Federal Communications Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel looked to throw a scare into the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee about the country's 5G-readiness. That came at a hearing on the national security risks, supply chain security, an promise of 5G.

Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) said at the hearing that he had a briefing and subsequent call with Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council, Oct 30 and now was confident the council was taking the lead on the 5G issue, with the "involvement" of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and President Donald Trump and that the Administration had a handle on the problem. Christopher Krebs, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency at the US Department of Security, also signaled the Administration has been hard at work on 5G supply chain security "for years," and that there was a nationwide strategy that was "Really coming together" under the guidance of the National Economic Council and the National Security Council. He said while there is no Department of 5G or Department of Supply Chain Security, "nor should there be, I can say with confidence that the United States is collaborating effectively across agencies and with our industry partners."

Commissioner Rosenworcel said that the US "does not have a comprehensive national plan in place with a fully coordinated interagency response" given that the Defense Innovation Board, which advises the US military, issued the warning that "the country that owns 5G will own innovations and set the standards for the rest of the world," and "that country is currently not likely to be the United States." Commissioner Rosenworcel had some ideas for such a comprehensive national plan: 1) Secure the supply chain; 2. recognize that securing the US supply will only go so far because "no network stands alone," so it was important to virtualize 5G networks so they resided in the cloud, a space the US dominates; 3. smarter spectrum policy (auction more midband); and 4. secure the internet of things.

The Texas-led antitrust investigation into Google has already spilled into court, after the company told a judge that two experts retained by the states raise serious “confidentiality” concerns given their past work with rivals, such as News Corp.

For Google, the trouble is that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), who is leading the probe, has not imposed sufficient ground rules governing which documents those consultants can see, and who they can work for during the inquiry and after it concludes, raising red flags. In response, Google has asked the judge to impose an order that prevents any consultants — including Cristina Caffarra and Eugene Burrus, who are mentioned in the complaint — from disclosing any sensitive information they obtain, or working for the company’s competitors during the matter and one year after it ends. Google alleges that it proposed similar terms directly to Texas, though it claims the attorney general’s office rejected it. The order would also apply in cases where other states wanted to access the trove of records Texas amassed, according to the filing.

Facebook's hands-off policy toward political ads poses a danger to our democracy. Giving politicians free rein to spread lies using political ads shows a disregard for the role Facebook and other social media platforms play in disseminating information to voters and how political candidates can abuse these policies to spread disinformation. First, it's important to understand the unique role Facebook and other social media platforms play when it comes to advertising. Facebook's business model is based on collecting as much data on its users as possible. It then shares relevant data points, including users' demographic information, with advertisers for targeted advertising. This means political candidates can target their ads to vulnerable communities who may be more receptive to false or misleading statements. This is inherently different from political ads aired on traditional media (broadcast stations or cable networks) where the entire viewing audience can see the ad. Second, Facebook believes its ad exemption policy allows it to remain neutral when it comes to political advertising. But Facebook is not a content-neutral platform. That is to say, Facebook displays content to its users based on algorithms that optimize for engagement. With the 2020 election around the corner, Facebook's exemption policy invites politicians to imitate Russia's disinformation playbook to undermine our elections and put our democracy at risk.

[Yosef Getachew is the Media & Democracy program director at Common Cause.]