WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN 2018: Part 1
There are several developments to keep an eye on in terms of future market potential, from the increase in unlikely trading partners to the continued development of individual countries seeking to present a more appealing market. The one impediment, however, that has the potential to diminish this optimistic outlook is the continued decline of Venezuela’s economy. Nonetheless, the economic impact by the increased trade will be positive for U.S. businesses that are interested in expanding their goods and/or services to the region.
1. MORE TRADE FROM THE PACIFIC:
President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership in January 2017, gave many nations the impression that the United States fully intends to reassess traditional economic alliances and agreements. Renegotiation of international trade agreements has been one of President Trump’s priorities as he sets out to recast America’s role in the global economy and seek out arrangements more agreeable to the American people.[i] As the U.S. is reexamining such agreements, however, it will continue to leave an opening in the global trade arena for others to take hold of influence and leadership. These changes have left many with the perceived idea that the United States has become a “patsy on economic trade,“ and has alarmed many of America’s trading partners. This rhetoric, plus the proposal for increased tariffs, have also left many in the global community doubting the United States’ presence as an international trading partner. This apparent shift in trade policy has formed a professed void for a strong leader in international trade, resulting in an increased interest between Latin America and the Pacific region in developing more substantial trade relations.
An example of this increased interest comes from two unlikely countries-Australia and New Zealand. Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop visited Colombia, Argentina, Panama, and Cuba in 2017. The Australian media described her trip as “historic,” noting the rarity of Australia’s foreign ministers going to Latin America.[ii] During an annual Australia-Latin America Business Council dinner shortly after her visit, Ms. Bishop discussed the many opportunities for Australia in terms of trade, stressing that, as “Australia has been an enormous beneficiary of the global trading system,” and should continue to expand on those advantages.[iii]
Additionally, New Zealand has been exploring the possibility of more trade with the aforementioned countries as part of a free trade agreement with the Pacific Alliance.[iv] The Pacific Alliance is a regional trading group comprised of Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Peru with the purpose of developing trade between alliance members and Asia. As New Zealand’s Ministry of Affairs explained, the Pacific Alliance bloc alone represents the sixth-largest economy in the world. New Zealand’s goal is to reach a free trade agreement between them and the Pacific Alliance in order to expand New Zealand’s goods into a developing market-Latin America. The fact that Australia and New Zealand are looking towards Latin America as available trading partners serves as an indication of how the Asia-Pacific rim, beyond China and Japan, are capitalizing on creating new economic alliances.
2. ARGENTINA’S ECONOMY WILL BE THE “IT” ECONOMY IN LATIN AMERICA FOR 2018:
Another South American country whose economy has continued to improve in recent years is Argentina, a country worth keeping an eye on as their growth continues. Attracting foreign investment to invigorate the economy was a part of Argentine President Mauricio Macri’s agenda when he was elected in 2015. Part of Macri’s plan was the overhaul of the country’s complex and burdensome tax code, which was completed in December 2017. The revised tax code and Macri’s business-friendly reforms in 2016 have created a more amenable environment for foreign investors who have begun looking at Argentina for future business opportunities.
Cesar Litvin, CEO of Lisicki, Litvin & Asociados, a tax advisory service in Buenos Aires, explains that prior to reforming Argentina’s tax code,“[the] foreign investment [in Argentina] … has [been] shied away …with one of the heaviest tax burdens in Latin America.”[v] Argentina is expected to bring in billions from projects and foreign investment as a result of these changes in diplomacy. Unlikely trading partners have already started developing plans for various investment opportunities, such as Japan, who has not held a bilateral meeting with Argentina in decades. The two countries reunited at a meeting after Macri’s changes took hold. Argentina’s head of Investment and Trade Promotion Agency, Juan Procaccini, said in an interview last year that “strong Japanese companies [were] looking to invest in Argentina for probably the first time ever.”[vi] One can expect that Argentina intends to build upon these advances and become an active participant in international trade issues as the 21st largest economy in the world.
3. MORE CHAOS IN VENEZUELA:
The commercial optimism of the Pacific Alliance countries is in stark contrast to Venezuela, whose economy is expected to diminish further compared to its neighbor, Colombia, who has also become an attractive country for foreign investment.[vii] The political instability within Venezuela will most likely continue to go unresolved based on the Maduro Government’s unwillingness to negotiate with those in opposition to his attempts at circumventing the Venezuelan Constitution following his loss of the majority in the 2016 National Assembly election.[viii] Additionally, the Maduro government has been accused of election fraud on several occasions, most recently in July 2017 and October 2017.[ix]
The Trump Administration, in August 2017, issued Executive Order 13808, providing sanctions against Petroleros de Venezuela, SA (PdVSA), Venezuela’s government-controlled petroleum company, in response to the political crisis.[x] The impact of this instability has thus far increased migration from Venezuela to other countries in Latin America. It can be expected that the increase in migration from Venezuela to neighboring countries will continue should the volatility persist. How these surrounding countries handle increases in population will depend on several factors, one of which is the strength of their economy. Those countries with stable and healthy economic platforms are more readily able to absorb migration in high volumes. On the other hand, anemic or unstable economies will continue to digress when the economic maladies are magnified.
CONCLUSION:
2018 has the potential to be a great year for Latin America in terms of trade. Australia and New Zealand’s increased desire to promote their products in South America indicates that countries in the Asia-Pacific region are looking at opportunities in South America in a new light. Argentina’s continued economic reforms by President Macri also signal not only to South America but the rest of the world, that Argentina’s intends to become a proactive participant in the global economy. A stronger Latin America will also have a bearing on the United States, who could benefit as well, whether it is from increased tourism to more opportunities to expand goods and services provided in Latin America.
A significant obstacle to this outlook is the continued digression of the situation in Venezuela. The pending exodus of Venezuelans into the rest of Latin America will serve as a stress test to neighboring economies, especially those who directly share a border with Venezuela.
For those that are interested in expanding into Latin America, this is a good time to bolster plans for providing goods and/or services in new markets. Part of that planning should include becoming familiar with not only the political and economic landscape but also the legal and tax implications associated with foreign ventures.
The Law and Public Policy office of PobleteTamargo is dedicated to providing political intelligence not only to individuals but companies that are looking to invest in the Latin America region and other parts of the globe. Our attorneys have experience in developing policy on the governmental level. To learn more about our firm, office locations and specialties visit www.pobletetamargo.com
[i] “Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement.” The White House, The United States Government, 23 Jan. 2017, www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-regarding-withdrawal-united-states-trans-pacific-partnership-negotiations-agreement/.
[ii] News, SBS. “Bishop Leaves for Historic Americas Visit.” SBS News, SBS News, 24 June 2017, www.sbs.com.au/news/bishop-leaves-for-historic-americas-visit.
[iii] “Australia-Latin America Business Council Annual Dinner.” Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Minister of Foreign Affairs, 4 Dec. 2017, https://foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/Pages/2017/jb_sp_171130.aspx.
[iv] New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. “New Zealand-Pacific Alliance FTA.” New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/agreements-under-negotiation/pacificalliance/.
[v] Devereux, Charlie. “Congress Passes Overhaul of Argentina’s Inefficient Tax System.” Bloomberg Quint, 26 Dec. 2017, 7:47 PM, www.bloombergquint.com/business/2017/12/27/congress-passes-overhaul-of-argentina-s-inefficient-tax-system.
[vi] Cohen;, Luc. “Argentina Expects $14 Billion in Investment on ‘Fruits’ of Reforms.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 11 Apr. 2017, www.reuters.com/article/us-argentina-investment/argentina-expects-14-billion-in-investment-on-fruits-of-reforms-idUSKBN17D2SU.
[vii] Laya, Patricia, and Catarina Saraiva. “IMF Says Venezuela’s Inflation Rate May Rise Beyond 2,300% in 2018.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 10 Oct. 2017, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-10/imf-sees-venezuelan-inflation-rate-rising-beyond-2-300-in-2018.
[viii] Felter, Claire, and Rocio Cara Labrador. “Venezuela Is in the Midst of an Unprecedented Crisis.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 12 Dec. 2017, www.cfr.org/backgrounder/venezuela-crisis.
[ix] McCleary, Kelly. “Venezuelan Opposition Denounces Results of First Major Vote since Violent Election.” CNN, Cable News Network, 16 Oct. 2017, www.cnn.com/2017/10/15/americas/venezuela-governorships-election/index.html.
[x] “Presidential Executive Order on Imposing Sanctions with Respect to the Situation in Venezuela.” The White House, The United States Government, 25 Aug. 2017, www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-imposing-sanctions-respect-situation-venezuela/.
New U.S.-Cuba Sanctions Regulations – A Reminder To Conduct Due Diligence
The new regulations implement the changes to the Cuba sanctions program that were announced in June 2017 as part of President Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum on Cuba.[ii]
The OFAC regulations that went into effect on November 9, 2017, among other things, prohibits persons subject to U.S. law from doing business with certain entities and sectors of the Cuban government. This prohibition includes companies listed in the new U.S. State Department Cuba Restricted and Sub-entities list.[iii] If you, or your company, engage in any transactions in Cuba, these new prohibitions likely apply to you.
In accordance with President Trump’s new Cuba policy, one of the changes includes the State Department’s List of Restricted Entities and Sub-entities Associated with Cuba (“Cuba Restricted List”). The Cuba Restricted List is intended to assist the CACR by listing certain government agencies that persons subject to U.S. law are prohibited from conducting business transactions, without prior U.S. government authorization or not at all.
This prohibition extends to and includes hotels, marinas, and other entities that are connected with those Cuban government agencies included on the list. The Cuba Restricted List puts persons subject to U.S. law on notice to avoid the aforementioned Cuban government agencies and their holdings. According to U.S. government officials the list will be revised periodically, with updates published in the Federal Register.
One of the less obvious questions for U.S. businesses involves the issue of dealing with subsidiaries of prohibited entities. This question tends to be very tricky to answer, since there is no general rule of thumb. In fact, the State Department included the following question in the updated Frequently Asked Questions release pertaining to the Cuba Restriction List:
Q. The entity with which I want to transact is not on the Cuba Restricted List, but its parent company is. Can I engage in a direct financial transaction with the sub-entity?
A. Yes. Entities or sub-entities that are owned or controlled by another entity or sub-entity on the Cuba Restricted List are not treated as restricted unless also specified by name on the list.[iv]
Based on this question, and other possible questions, it is important for persons subject to U.S. law, including subsidiaries of foreign companies with offices located in the United States, to seek counsel when planning to do business in Cuba, even if those “sub-entity” companies are not currently on the restricted list. Failure to conduct due diligence can be very costly, both legally and monetarily as well as from a public relations standpoint.
Although the regulations prohibit persons subject to U.S. law from doing business with certain entities, the CACR regulations allow for certain transactions in Cuba, such as those with small Cuban shops and homes including Casa Particulares (“private” residence), Paladares (“private” restaurants) and Cuentapropistas (“privately” owned stores run by self-employed Cubans). In this area, the Trump administration has essentially continued the Obama administration’s policy of closer contact with the people of Cuba while placing more stringent restrictions on support directed towards the government of Cuba.
Regardless of the amendments, or those to come, keep in mind that Cuba remains a nation with a central, command economy. The Cuban government owns an overwhelming percentage of the nation’s businesses or has significant connections to even those deemed “private”. Cuba’s legal definition of a private sector is not the same as in the United States or other free market nations.
Also consider that a majority of the property in Cuba is held “in commons” by the state and for public purposes. Very few individuals have “private property” or small businesses. The few individuals that do own private property have been granted ownership rights based on having good standing with the Communist Party or have met other sets of circumstances outlined under Cuban law.
If you are going to engage in U.S.-authorized transactions in Cuba, chances are you will directly or indirectly be doing business with the Cuban government. One of the challenges for foreign companies doing business in Cuba is making sure that the entities or individuals are not on one of several U.S. government watch lists.
With these new changes to the CACR, it is important to consider the following, if you are planning to engage in Cuba-related transactions:
- The embargo against Cuba is still in effect;
- U.S. embargo restrictions apply to U.S. persons, no matter where they are located, anywhere in the world;
- Non-U.S. companies engaging in transactions in Cuba should take steps to ensure that properties that are the subject of the foreign investments or other business activities are not subject of a certified or other claim held by American citizens. There are exceptions to the unlawful “trafficking” sanctions. Consult an attorney.
- Implement a system to ensure that you are in compliance with U.S. economic sanctions and export controls toward Cuba.
For more information on the types of services we provide, visit our page on Trade Security matters.
[i] See The Federal Register Notice on November 2017 Amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cacr_11082017.pdf
[ii] The “National Security Presidential Memorandum on Strengthening the Policy of the United States Towards Cuba” was released by The White House Office of the Press Secretary on June 16, 2017. See: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/16/national-security-presidential-memorandum-strengthening-policy-united
[iii]The State Department’s List of Restricted Entities and Sub-entities Associated with Cuba will be maintained by the State Department and may be periodically updated as necessary in the Federal Register. See: https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/cuba/cubarestrictedlist/275331.htm
[iv] “Frequently Asked Questions on the Cuba Restricted List” published by the State Department Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs on November 8, 2017. See: https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/cuba/cubarestrictedlist/275382.htm
Free Speech and The Knowledge Economy
Gab’s app is similar to Twitter. It has a policy that is committed to free speech. That free speech policy was developed primarily in reaction to Twitter’s actions, such as occasionally blocking privileges of individuals deemed to be “hateful.” Their commitment to free speech has not only allowed “alt-right” individuals to join, but also dissidents in foreign countries where freedom of speech is severely restricted.
Letting tech companies handle any type of censorship regarding the alt-right and/or white supremacists is a mixed bag as it opens the doors to general censorship of any viewpoint deemed inappropriate. A positive argument for such sanitization of publicly used language is that we are seeing the marketplace regulate this issue versus having the Congress or State legislatures getting involved. Allowing industries to try and create a resolution to resolve this problem is laudable. It is laudable because the marketplace (i.e. the internet community) is working out a problem of hate speech without waiting for the Congress or a federal agency, such as the Federal Communication Commission, step in through regulation.
Notwithstanding their efforts of trying to resolve this problem, the issue of malevolent language, there are two pitfalls with regulating speech of any kind from a policy perspective.
The first pitfall is that there are no universal standards that define “hate speech.” Hate speech is very subjective, the affects of which are in the eye of the beholder, which, results from this lack of definition. As Supreme Court Justice, Anthony Kennedy wrote in the case of Matal v. Tam,
… A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.[2]
Matal v. Tam was a trademark case where an Asian rock band, known as the Slants were barred from trademarking their name. The US Patent and Trademark Office refused to trademark their name because the word “Slants” has been used derogatively against Asians.[3]
As Justice Kennedy explained, any regulation dealing with ”hate speech” can invariably be used against “minorities or those with dissenting views.” Another example involves a pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court who will listen to the matter of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.[4] In that case, the Supreme Court will determine whether or not the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was correct in ruling against Mr. Jack Phillips for violating Colorado’s Human Rights Statute after refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple because of his religious beliefs regarding marriage. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Mr. Phillips was guilty of discrimination for his refusal to bake the cake. Additionally, his religious beliefs were considered irrelevant by the commission.
The second dilemma that comes with companies regulating speech involves the matter of access. The Internet is a predominant source of where the majority of the population gets news and information. We live in a Twitter, Google, Instagram, and Facebook world as theologian Leonard Sweet once said. Television and print news publications are struggling to adapt. Additionally, it is very expensive for someone to break into the technology industry with a platform that is just as original as Google or Twitter. To do so requires a commitment of at least a million dollars. Because of this limited access for companies and their competitors to provide platforms for news, there is the fear that corporations, and not the government, will be enforcers of censorship. At this time, there are a select group of corporations that would maintain a stronghold on control in making decisions regarding what is and is not considered hate speech. For so few to have so much power over deciding the parameters for which language can be censored has the potential for abuse of that power.
The challenge facing the tech community is to develop standards as to what the grounds will be to either suspend or expel an individual or entity based on the type of language they use. These standards need to be stringent and well defined. This process cannot be done at the whim of special interests groups[5] and will require honest discussion. Unfortunately, Silicon Valley has a tendency to go autocratic.[6] If you think this is political posturing, go ask Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla who had to resign because he donated money to a political action committee dedicated to the passage of Proposition 8, which would have amended the state constitution of California by defining marriage as between a man and woman. Eich was pressured to resign after a website discovered that he had donated $1,000 to an organization that was supporting Proposition 8.
If the tech community fails to navigate this matter slowly and thoroughly, expect the Federal government, through its power to break up monopolies, and exert its political muscle. Although doing this in the name of free speech is potentially beneficial, in the end, it will more likely than not be bad for businesses because it would allow the government an opportunity to intervene and regulate more.
CITATIONS:
[1] To read more about Gab’s situation see “First Amendment in Peril?” at https://www.city-journal.org/html/first-amendment-peril-15401.html
[2] See Justice Kennedy’s full opinion at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-1293/opinion4.html
[3] See The Supreme Court of the United States decision on MATAL v. TAM, June 2017, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8669821076053045429&hl=en&as_sdt=20000006
[4] See Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/
Also see “Baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple is backed by Justice Department in SCOTUS case” http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/baker_who_refused_to_make_wedding_cake_for_gay_couple_is_backed_by_justice_#When:22:18:00Z
[5] Consider this example of what happens when censorship is applied on a whim based on politics – Following the events in Charlottesville, Cloudfare’s CEO made the decision to remove The Daily Stormer from their web hosting services. In a letter to his team Matthew Prince, Co-Founder & CEO of Cloudfare wrote, “Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision. It was different than what I’d talked talked with our senior team about yesterday. I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet. I called our legal team and told them what we were going to do. I called our Trust & Safety team and had them stop the service. It was a decision I could make because I’m the CEO of a major Internet infrastructure company.” See “Cloudflare CEO on Terminating Service to Neo-Nazi Site” https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295
Cyber Laws To Keep An Eye On
The Small Business Cyber Training Act of 2017
Senator James Risch (R-ID) introduced “The Small Business Cyber Training Act of 2017” at the end of June when it was referred to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.[i] The bill would amend a section of the Small Business Act to “require cyber certification for small business development center counselors.” If passed, the Small Business Administration would be required to establish a program to assist small businesses by developing a cyber counseling program. Small businesses tend to be easy targets for hackers because they serve as vendors for larger companies, which provide entry into those companies systems. For example, the Target breach that occurred a few years ago involved hackers accessing systems via an HVAC vendor, whose customer was a local Target store. When hackers got inside the vendor’s system, they were able to gain access to the vendor’s network and subsequently had access to Target’s network. Once they entered Target’s network, the rest was history.[ii]
The challenge facing legislation tailored to small businesses is the common perception that cybersecurity is a very expensive proposition. Because of this perception, many small businesses are faced with deciding between investing in a potentially costly proactive plan or waiting for a data breach to occur and cleaning up the mess after the fact. In most cases, it appears that small businesses prefer to do nothing, because why invest in something that may or may not happen? Unfortunately, businesses that believe proactive cybersecurity planning is too expensive are the ones typically targeted and ultimately lose not only data, but also customers, and their reputation.
The International Communications Privacy Act
“The International Communications Privacy Act,”[iii] originally introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in 2016, and reintroduced July 2017, would amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. 2510-22)[iv] to include measures to safeguard data stored abroad. The proposal calls for the U.S. Department of Justice to obtain a warrant in order to access any information that is stored on servers outside the United States. The legislation requires that the Department of Justice follow the normal protocol of notifying a foreign government of its intent to file a warrant only if the foreign government has no objection to the warrant. If the foreign government objects, the matter will be taken before a judge and the judge will get to decide if the US’ interest in the data that is the subject of the warrant, outweighs the foreign government’s refusal.
This legislation is relevant because of a pending matter involving the US Department of Justice and Microsoft over the use of a warrant in order to retrieve data that is stored in Ireland.[v] As the legislation begins the review process through designated committees, we will be keeping an eye on potential changes to the text as the international policy implications behind such a bill could very well change. Additionally, there has been a common trend amongst International Trade communities that treat customers’ information as a commodity. Several nations have begun passing laws requiring the storage of their nationals’ data to be located within their country and not abroad, unless the foreign company or country meets their data privacy standards.
The Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2017
The third and final bill involves the inter-networking of electronic devices and products connected to the Internet that are capable of collecting and exchanging data (such as “Wearables” like Apple Watches or Fitbits, “Smart Home” products like Nest or Amazon’s Echo, and even connected cars)[vi] otherwise known as the Internet of Things (“IoT”).[vii] Introduced by Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) on August 1, and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, “The Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2017” calls for the Federal government to develop cybersecurity standards that vendors would agree to comply with if they wish to sell their products to the Federal government.[viii] (The official text of the proposed bill should be updated by the Government Publishing Office after the August recess.)[ix] As more products are becoming dependent on the Internet, and allow for more extensive collection and exchange of personal data, they create more opportunities for hackers to gain access to private information. Requiring vendors to either comply with the Government’s cybersecurity standard or the industry’s standard will benefit us all because that standard will be used when these same products are introduced to the commercial market. This requirement for cybersecurity compliance for vendors is especially important following the massive data breach experienced by the Office of Personnel Management in June 2015. The Office of Personnel Management experienced a loss of millions of active and retired government employees’ personnel file. The breach was an embarrassment to the agency because the files that were hacked included spies and the breach exposed how badly protected the agency’s network was against hacking.[x]
In closing, these three bills are examples of the attempts by the Congress to become proactive in addressing cybersecurity issues. With constantly evolving technology comes new and improved ways to utilize these tools. Each one of the proposed bills discussed above address three different aspects of cybersecurity and the impact it has on the global community; The importance of enabling small businesses to assess their data privacy needs; The global impact and aspects involved in cybersecurity; and the potential uses and abuses provided by new technology.
As these bills progress through the Senate, it is important to diligently assess the parameters of current technology while at the same time ensuring that regulations do not hinder innovation. Following the August Recess, the Senate will begin reviewing these bills during which we will continue to provide updates and insight into the potential changes to come.
[i] The Small Business Cyber Training Act of 2017, S. 1428, 115th Cong. (2017).
[ii] For more information on the Target data breach see “Learning from the Target Data Breach”
[iii] The International Communications Privacy Act, S. 1671, 115th Cong. (2017).
[iv] (18 U.S.C. 2510-22) Full Text
[v] For more information on the case between the DOJ and Microsoft, see “Microsoft vs. DOJ Round 2”
[vi] For examples of products capable of connecting to the IoT, see “Internet of Things Devices, Applications & Examples”
[vii] More information on the Internet of Things see “Simple Explanation of the Internet of Things That Anyone Can Understand”
[viii] The Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2017, S. 1691, 115th Cong. (2017).
[ix]The text of S. 1691, as introduced by Sen. Warner can be viewed here.
[x] To learn more about the OPM breach see “Congressional Report Slams OPM on Data Breach“