Under President's New Cybersecurity Executive Order… Is Wikileaks Now An Evil Cyberhacker For Releasing Trade Deal?

from the broad-definitions,-broad-powers dept

Yesterday we talked about the ridiculousness of President Obama’s new cybersecurity executive order, in which he declares a national emergency around “malicious cyber-enabled activities” and enables his own government to do mean things to anyone they think is responsible for cyber badness (that his own NSA is the primary instigator of serious cyberattacks gets left ignored, of course). One of the points we made is that the definitions in the executive agreement were really vague, meaning that it’s likely that they could be abused in all sorts of ways that we wouldn’t normally think of as malicious hacking.

Helpfully, the ever vigilant Marcey Wheeler has provided some examples of how the vague language can and likely will be twisted:

The EO targets not just the hackers themselves, but also those who benefit from or materially support hacks. The targeting of those who are ?responsible for or complicit in ? the receipt or use for commercial or competitive advantage ? by a commercial entity, outside the United States of trade secrets misappropriated through cyber-enabled means, ? where the misappropriation of such trade secrets is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States? could be used to target journalism abroad. Does WikiLeaks? publication of secret Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations qualify? Does Guardian?s publication of contractors? involvement in NSA hacking?

And, that’s not all. How about encryption providers? Not too hard to see how they might qualify:

And the EO creates a ?material support? category similar to the one that, in the terrorism context, has been ripe for abuse. Its targets include those who have ?provided ? material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of? such significant hacks. Does that include encryption providers? Does it include other privacy protections?

We’ve already seen some — including government officials — argue that Twitter could be deemed to be providing “material support” to ISIS if it didn’t take down Twitter accounts that support ISIS. Twitter wouldn’t directly qualify under this executive order (which targets non-US actors), but it shows you how easy it is to stretch this kind of thinking in dangerous ways.

Making sure the technology we use every day is secure is important. But vaguely worded executive orders and an over-hyped “national emergency” isn’t the solution. Instead, it’s likely to be abused in serious ways that harm our freedoms.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: wikileaks

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Under President's New Cybersecurity Executive Order… Is Wikileaks Now An Evil Cyberhacker For Releasing Trade Deal?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Chmeee says:

Re: Q: "Is Wikileaks Now An Evil Cyberhacker?"

Cyberhacker, perhaps, but not really since they disemminate the information given them after vetting it’s authenticity, they don’t actually do the hacking. But I really haven’t seen them do anything Evil. Unless of course you’re a member of one of the various three letter agencies that they’d dropped the dime on…

Not an Electronic Rodent says:

Re: Q: "Is Wikileaks Now An Evil Cyberhacker?"

No, Wikileaks has always been an Evil Cyberhacker.

Of course it has! In the “Democracy Dictionary” (Author, Mr. H. Nilats), “Evil Cyberhacker” is defined as “Anyone who shows, or might show, evidence of corruption in the Regime… uh… Democratically Elected Leadership, or anyone who depicts same in an unflattering light while using a computer”

Anonymous Coward says:

I suppose Obama also believes in rocks that prevent “tiger attacks”..

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Swiftpaw (profile) says:

No news coverage

No one I’ve found has covered this except for Techdirt…gotta love all the sneaky undemocratic laws that just suddenly get approved. I understand there was a theoretical point to EOs, but obviously that point has been completely lost, and this is a complete abuse of it.

When is the constitutional convention slash revolution happening please?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...