, Space and Technology, Energy and Commerce, Homeland Security, and Ways and Means, “for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.”

Any consideration of H.R. 2745 will not occur until the House  returns from recess on September 6.

The budget would maintain core operations, including the continued deployment of 21,186 Customs and Border Protection officers and 21,370 Border Patrol agents. And the proposal contains $6.1 billion for FEMAas Disaster Relief Fund.

The budget would maintain core operations, including the continued deployment of 21,186 Customs and Border Protection officers and 21,370 Border Patrol agents. And the proposal contains $6.1 billion for FEMAas Disaster Relief Fund.

Nearly three short years ago, the buzz word du jour in tech was arealtimea. Real time discovery. Real time search. Real time serendipity. The explosion of interest in social sharing tools like Twitter, Facebook and FriendFeed (remember this was early 2009) had people (myself included) saying that aDelayed news will no longer be acceptable for early adopters, who will gravitate to the quickest sources of news, wherever they may be.a In practice, while this has occasionally been true, Iave found a completely divergent innovation to play as big a role in the way I (and others) consume news content and entertainment – that of time shifting, which has remained valuable at a time when most real-time search engines have pivoted or vanished.

Best exemplified by TiVo and other DVRs, preceded by the creaky VCR, the act of consuming media at a time much after its initial airing is so commonplace that live viewings are so uncommon that friends often tiptoe around current storylines for top shows. In some social circles, only the most breaking drama series get the aday it actually aireda treatment – like Breaking Bad, Dexter or Homeland, while everything else goes to TiVo, to be consumed later. (Obviously, I saw the season finales for Dexter and Homeland last night)

News, with some exceptions, can be similarly stored away for later viewing, be it through RSS readers or on your social network of choice. One must not be glued to the real time stream to make sure you donat miss anything. Instead, the RSS reader traps your own hand-picked links, ready for viewing when you get the opportunity, not necessarily tied to their time of posting.

On the big screen, movies may bank on a massive opening weekend, but with consumers having so many options for entertainment sources, itas common to see people mention theyall await for Netflixa, which could be months or years away, content to save a few dollars while also getting the comfort of watching in their own home. And if you do find yourself suddenly interested in a show your friends have been seeing which has been out a few seasons, donat fret, as you can, in almost all cases, catch up – tapping into many options, be they Netflix, Hulu, Xfinity, iTunes or Android Market.

This fall, I made it a personal mission to watch all of Mad Men, after hearing people go on and on about its quality. I powered through it with many late-night Netflix marathons. After finally ordering Showtime, I caught up on this seasonas Dexter on Xfinity, and then did the same for Homeland. If my wife misses her favorite shows, she can do the same, tapping into the various video repositories on the web, including the big three networks, typically slower to adapt to the innovation of the web.

I watch my evening talk shows 3 to 5 in a row, from Jon Stewart to Conan, fast forwarding through commercials and skipping uninteresting guests – efficiently getting the best and skipping the rest. Itas almost the same approach I take to my RSS reader or activity on the social networks, skimming, reading, clicking and leaving no prisoners. Even if Iam not constantly connected, and I do a good job of getting close, I donat feel this sense of missing something.

Realtime reactions to breaking news events, kicked off by an initial discovery, and then rattling around search engines and social media, canat be duplicated by time shifted content, but for most buckets of content, be they text, audio or video, the drive to be first and in the mix of the story as it is interpreted and curated, is not essential. Advents in information and content sharing over the last few years have instead made aon demanda a reality, getting me what I want when I want it, not when someone else decides for me.

More: louisgray.com | RSS | E-mail | Cell: 408 646.2759