September 2013

The head of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a standards organizing body within the Commerce Department, defended his agency's collaboration with the National Security Agency.

"There is not a problem with NIST collaborating with NSA," Patrick Gallagher, the director of NIST, said. NIST has come under fire after documents leaked by Edward Snowden indicated that the NSA successfully got the NIST to adopt its version of a computer security standard in 2006. That standard included vulnerabilities that NSA hackers could later exploit to spy on private communications. Gallagher said the NIST would continue to work with the NSA because it has a "deep reservoir of knowhow in cybersecurity activities." He noted that the NSA also plays a parallel role to the NIST in protecting federal computer systems. But he emphasized the importance of earning the trust of the private sector. "NIST is fully committed to the highest levels of scientific and technical quality and integrity," he said. "This is in our bone marrow at NIST." He noted that the NIST has reopened the 2006 technical standard for public comment and said the agency is "redoubling" its efforts to be as transparent as possible.

Twitter, which is preparing for its initial public offering, said it will help users receive special alerts from government agencies and aid agencies during emergencies.

Users who sign up will receive smartphone notifications via the Twitter app as well as SMS text messages - assuming they agree to handover their cell phone numbers - from any of several dozen agencies who have signed on to the program. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, Tokyo's Disaster Prevention service and the World Health Organization are among those participating.

The National Security Agency’s spying tactics are being intensely scrutinized following the recent leaks of secret documents. However, the NSA isn't the only US government agency using controversial surveillance methods.

Monitoring citizens' cell phones without their knowledge is a booming business. From Arizona to California, Florida to Texas, state and federal authorities have been quietly investing millions of dollars acquiring clandestine mobile phone surveillance equipment in the past decade. Earlier in 2013, a covert tool called the “Stingray” that can gather data from hundreds of phones over targeted areas attracted international attention. Rights groups alleged that its use could be unlawful; and in any case, use of these devices are a legal grey area under the federal Communications Act because they interfere with communications signals. But the same company that exclusively manufacturers the Stingray—Florida-based Harris Corporation—has for years been selling government agencies an entire range of secretive mobile phone surveillance technologies from a catalogue that it conceals from the public on national security grounds.

In 2011, the Federal Communications Commission conducted the first-ever nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System (EAS).

While the system was originally created to convey Presidential alerts to the nation, it has never been used for that purpose and, until the nationwide test, it had never even been tested. Instead, EAS has most commonly been used for local emergencies like weather alerts and, in recent years, Amber Alerts for missing or abducted children. In its recent Public Notice, the FCC asked for comments on a number of issues uncovered during the nationwide test. The issues on which comments are sought are principally technical issues of system design, such as whether the time codes in the EAS headers work the same on all EAS hardware, or whether these codes resulted in tests running at different times on different stations. Apparently, some stations immediately broadcast the alert when received, and others delayed it until the time specified in the codes indicated that it should be run.

The FCC wonders if the hardware and software systems can be reprogrammed to accommodate new codes for a nationwide emergency alert and at what cost. Would the benefits of such new codes outweigh these costs?

Comments on this proceeding are due on October 23, and reply comments on November 7.