The head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command warned lawmakers on Monday that time is running out to pass cybersecurity legislation, but said he hasn't given up hope yet. Army Gen. Keith B. Alexander has previously emphasized the need for new laws to protect the nation from cyberattacks, but his words have taken on new meaning since a portion of the intelligence community's own aggressive use of cyberweapons against countries like Iran has come to light. Alexander once again urged lawmakers not to wait for a catastrophic cyberattack to pass a bill, a scenario that has gone from plausible to seemingly inevitable in recent weeks. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised his chamber will take on the issue this month, possibly as soon as next week. Of course the politics of the cybersecurity standoff are familiar: Democrats favor minimum security standards (S 2105) for private sector firms deemed part of the nation's critical infrastructure, while Republicans are quick to reject anything that resembles a federal regulation. Senate Republicans have also taken issue with placing the Department of Homeland Security in charge of domestic cybersecurity activities, opting instead that Alexander and his spy agency be given a larger role in their alternate bill (S 2151). Meanwhile, the House passed its own version of an information sharing bill (HR 3523), which has industry backing and wouldn't impose any security standards. All of those bills have drawn serious concerns from privacy advocates, who claim they would give the government a free pass to share information for reasons other than national security. In Alexander's view, such privacy concerns are overblown. He said the NSA has no interest in reading the emails of individual citizens, but rather in identifying and preventing malicious attacks on U.S. networks. His comments are predictable, but unlikely to soothe the concerns of those fearful the bills would result in a new regime of digital surveillance. The Obama and Bush administrations issued repeated warnings in recent years about cyberattacks that could cause physical damage; all the while, they were perfecting and deploying such weapons themselves. Therein lies the rub in cybersecurity legislation, and any tech policy issue with broader impact: the disconnect between the people who write the laws and the technical capabilities of the military, law enforcement and spy agencies that would be forced to navigate them. It is now common to decry the government's lack of technical expertise and its failure to keep pace with the private sector, particularly at civilian federal agencies that struggle with antiquated, unsecured systems. Likewise, the paucity of engineers and others with technical expertise among members of Congress was on full display during the online piracy battle earlier this year, when repeated calls were sounded to "Bring in the nerds!" But truthfully, many of the sharpest nerds are already hard at work for the government. What they are working on, however, is often classified to such an extent that even lawmakers are unaware of the true state of play on the cyber battleground. Reports of the Olympic Games cyberweapons program that created the Stuxnet and Flame viruses was a stark reminder that while the U.S. government may occasionally play the simple country cousin, the military still possesses some of the most advanced technology in the world. But without any insight into what those technologies are, or how they are used, privacy and civil liberties advocates are justifiably concerned about the prospect of handing the government even broader authority to monitor networks than they already possess under the Patriot Act. While NSA may not be interested in reading individual emails, they could easily set up tools that monitor for suspicious activities that may or may not fall under the auspice of a national security threat. As Jim Harper of the Cato Institute noted yesterday, the language in the current cybersecurity legislation is written in such a fashion to exempt any information sharing from other federal laws. Such a provision is troubling to anyone that is not comfortable trusting the government to respect their privacy without any oversight. Just yesterday, Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., revealed that law enforcement officials made more than 1.3 million requests for the cellphone records of U.S. consumers from wireless carriers last year. The news drew alarm from privacy advocates, and was a reminder that expanding the government's authority in such areas is generally a one-way street. The cybersecurity bills in front of the Senate would dramatically increase the government's ability to share information for a variety of reasons, and could give some agencies direct access to the network to prevent attacks. To some, giving the military or DHS the ability to directly intervene in the Web is to invite the prospect of censorship or persecution. Others argue, with considerable evidence, that the U.S. government already has such authority, but doesn't exercise it in ways that would jeopardize free speech. But the truth is that only a small circle inside within the government is aware of just what its capabilities are. With so much uncertainty, it is not surprising that privacy advocates are demanding that at least the law be clear about what the government can and can't do to U.S. citizens online. Quotable: “We cannot allow privacy protections to be swept aside with the sweeping nature of these information requests, especially for innocent consumers. Law enforcement agencies are looking for a needle, but what are they doing with the haystack? We need to know how law enforcement differentiates between records of innocent people, and those that are subjects of investigation, as well as how it handles, administers and disposes of this information.” — Rep. Markey (PDF) TPP Signals New Era in Trade Talks: Talks surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a Pacific Rim trade accord currently under negotiation, have been drawing increasing scrutiny in recent weeks. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about the secrecy of the talks, as well as the inclusion of intellectual property rights provisions that have once again raised the specter of SOPA and PIPA. But IP and other "21st century" issues are increasingly crucial to U.S. trade policy, and likely to feature prominently in such negotiations moving forward. As such, the onus is on the executive branch to reach out to both lawmakers and tech stakeholders to ensure their concerns are being met as part of any such negotiations. It is easy to argue that companies like Apple, Google and Facebook and their offerings have now become America's most meaningful exports to the rest of the world. Democrats Flag Verizon-Cable Spectrum Deal: Thirty-two House Democrats wrote to the FCC and Department of Justice on Monday voicing serious concerns over the proposed sale of spectrum from a group of cable companies to Verizon. The transaction, which includes confidential side agreements to cross-promote each others products, has drawn serious opposition and claims it would jeopardize competition in the cable, broadband and wireless markets. The lawmakers were particularly concerned (PDF) about Verizon's failure to deploy its FiOS service in a variety of mid-sized markets, and the company's recent announcement that it will stop offering standalone DSL service. Critics argue the marketing agreements would establish a communications cartel, under which the two sides would agree to avoid competing with each other to the detriment of consumers. Both the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and the FCC are reviewing the deal. FCC Oversight Hearing Today: The House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold an oversight hearing this morning featuring all five FCC Commissioners. The hearing marks the first appearances of newly confirmed Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Ajit Pai in front of a House Committee, where they will likely be grilled on issues such as the Universal Service Fund overhaul, the Verizon-cable deal and the upcoming spectrum auctions. Tech Policy Creates Unlikely Bedfellows: House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., announced Monday that he has signed the Declaration of Internet Freedom, a set of principles supporting an open and unobstructed Internet championed by a host of online activists. The move puts Issa in line with Free Press, the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, reddit and venture capitalists like Union Square Ventures. Proof again that tech policy tends to transcend the old lines that divide Washington. Quotable: "I believe that individuals deserve an open and unobstructed Internet so they are free to innovate, collaborate and participate in building a stronger America and better world. It is crucial that we secure the principles outlined in the Declaration of Internet Freedom and the Digital Citizens’ Bill of Rights to defend against those who seek to interfere and disrupt our vibrant online community and the economic growth it supports. I'm proud to sign the declaration and look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress and Internet users everywhere to develop common-sense policy that ensures future generations enjoy the Internet freedoms we do today." — Rep. Issa