Connect with us

Published

on

After what started as a hopeful year for tech policy, the 117th Congress is about to close out its term with many key efforts tabled.

Despite bipartisan support for antitrust reform targeting digital tech giants, a digital privacy framework and new guardrails for kids on the internet, lawmakers headed home without passing the hallmark bills of those issues. And the Senate has yet to vote to confirm the final nominee to fill out the Federal Communications Commission, leaving that agency incomplete for the entirety of the Biden administration so far.

Congress did pass the CHIPS and Science Act, which incentivizes domestic semiconductor manufacturing after shortages highlighted the risks of overseas production. It also included in the year-end spending package a bill that will raise funds for the antitrust agencies by raising merger filing fees on large deals, as well as a measure banning TikTok on government devices in light of national security concerns due to its ownership by a Chinese company.

And even when it comes to many of the bills that remain in limbo, progress this year shows significant headway. That’s the case with privacy legislation, where a bill proposed this year gained bipartisan support, passing out of a House committee with a near-unanimous vote. Still, it lacks the backing of the Senate Commerce Committee’s Democratic chair, Maria Cantwell of Washington, which is seen as critical to passing the legislation.

“Any privacy legislation has to be bipartisan,” said Craig Albright, vice president of U.S. government relations for enterprise software industry group BSA. “Senator Cantwell has to be part of the process. There’s no going around her, she will be one of the key leaders. But I think if the House can demonstrate continued progress, I think that that will create more of an environment for the Senate to be able to act.”

Albright added that the House committee leaders who championed the bill, Energy and Commerce Chair Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., expected to become chair next year under Republican House control, proved with the panel vote “that substantively, you can come up with a bill that has broad bipartisan support.”

“I think that puts this next Congress in a stronger starting position than we’ve had before,” Albright said.

Lawmakers face a tougher landscape next year if they hope to pick up where they left off on tech reform. With Democratic control of the Senate and Republican control of the House in 2023, policy watchers stress that bipartisanship will be essential to make bills into law.

While that might dash hopes for most antitrust reforms, which though bipartisan are not generally supported by Republicans expected to lead the House and key committees, it could mean there’s still a chance for legislation on digital privacy, where both parties have stressed urgency despite years of failing to compromise on areas of disagreement.

Still, lawmakers who led aggressive antitrust proposals and other tech reforms have signaled they’ll continue to fight for those measures next year.

“This is clearly the beginning of this fight and not the end,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., whose bill barring online platforms from favoring their own services on their marketplaces failed to make it into year-end must-pass bills, said in a statement following the release of the spending package text. “I will continue to work across the aisle to protect consumers and strengthen competition.”

Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said in a statement that while their Kids Online Safety Act, setting new guardrails for sites likely to be accessed by kids, and Open App Markets Act, imposing new regulations on app stores run by Apple and Google, did not make it into the spending bill, they are “resolved to reintroduce and pass this legislation in the next Congress.” The pair blamed the bills’ failure to advance on intense lobbying efforts by the tech industry against them.

A survey of congressional staffers by Punchbowl News found that while a majority of Capitol Hill respondents expect a less productive session in terms of passing meaningful legislation, the tech agenda is high up on the expected list of priorities. Punchbowl said that 56% of respondents anticipated action on bills targeting Big Tech, a percentage that was second only to those who expect to see action targeting inflation.

Tech regulation is Democrats’ top priority, according to Punchbowl, with 59% of respondents choosing it as one of their chief issues. Among lobbyists and business executives surveyed by Punchbowl, 55% predicted lawmakers could crack down on a major tech company, with TikTok coming out as the most likely target, followed by Facebook parent Meta.

And while it’s unlikely to result in new laws, House Republicans have signaled they’ll use their majority to focus on tech issues that have taken a backseat while Democrats held the gavels in both chambers. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who’s expected to lead the House Judiciary Committee, signaled he’ll likely use that power to focus on tech companies’ relationships with Democratic politicians and allegations of bias and censorship by social media platforms.

Earlier this month he wrote to the CEOs of Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft, demanding information about what he called “the nature and extent of your companies’ collusion with the Biden Administration.” He said the letters should serve as a formal request to preserve records related to the request.

Lawmakers are also likely to spend more time looking at crypto regulation, after the downfall of exchange FTX alleged fraud of its founder Sam Bankman-Fried thrust the industry into the limelight before Congress. Legislators have already considered some legislation targeting the industry, and incoming House Financial Services Chair Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., has indicated that making a clearer regulatory framework for crypto is a priority.

One of the key questions lawmakers have wrestled with is who should be the agency in charge of overseeing the industry. That question has so far gone unanswered, with many industry players advocating for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission while some consumer advocates preferring the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is larger and better resourced. One prominent bipartisan bill in the Senate would put the CFTC in charge.

Just like in 2022, next year’s tech policy agenda will be subject to the whims of Congress, and could be especially susceptible if the country sees some level of economic downturn as many experts expect.

“Everybody has their desire to regulate tech. But I can’t help but wonder what that desire looks like, depending on the economic outlook of the United States in Q1 of 2023,” said James Czerniawski, senior policy analyst for technology and innovation at the Koch-backed advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, pointing to high interest rates and job cuts in the tech sector. “If we were to go and enter into a recession at some point in early next year, which isn’t out of the realm of possibility, that might go and rejigger priorities from Congress to more immediate things.”

Czerniawski said the push for regulation in tech seems to be based on an “assumption that tech is this thing that’s just immovable and going to be around for the test of time with these companies’ names attached to it. And, if anything, I think that the past year and change has shown that that’s not necessarily true.”

“I think that it’s pretty easy to beat up on Big Tech when they’re so successful and they’re pulling in record profits,” said Tom Romanoff, director of the technology project at the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank, which has received funding Amazon and Meta, according to recent donor disclosures. “It becomes a different equation when constituents and districts are upset because they got laid off in one of these very high paying jobs. And so I think if there is an economic downturn, the focus will shift to the economy.”

Romanoff added that certain global dynamics could also shift the focus away from increased tech regulation, such as if tensions escalate between China and Taiwan, where a large portion of semiconductors are currently produced. He said an event like that could cause a shift from an “internal focus of what these large companies mean for U.S. democracy, to kind of a national defense strategy — what does it mean in wartime to regulate an industry that is very much critical to any wartime industry.”

Still, Albright of BSA sees focus on the tech sector in Congress remaining high as concerns that have existed in the past are not going away.

“I think the economy will go up and down,” he said. “But the importance of tech policy issues will still be strong.”

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

WATCH: Crypto is here. Are you ready?

Continue Reading

Technology

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Published

on

By

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX. 

Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.

Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit. 

“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.

To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.

Continue Reading

Technology

Why X’s new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk’s platform

Published

on

By

Why X's new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk's platform

Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform. 

The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much. 

The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms. 

“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.

“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”

It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively. 

X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.

Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.

Artificial intelligence training

X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.

“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.

Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually. 

X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.

Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different. 

The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center. 

Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.

Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training. 

“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.

Liquidated damages

Bluesky CEO: Our platform is 'radically different' from anything else in social media

Continue Reading

Technology

The Pentagon’s battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

Published

on

By

The Pentagon's battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”

The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.

“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.

The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.

Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.

Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.

Concern with Congress and a changing White House

The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.

As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.

Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.

Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.

Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military

John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.

Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.

In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.

Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.

Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.

Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.

Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.

“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.

He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.

Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending