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

from the broad-definitions,-broad-powers dept

Thu, Apr 2nd 2015 9:34am — Mike Masnick

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cybersecurity, executive order, leaks, material support, tpp
Companies: wikileaks

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 8:59am

It may not be the solution that We the People need, but it is the solution a well oiled police state needs to function at its peak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Applesauce, 2 Apr 2015 @ 9:54am

Surprise!
I'm sure we're all shocked that a bill purporting to enhance our security could be used to target enemies of the administration (read: the citizenry).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2015 @ 10:03am
  
  Re: Surprise!
  Clearly all of the respective citizens are good actors....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Cortright (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 10:18am

If it's really a national emergency, let's get FEMA involved
After all, that's what President Underwood did to address the emergency of unemployment in Washington DC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2015 @ 10:19am

Only approved journalism. None of this reporting on wrongdoings of Daddy Govmint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous me, 2 Apr 2015 @ 10:23am

That's why.
"Instead, it's likely to be abused in serious ways that harm our freedoms."

Which likely is the reason for its implementation and existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 10:38am

Matter of definitions
Does it really count as abuse of the order if that was the entire point of it? I mean really, if you bought the line that the order was meant to help security, to protect the US citizenry, then I've got a couple of bridges I'd love to sell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dale, 2 Apr 2015 @ 11:14am

Q: "Is Wikileaks Now An Evil Cyberhacker?"
A: No, Wikileaks has always been an Evil Cyberhacker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chmeee, 2 Apr 2015 @ 2:02pm
  
  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...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Apr 2015 @ 4:11pm
  
  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"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Apr 2015 @ 7:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Q: "Is Wikileaks Now An Evil Cyberhacker?"
    Welcome to the club!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian, 2 Apr 2015 @ 7:15pm

02210
I think the US and North Korea should form a commonwealth. After all, they practically have the same governance rules today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Padpaw (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 2:26am
  
  Re: 02210
  Much of the so called "free world" shares many similarities with 3rd world dictatorships. In some cases they are 3rd world countries if we look at the standards they used to have several decades ago.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2015 @ 4:07am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Swiftpaw (profile), 3 Apr 2015 @ 11:24am

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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 7 Apr 2015 @ 7:40am
  
  Re: No news coverage
  Never. Everyone is waiting for someone else to start it, knowing that the first one to do so will be labeled a terrorist and pilloried as such in the media. Want to go first?
  
  I thought not, and I'd advise against it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]