‘Big Tech never loses a legislative fight – and they just did’ as package of new bills passes

Published

2 years ago

October 6, 2022

admin

Policy advocates who have been pushing for new legislation reining in Big Tech’s power have seen their hopes lifted and shattered several times throughout the past few months.

Last week marked one of the brighter notes for those supporting the push for new antitrust laws, when the House passed a package of bills giving enforcers more resources to go after anti-competitive mergers and giving state attorneys general more power over in which courts they can bring antitrust lawsuits.

While the legislation that passed 242-184 is less ambitious in scope than some of the more sweeping proposals making their way through both chambers of Congress, it is cause for hope, according to a new memo from the Tech Oversight Project, a nonprofit that advocates for antitrust reform.

“Big Tech never loses a legislative fight – and they just did,” Executive Director Sacha Haworth said in a memo to allies Thursday that was shared exclusively with CNBC. Recipients included Democratic offices on Capitol Hill, think tanks and a coalition of advocacy organizations, according to the group.

The Tech Oversight Project receives funding, as The Washington Post has reported, from the Omidyar Network, created by regulation advocate and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, and from the advocacy arm of the Economic Security Project, a nonprofit led by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes who has called for his former company’s break up.

Haworth, a Democratic political campaign veteran, makes the case that the decisive passage of the legislation last week shows there is still a chance for two other key bills to pass in the lame-duck session later this year. Those bills are the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICO) and the Open App Markets Act (OAMA), which would essentially bar large platforms like Amazon, Apple and Google from favoring their own products over rivals that rely on their marketplaces (the latter bill is focused squarely on mobile app stores).

Earlier this summer, antitrust reform advocates looked to the lame duck only as a Hail Mary, since many felt there was still a chance to schedule a vote before the August recess, an informal marker of when midterm electioneering gets into full swing, making it harder to pass new laws. But as the legislative days ticked away, it became clear advocates would need to refocus their sights on the weeks following the midterms.

According to Haworth, last week’s vote provided some reason for optimism.

She notes House Democrats who voted against the package were not among those in the top 20% most competitive districts in the country, based on data from the Cook Political Report. That runs counter to speculation that congressional leaders may be hesitant to schedule a vote on AICO and OAMA to spare Democrats in competitive races from having to vote on an issue that could be used against them.

Haworth goes as far as to say, “if this voting pattern holds, AICO and OAMA will breeze past both chambers with ease.”

She contends Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., the key Republican champion of tech antitrust reform in the House, delivered on his promise of “a tidal wave of Republican votes,” despite opposition from other prominent party members like House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

“Despite attempts by Big Tech to discredit Grassley and Buck’s efforts, they proved their hypothesis right: If brought to the full floor, a significant portion of Republicans would cross over to join Democrats in holding Big Tech accountable,” Haworth wrote, referring to Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who has championed the bills in that chamber.

Haworth wrote that the contradictory reasons given by Jordan and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., to oppose antitrust reform should prove that “their argument is a red herring meant to muddy the waters.” While Jordan contended the bills on the table would help platforms censor information, Lofgren argued it would do the opposite, making it harder for them to moderate content.

“Democrats have been pretty open about the fact that they want these bills because they believe it will help them censor conservatives,” Jordan spokesperson Russell Dye said in a statement. A spokesperson for Lofgren did not immediately provide a comment.

Adam Kovacevich, CEO of the tech-funded left-of-center advocacy group Chamber of Progress similarly pushed back on Haworth’s critique.

“Our polling this week makes it obvious that voters’ top priority on tech policy is content moderation, an issue which AICOA and the Open Apps Market Act make worse,” he said in a statement. The bills’ Democratic sponsors have said they would not weaken content moderation. “More than a dozen Democrats have raised serious concerns that these bills would stop platforms from taking down harmful content, and that issue still hasn’t been resolved.”

Finally, the memo contends that lame-duck legislation is becoming more common, citing a Pew Research Center article from last year that found a significant percentage of legislation passed in recent years has been in the lame-duck period. In the 116th Congress spanning from 2019 to 2020, for example, nearly 44% of bills passed did so in the lame duck.

“Big Tech and their allies will continue to push the narrative that bipartisan antitrust reform is dead,” Haworth wrote. “Not so fast. While anti-Big Tech advocates remain clear-eyed about the task at hand, the outcome is not set in stone.”

Read the full letter from The Tech Oversight Project below:

Technology

Why it’s time to take warnings about using public Wi-Fi, in places like airports, seriously

Published

2 hours ago

September 29, 2024

admin

Why it's time to take warnings about using public Wi-Fi, in places like airports, seriously

Over the years, travelers have repeatedly been warned to avoid public Wi-Fi in places like airports and coffee shops. Airport Wi-Fi, in particular, is known to be a hacker honeypot, due to what is typically relatively lax security. But even though many people know they should stay away from free Wi-Fi, it proves as irresistible to travelers as it is to hackers, who are now updating an old cybercrime tactic to take advantage.

An arrest in Australia over the summer set off alarm bells in the United States that cybercriminals are finding new ways to profit from what are called “evil twin” attacks. Also classified within a type of cybercrime called “Man in the Middle” attacks, evil twinning occurs when a hacker or hacking group sets up a fake Wi-Fi network, most often in public settings where many users can be expected to connect.

In this instance, an Australian man was charged with conducting a Wi-Fi attack on domestic flights and airports in Perth, Melbourne, and Adelaide. He allegedly set up a fake Wi-Fi network to steal email or social media credentials.

“As the general population becomes more accustomed to free Wi-Fi everywhere, you can expect evil twinning attacks to become more common,” said Matt Radolec, vice president of incident response and cloud operations at data security firm Varonis, adding that no one reads the terms and conditions or checks the URLs on free Wi-Fi.

“It’s almost a game to see how fast you can click “accept” and then ‘sign in’ or ‘connect.’ This is the ploy, especially when visiting a new location; a user might not even know what a legitimate site should look like when presented with a fake site,” Radolec said.

Today’s ‘evil twins’ can more easily hide

One of the dangers of today’s twinning attacks is that the technology is much easier to disguise. An evil twin can be a tiny device and can be tucked behind a display in a coffee shop, and the small device can have a significant impact.

“A device like this can serve up a compelling copy of a valid login page, which could invite unwary device users to enter their username and password, which would then be collected for future exploitation,” said Cincinnati-based IT consultant Brian Alcorn.

The site doesn’t even have to actually log you in. “Once you’ve entered your information, the deed is done,” Alcorn said, adding that a harried, weary traveler probably would just think the airport Wi-Fi is having issues and not give it another thought.

People who are not careful with passwords, such as use of pet’s names or favorite sports teams as their password for everything, are even more vulnerable to an evil twin attack. Alcorn says for individuals who reuse username and password combinations online, once the credentials are obtained they can be fed into AI, where its power can quickly give cybercriminals the key.

“You are susceptible to exploitation by someone with less than $500 in equipment and less skill than you might imagine,” Alcorn said. “The attacker just has to be motivated with basic IT skills.”

How to avoid becoming a victim of this cybercrime

When in public places, experts say it’s best to use alternatives to public WiFi networks.

“My favorite way to avoid evil twin attacks is to use your phone’s mobile hotspot if possible,” said Brian Callahan, Director of the Rensselaer Cybersecurity Collaboratory at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Users would be able to spot an attack if through a phone relying on its mobile data and sharing it via a mobile hotspot.

“You will know the name of that network since you made it, and you can put a strong password that only you know on it to connect,” Callahan said.

If a hotspot isn’t an option, a VPN can also provide some protection, Callahan said, as traffic should be encrypted to and from the VPN.

“So even if someone else can see the data, they can’t do anything about it,” he said.

Airport, airline internet security issues

At many airports, the responsibility for WiFi is outsourced and the airport itself has little if any involvement in safeguarding it. At Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, for example, Boingo is the Wi-Fi provider.

“The airport’s IT team does not have access to their systems, nor can we see usage and dashboards,” For said an airport spokesman. “The network is isolated from DAL’s systems as it is a separate standalone system with no direct connection to any of the City of Dallas’ networks or systems internally.”

A spokeswoman for Boingo, which provides service to approximately 60 airports in North America, said it can identify rogue Wi-Fi access points through its network management. “The best way passengers can be protected is by using Passpoint, which uses encryption to automatically connect users to authenticated Wi-Fi for a safe online experience,” she said, adding that Boingo has offered Passpoint since 2012 to enhance Wi-Fi security and eliminate the risk of connecting to malicious hotspots.

Alcorn says evil twin attacks are “definitely” occurring with regularity in the United States, it’s just rare for someone to get caught because they are such stealth attacks. And sometimes hackers use these attacks as a learning model. “Many evil twin attacks may be experimental by individuals with novice-to-intermediate skills just to see if they can do it and get away with it, even if they don’t use the collected information right away,” he said.

The surprise in Australia wasn’t the evil twinning attack itself, but the arrest.

“This incident isn’t unique, but it is unusual that the suspect was arrested,” said Aaron Walton, threat analyst at Expel, a managed services security company. “Generally, airlines are not equipped and prepared to handle or mediate hacking accusations. The typical lack of arrests and punitive action should motivate travelers to exercise caution with their own data, knowing what a tempting and usually unguarded -target it is — especially at the airport.”

In the Australian case, according to Australian Federal Police, dozens of people had their credentials stolen.

According to a press release from the AFP, “When people tried to connect their devices to the free WiFi networks, they were taken to a fake webpage requiring them to sign in using their email or social media logins. Those details were then allegedly saved to the man’s devices.”

Once those credentials were harvested, they could be used to extract more information from the victims, including bank account information.

For hackers to be successful, they don’t have to dupe everyone. If they can persuade only a handful of people – statistically easy to do when thousands of harried and hurried people are milling around an airport – they will succeed.

“We expect WI-Fi to be everywhere. When you go to a hotel, or an airport, or a coffee shop, or even just out and about, we expect there to be Wi-Fi and often freely available WI-FI,” Callahan said. “After all, what’s yet another network name in the long list when you’re at an airport? An attacker doesn’t need everyone to connect to their evil twin, only some people who go on to put credentials into websites that can be stolen.”

The next time you’re at the airport, the only way to be 100% sure you’re safe is to bring your own Wi-Fi.

Technology

Inside one of the first all-female hacker houses in San Francisco

Published

1 day ago

September 28, 2024

admin

Inside one of the first all-female hacker houses in San Francisco

For Molly Cantillon, living in a hacker house wasn’t just a dream, but a necessity.

“I had lived in a few hacker houses before and wanted to replicate that energy,” said Cantillon, 20, co-founder of HackHer House and founder of the startup NOX. “A place where really energetic, hardcore people came together to solve problems. But every house I lived in was mostly male. It was obvious to me that I wanted to do the inverse and build an all-female hacker house that created the same dynamic but with women.”

Cantillon, who has lived in several hacker houses over the years, saw a need for a space dedicated exclusively to women. That’s why she co-founded HackHer House, the first all-female hacker house in the San Francisco Bay Area.

“A hacker house is a shared living space where builders and innovators come together to work on their own projects while collaborating with others,” said Jennifer Li, General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz and sponsor of the HackHer House. “It’s a community that thrives on creativity and resource sharing, making it a cost-effective solution for those in high-rent areas like Silicon Valley, where talented founders and engineers can easily connect and support each other.”

Founded by Cantillon, Zoya Garg, Anna Monaco and Anne Brandes, this house was designed to empower women in a tech world traditionally dominated by men.

“We’re trying to break stereotypes here,” said Garg, 21, a rising senior at Stanford University. “This house isn’t just about living together; it’s about creating a community where women can thrive in tech.”

Located in North Beach, HackHer House was home this summer to seven women, all of whom share the goal of launching successful ventures in tech.

Venture capital played a key role in making HackHer House possible. With financial backing, the house offered subsidized rent, allowing the women to focus on their projects instead of struggling with the Bay Area’s notoriously high living costs.

“New grad students face daunting living expenses, with campus costs reaching the high hundreds to over a thousand dollars a month,” said Li. “In the Bay Area, finding a comfortable room typically starts at $2,000, and while prices may have eased slightly, they remain significantly higher than the rest of the U.S. This reality forces many, including founders, to share rooms or crash on friends’ couches just to make ends meet.”

Hacker houses aren’t new to the Bay Area or cities like New York and London. These live-in incubators serve as homes and workspaces, offering a collaborative environment where tech founders and innovators can share ideas and resources. In a city renowned for tech advancements, hacker houses are viewed as critical for driving the next wave of innovation. By providing affordable housing and a vibrant community, these spaces enable entrepreneurs to thrive in an otherwise cutthroat and expensive market.

Watch this video to see how Hacker House is shaping the future of women in tech.

Technology

Elon Musk’s X will be allowed back online in Brazil after paying one more fine

Published

2 days ago

September 28, 2024

admin

Elon Musk's X will be allowed back online in Brazil after paying one more fine

The Federal Supreme Court (STF) in Brazil suspends Elon Musk’s social network after it fails to comply with orders from Minister Alexandre de Moraes to block accounts of those being investigated by the Brazilian justice system.

Cris Faga | Nurphoto | Getty Images

X has to pay one last fine before the social network owned by Elon Musk is allowed back online in Brazil, according to a decision out Friday from the country’s top justice, Alexandre de Moraes.

The platform was suspended nationwide at the end of August, a decision upheld by a panel of judges on Sept. 2. Earlier this month, X filed paperwork informing Brazil’s supreme court that it is now in compliance with orders, which it previously defied.

As Brazil’s G1 Globo reported, X must now pay a new fine of 10 million reals (about $2 million) for two additional days of non-compliance with the court’s orders. X’s legal representative in Brazil, Rachel de Oliveira, is also required to pay a fine of 300,000 reals.

The case dates back to April, when de Moraes, the minister of Brazil’s supreme court, known as Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), initiated a probe into Musk and X over alleged obstruction of justice.

Musk had vowed to defy the court’s orders to take down certain accounts in Brazil. He called the court’s actions “censorship,” and railed online against de Moraes, describing the judge as a “criminal” and encouraging the U.S. to end foreign aid to Brazil.

In mid-August, Musk closed down X offices in Brazil. That left his company without a legal representative in the country, a federal requirement for all tech platforms to do business there.

By Aug. 28, de Moraes’ court threatened a ban and fines if X didn’t appoint a legal representative within 24 hours, and if it didn’t comply with takedown requests for accounts the court said had engaged in plots to dox or harm federal agents, among other things.

Earlier this month, the STF froze the business assets of Musk companies, including both X and satellite internet business Starlink, operating in Brazil. The STF said in court filings that it viewed Starlink parent SpaceX and X as companies that worked together as related parties.

Musk wrote in a post on X at that time that, “Unless the Brazilian government returns the illegally seized property of and SpaceX, we will seek reciprocal seizure of government assets too.”

On August 29, 2024, in Brazil, the Minister of the Supreme Court, STF Minister Alexandre de Moraes, orders the blocking of the accounts of another company, Starlink, of Elon Musk, to guarantee the payment of fines imposed by the STF due to the lack of representatives of X in Brazil.

Ton Molina | Nurphoto | Getty Images

As head of the STF, de Moraes has long supported federal regulations to rein in hate speech and misinformation online. His views have garnered pushback from tech companies and far-right officials in the country, along with former President Jair Bolsonaro and his supporters.

Bolsonaro is under investigation, suspected of orchestrating a coup in Brazil after losing the 2022 presidential election to current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

While Musk has called for retribution against de Moraes and Lula, he has worked with and praised Bolsonaro for years. The former president of Brazil authorized SpaceX to deliver satellite internet services commercially in Brazil in 2022.

Musk bills himself as a free speech defender, but his track record suggests otherwise. Under his management, X removed content critical of ruling parties in Turkey and India at the government’s insistence. X agreed to more than 80% of government take-down requests in 2023 over a comparable period the prior year, according to analysis by the tech news site Rest of World.

X faces increased competition in Brazil from social apps like Meta-owned Threads, and Bluesky, which have attracted users during its suspension.

Starlink also faces competition in Brazil from eSpace, a French-American firm that gained permission this year from the National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel) to deliver satellite internet services in the country.

Lukas Darien, an attorney and law professor at Brazil’s Facex University Center, told CNBC that the STF’s enforcement actions against X are likely to change the way large technology companies will view the court.

“There is no change to the law here,” Darien wrote in a message. “But specifically, big tech companies are now aware that the laws will be applied regardless of the size of a business and the magnitude of its reach in the country.”

Musk and representatives for X didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

Late Thursday, X Global Government Affairs posted the following statement:

“X is committed to protecting free speech within the boundaries of the law and we recognize and respect the sovereignty of the countries in which we operate. We believe that the people of Brazil having access to X is essential for a thriving democracy, and we will continue to defend freedom of expression and due process of law through legal processes.”

WATCH: X is a financial ‘disaster’