The Cyberlaw Podcast
Okay, yes, I promised to take a hiatus after episode 500. Yet here it is a week later, and I'm releasing episode 501. Here's my excuse. I read and liked Dmitri Alperovitch's book, "World on the Brink: How America Can Beat China in the Race for the 21st Century." I told him I wanted to do an interview about it. Then the interview got pushed into late April because that's when the book is actually coming out. So sue me. I'm back on hiatus. The conversation in the episode begins with Dmitri's background in cybersecurity and geopolitics, beginning with his emigration from the Soviet...
info_outline Who’s the Bigger Cybersecurity Risk – Microsoft or Open Source?The Cyberlaw Podcast
There’s a whiff of Auld Lang Syne about episode 500 of the Cyberlaw Podcast, since after this it will be going on hiatus for some time and maybe forever. (Okay, there will be an interview with Dmitri Alperovich about his forthcoming book, but the news commentary is done for now.) Perhaps it’s appropriate, then, for our two lead stories to revive a theme from the 90s – who’s better, Microsoft or Linux? Sadly for both, the current debate is over who’s worse, at least for cybersecurity. Microsoft’s sins against cybersecurity are laid bare in , Paul Rosenzweig reports. ...
info_outline Taking AI Existential Risk SeriouslyThe Cyberlaw Podcast
This episode is notable not just for cyberlaw commentary, but for its imminent disappearance from these pages and from podcast playlists everywhere. Having promised to take stock of the podcast when it reached episode 500, I’ve decided that I, the podcast, and the listeners all deserve a break. So I’ll be taking one after the next episode. No final decisions have been made, so don’t delete your subscription, but don’t expect a new episode any time soon. It’s been a great run, from the dawn of the podcast age, through the ad-fueled podcast boom, which I...
info_outline The Fourth Antitrust Shoe Drops, on Apple This TimeThe Cyberlaw Podcast
The Biden administration has been aggressively pursuing antitrust cases against Silicon Valley giants like Amazon, Google, and Facebook. This week it was Apple’s turn. The Justice Department (joined by several state AGs) filed a accusing Apple of improperly monopolizing the market for “performance smartphones.” The market definition will be a weakness for the government throughout the case, but the complaint does a good job of identifying ways in which Apple has built a moat around its business without an obvious benefit for its customers. The complaint focuses on Apple’s...
info_outline Social Speech and the Supreme CourtThe Cyberlaw Podcast
The Supreme Court is getting a heavy serving of first amendment social media cases. Gus Hurwitz covers two that made the news last week. In the , Justice Barrett spoke for a unanimous court in spelling out the very factbound rules that determine when a public official may use a platform’s tools to suppress critics posting on his or her social media page. Gus and I agree that this might mean a lot of litigation, unless public officials wise up and simply follow the Court’s broad hint: If you don’t want your page to be treated as official, simply say up top that it isn’t official....
info_outline Preventing Sales of Personal Data to Adversary NationsThe Cyberlaw Podcast
This bonus episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast focuses on the national security implications of sensitive personal information. Sales of personal data have been largely unregulated as the growth of adtech has turned personal data into a widely traded commodity. This, in turn, has produced a variety of policy proposals – comprehensive privacy regulation, a weird proposal from Sen. Wyden (D-OR) to ensure that the US governments cannot buy such data while China and Russia can, and most recently an Executive Order to prohibit or restrict commercial transactions affording China, Russia, and...
info_outline The National Cybersecurity Strategy – How Does it Look After a Year?The Cyberlaw Podcast
Kemba Walden and Stewart revisit the National Cybersecurity Strategy a year later. Sultan Meghji examines the ransomware attack on Change Healthcare and its consequences. Brandon Pugh reminds us that even large companies like Google are not immune to having their intellectual property stolen. The group conducts a thorough analysis of a "public option" model for AI development. Brandon discusses the latest developments in personal data and child online protection. Lastly, Stewart inquires about Kemba's new position at Paladin Global Institute, following her departure from the role of Acting...
info_outline Regulating personal data for national securityThe Cyberlaw Podcast
The United States is in the process of rolling out a for personal data transfers. But the rulemaking is getting limited attention because it targets transfers to our rivals in the new Cold War – China, Russia, and their allies. old office is drafting the rules, explains the history of the initiative, which stems from endless Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States efforts to impose such controls on a company-by-company basis. Now, with an as the foundation, the Department of Justice has published an that promises what could be years of slow-motion regulation. Faced with a...
info_outline Are AI models learning to generalize?The Cyberlaw Podcast
We begin this episode with describing major progress in conversions. Amazon flagged its new model as having “emergent” capabilities in handling what had been serious problems – things like speaking with emotion, or conveying foreign phrases. The key is the size of the training set, but Amazon was able to spot the point at which more data led to unexpected skills. This leads Paul and me to speculate that training AI models to perform certain tasks eventually leads the model to learn “generalization” of its skills. If so, the more we train AI on a variety of tasks – chat,...
info_outline Death, Taxes, and Data RegulationThe Cyberlaw Podcast
On the latest episode of The Cyberlaw Podcast, guest host Brian Fleming, along with panelists and discuss the latest U.S. government efforts to protect sensitive personal data, including the and the restricting certain bulk sensitive data flows to China and other countries of concern. Nate and Brian then discuss before the April expiration and debate what to make of a recent . Gus and Jane then talk about the , as well as , in an effort to understand some broader difficulties facing internet-based ad and subscription revenue models. Nate considers the implications of in its war against...
info_outlineI take advantage of Scott Shapiro’s participation in this episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast to interview him about his book, Fancy Bear Goes Phishing – The Dark History of the Information Age, in Five Extraordinary Hacks. It’s a remarkable tutorial on cybersecurity, told through stories that you’ll probably think you already know until you see what Scott has found by digging into historical and legal records. We cover the Morris worm, the Paris Hilton hack, and the earliest Bulgarian virus writer’s nemesis. Along the way, we share views about the refreshing emergence of a well-paid profession largely free of the credentialism that infects so much of the American economy. In keeping with the rest of the episode, I ask Bing Image Creator to generate alternative artwork for the book.
In the news roundup, Michael Ellis walks us through the “sweeping”™ White House executive order on artificial intelligence. The tl;dr: the order may or may not actually have real impact on the field. The same can probably be said of the advice now being dispensed by AI’s “godfathers.”™ -- the keepers of the flame for AI existential risk who have urged that AI companies devote a third of their R&D budgets to AI safety and security and accept liability for serious harm. Scott and I puzzle over how dangerous AI can be when even the most advanced engines can only do multiplication successfully 85% of the time. Along the way, we evaluate methods for poisoning training data and their utility for helping starving artists get paid when their work is repurposed by AI.
Speaking of AI regulation, Nick Weaver offers a real-life example: the California DMV’s immediate suspension of Cruise’s robotaxi permit after a serious accident that the company handled poorly.
Michael tells us what’s been happening in the Google antitrust trial, to the extent that anyone can tell, thanks to the heavy confidentiality restrictions imposed by Judge Mehta. One number that escaped -- $26 billion in payments to maintain Google as everyone’s default search engine – draws plenty of commentary.
Scott and I try to make sense of CISA’s claim that its vulnerability list has produced cybersecurity dividends. We are inclined to agree that there’s a pony in there somewhere.
Nick explains why it’s dangerous to try to spy on Kaspersky. The rewards my be big, but so is the risk that your intelligence service will be pantsed. Nick also notes that using Let’s Encrypt as part of your man in the middle attack has risks as well – advice he probably should deliver auf Deutsch.
Scott and I cover a great Andy Greenberg story about a team of hackers who discovered how to unlock a vast store of bitcoin on an IronKey but may not see a payoff soon. I reveal my connection to the story.
Michael and I share thoughts about the effort to renew section 702 of FISA, which lost momentum during the long battle over choosing a Speaker of the House. I note that USTR has surrendered to reality in global digital trade and point out that last week’s story about judicial interest in tort cases against social media turned out to be the first robin in what now looks like a remake of The Birds.
You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to [email protected]. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.