U.S. Needs New Approach to Commercial Counterintelligence
The U.S. is in the crosshairs of foreign competitors and intelligence services seeking to obtain valuable knowledge and other intellectual property,…
January 11, 2018 at 11:18 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The U.S. is in the crosshairs of foreign competitors and intelligence services seeking to obtain valuable knowledge and other intellectual property, according to a new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a think tank for science and technology policy.
“Government counterintelligence outreach to the commercial sector is long overdue for reform. It relies too heavily on investigations following up after security breaches rather than proactively recognizing and responding to threat indicators,” said former FBI counterintelligence analyst Darren Tromblay, the report's author.
To counter this threat, ITIF recommends that the Trump administration establish a new public-private partnership to better coordinate commercial counterintelligence efforts with industry.
“By including private industry as a formal stakeholder, counterintelligence efforts can more effectively protect key U.S. intellectual and technology assets from being taken by adversaries and competitors,” said Tromblay. “It will encourage companies to better incorporate counterintelligence concerns into their due-diligence process, which will make them more effective partners in thwarting foreign threats.”
ITIF recommends a new, more proactive approach to coordinating counterintelligence outreach between the government and commercial sector. The report calls on the Trump administration to establish an interagency hub, structured as a public-private partnership, to consolidate inconsistent and partly redundant counterintelligence outreach programs that are currently operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Defense.
This new entity should be charged with translating sensitive concerns identified by the U.S. intelligence community and other information collectors, into publicly distributable products. In addition, it should enlist the active participation of the private-sector entities at risk, since they are the first line of defense and best postured to identify anomalies. And it should assist industries trying to navigate legal, but unscrupulous activities.
“Existing counterintelligence arrangements between government and industry have long been inconsistent and redundant–and even if they were running like a Swiss watch, the underlying premise itself is outdated,” explained Tromblay. “The U.S. government is no longer the driver of innovation; it's an adopter and adapter of knowledge and capabilities developed outside the public sector.”
So now, the tables have turned, as there is less financial incentive for the private sector to collaborate with government, and there's more incentive for the government to collaborate with the private sector. Industry is in the crosshairs of foreign actors. It's in a position not just to benefit from information the government can offer, but also to provide key insights that government can act on. And, a public-private partnership akin to the National Endowment for Democracy could facilitate that, per Tromblay.
According to ITIF president Rob Atkinson, more and more nations seek competitive advantage in innovation-based industries. Gaining IP without paying for it is a shortcut for many nations, and given that the U.S. has the world's leading innovation companies, stealing U.S. IP is a prime focus for some nations.
There are two ways to counter this threat, he told us, defense and offense.
“Defense involves a much more robust commercial counterintelligence effort by the U.S. government, including increased funding for the FBI, and a closer partnership between USG and industry,” he explained. “Offense involves sending a much clearer and forceful message that the U.S. will no longer stand for wanton theft of U.S. IP and that nations that persist in this, like China, will be punished.”
Amanda G. Ciccatelli is a Freelance Journalist for Corporate Counsel and InsideCounsel, where she covers intellectual property, legal technology, patent litigation, cybersecurity, innovation and more.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLegal Departments’ Lack of Third-Party Oversight Leaving Small, Midsized Banks Exposed
4 minute readTen Best Practices to Protect Your Organization Against Cyber Threats
7 minute readSEC Fines 4 Companies $7M for Downplaying Breaches Tied to Massive SolarWinds Hack
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250