Explain to Shane

While the $52 billion of federal funding in the CHIPS for America Act has strong bipartisan support, it’s caught in a larger fight between the two legislative chambers over an attempt to reconcile the bill with other Democrat spending priorities. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has built a coalition against the larger bill that will stop it from passing unless the process is focused exclusively on semiconductors. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has also agreed that the CHIPS Act should be passed on its own immediately.

To make sense of this situation and predict what comes next, Shane and AEI’s Claude Barfield sit down with Peter Cleveland of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation and Jon Hoganson of Advanced Micro Devices Inc. The four of them discuss the ins and outs of Congress’ battle over chip funding, along with key opportunities that could be missed if action isn’t taken soon.

Following the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), a Department of Commerce branch known as the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has been tasked with allocating $42.5 billion of federal broadband infrastructure funding to state and local governments through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. This $42.5 billion is part of a larger $65 billion sum that the IIJA puts toward broadband infrastructure. How can NTIA and the states ensure the money is spent effectively and that people are held accountable? How can remaining barriers to broadband adoption be overcome without just throwing money at the issue?

On this episode, Shane welcomes AEI Nonresident Senior Fellow Mark Jamison back to the podcast. Dr. Jamison has previously appeared on the show to talk about tech antitrust issues, but is an internet and telecommunications expert by training. In addition to his fellowship at AEI, Dr. Jamison directs the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida’s Warrington College of Business—where he also teaches. Dr. Jamison previously served on the Federal Communications Commission transition team for President-elect Trump, and as a special adviser to the governor of Florida’s internet task force. He is currently working with the Florida state government to help write the state’s strategic broadband plan.

See here and here for more information on NTIA’s state-level broadband initiatives.

One year ago, the Biden administration announced its support for a proposal at the World Trade Organization (WTO) that would waive Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) protections for COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. Last week, WTO member states agreed to a limited waiver that only covers vaccines and patents—not therapeutics or trade secrets. Both sides of the debate are relatively unhappy with this outcome. Does this mean it was a good compromise, or did the WTO somehow fall short in its duties? How is the Biden administration doing on other intellectual property (IP) issues?

On this episode, Shane welcomes AEI Adjunct Fellow Michael Rosen back to the podcast for a check-in on the TRIPS waiver issue, along with a more general update on the global IP policy landscape. Michael is the AEI tech policy team’s specialist on IP issues; he writes often on IP-related incentives for innovation, and on patent reform in Congress and at the US Patent and Trademark Office. He is also a book review columnist for The Federalist and National Review.

The radio airwaves that power wireless technologies—known as spectrum—are a finite but critical resource. Tailoring spectrum toward its best use often entails industry and government sharing airwaves with one another, a process that has proven complicated as historical use does not always equate to the best current use of spectrum assets. And, with the advent of 5G wireless, the stakes are higher than ever.

Shane sits down with Peter Rysavy on this episode of “Explain to Shane” to analyze potential spectrum sharing solutions and discuss how 5G policy has played out across different industries and government agencies. Peter is president of Rysavy Research, LLC, a consulting firm that has specialized in computer networking and wireless technology since 1993. Peter recently published a series of articles and slide decks on the basics of spectrum sharing, along with advanced concepts that draw on past examples to demonstrate the complexity—and importance—of the spectrum sharing process.

Cyberattacks are one of the largest threats facing society today. Learning how cyber disruptions take place is the best way to protect services provided by network operations and data systems, but who has the training resources and expert teams required to detect unseen risks for enterprise, government, and civil society alike?

On this episode of “Explain to Shane,” Shane is joined by Keith Peer, head of the federal practice at Offensive Security. Offensive Security is a leading cybersecurity organization that offers courses, training exercises, and certifications on systems penetration testing for the federal government and a number of Fortune 500 companies. Keith joins the show to explain how Offensive Security’s experts are tackling the unique challenges of today’s cyber landscape.

Cyber threats are multidimensional; they can manifest as large-scale attacks carried out by nation states or private actors, targeted at critical infrastructure or individual devices. In the information age, they can also target vulnerable individuals via malware or on social media platforms in the form of false or misleading information. Across the board, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has made plugging vulnerabilities in all cyber domains a lead priority for government, industry, and civil society alike. 

What does a former top security official have to say about all of this? On this episode of “Explain to Shane,” Shane sits down with Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, for an update on how both cybersecurity threats and best practices have progressed in a number of domains since Secretary Chertoff left office. They also discuss the security pitfalls of Congress’ attempts to weaken mobile device protections in the name of competition.

How are the American and European approaches to regulating the technology industry similar? How are they different? Can policymakers from the two continents find agreement on today’s most pressing tech policy issues?

On this episode of “Explain to Shane,” Shane is joined by Peter Brown, a Washington, DC-based diplomat for the European Parliament. Using Europe’s Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act, and country-by-country approach to regulating autonomous vehicles as case studies, Peter compares and contrasts the US and European regulatory systems, and suggests key areas for transatlantic cooperation. He also discusses the importance of a unified US-European approach to technological standards-setting amidst China’s rise.

How can we achieve a real, certifiable level of comfort and trust between consumers and the companies that make our technologies? The standards for what constitutes trust and safety vary from user to user; we need to find a tractable way to build out indicators of trust that will allow both producers and users to see risks clearly.

On this episode of “Explain to Shane,” Shane is joined by Adam Golodner, co-chair of Trusted Future—a new think tank dedicated to enhancing trust in today’s digital ecosystem. Adam and Shane discuss the technical and engineering components of trust and safety, along with what these topics have to do with cybersecurity, privacy, and the supply chain.

As security risks to internet-enabled devices reach an all-time high, Nokia has been highlighting the most pressing threats to user devices through its annual threat intelligence reports. According to the 2020 and 2021 reports, malware infections on both computers and mobile devices are on the rise—specifically through downloadable software that poses as something helpful or fun for users. And yet, proposed federal laws would weaken mobile-device protections at this critical time by forcing all hardware manufacturers to accept unvetted software applications or “apps” in their digital marketplaces—a practice known as “sideloading” that has been called out by the Department of Homeland Security specifically. (The department’s 2017 Mobile Device Security report stated that “users should avoid—and enterprises should prohibit on their devices—sideloading of apps and the use of unauthorized app stores.”) This episode addresses the technical challenges sideloading brings into the process of keeping a secure mobile ecosystem.

To discuss how we can protect consumers’ financial and other personal data, Kevin McNamee, the head of Nokia’s Threat Intelligence Lab, joins Shane on the latest episode of “Explain to Shane.” Under Kevin’s leadership, the Threat Intelligence Lab analyzes thousands of mobile malware samples per day to help power Nokia’s network-based malware detection program.

At a time when cybersecurity is more important than ever, Congress is taking steps to weaken the security of your mobile device. By forcing app-store operators to allow “sideloading” — the unvetted downloading of any app or software from the open internet — bad actors could have a fast lane to your personal data and information. Furthermore, letting these platforms retain control over their digital marketplaces is crucial as both a physical and information war rages on in Ukraine. Why is Congress considering this, and why now?

To help make sense of the sideloading and app-security issues, Patrick Hedger, executive director of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA), joins Shane on the latest episode of “Explain to Shane.” The two of them discuss Congress’ app-store regulatory proposals, along with a new TPA initiative called the App Security Project. The project is “dedicated to protecting and enhancing consumer security and safety with mobile apps and software that have come to define today’s innovative, but ultimately vulnerable, digital ecosystem.”