Slashdot Mirror
Bush Names New Cyber Security Czar
goombah99 writes "The Washington Post reports that Cybersecurity "czar" Richard Clarke has confirmed widespread reports that he is leaving the White House, to be replaced by former microsoft security chief Howard Schmidt. He was also part of the Air Force's 'Computer Crime and Information Warfare division'. In related news, the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace has received Bush's signature and will be released to the public in the next few weeks. Clark's blunt staements on the to the need to avoid erosion of privacy rights is rumored to have rubbed the administration the wrong way, prompting his exit. Anyone know how Schmitt will view the relative security of closed versus open source?"
Nothing says "Security" better to me than "Former Microsoft Security Chief".
What you are not look at is this. This person had the same chance to make good security decisions with Microsoft and HE DIDN'T. Thats the point. Taxpayers should have to spend money on something that Microsoft should be paying for. It is their responsibility to make their product secure, why should tax payers pay for that?
"Instead of making jokes or clamoring about how this is a bad (or good) thing, let's try to figure out what this guy is about."
It doesn't matter what HE is about. He'll toe the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft line or he is GONE. And the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft line is all about maintaining big business' (particularly oil) stranglehold on power.
Anyone surprised by Bush's proposal to research hydrogen as a fuel source? Many scientists have suggested that the move to a hydrogen-based economy (replacing the current petroleum-based economy) is inevitable and necessary. So why would Bush propose funding hydrogen research? You can (and will) bet your last dollar that the plan is not to develop a new hydrogen-based industry that would compete with or even replace the oil companies. It's for the oil companies to take over the future hydrogen industry. Completely and irrevocably.
It's ALL about maintaining power, so don't start thinking that Bush will allow anything contrary thinking (like protecting civil liberties).
hi!
Here are a few legitimate concerns in order of importance (in my mind of course).
1. Blackmail: If this security chief assisted in any of Microsoft's prior bad acts (DR-DOS episode is just one example) and is vulnerable to a criminal charge, he's vulnerable to blackmail. That makes him singularly inappropriate to head a sensitive position such as this one.
2. Incompetence: He's a former head of MS security. His performance is part of the reason that MS had the trusted computing initiative after he left because security was so screwed up.
3. Unwillingness to choose honest dealing with the public over self-interest: He never blew the whistle on MS even though security people generally know where all the bodies are buried. A lot of insecure systems are out there on the Internet in part because he didn't want to make waves. That is not necessarily what you want in a govt. job.