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".
screen of death
Our top story - Previous cyberspace advisor sacked after coming worringly near to sticking up for rights of normal Americans. Now replaced by Microsoft "security" manager in amusing henhouse/fox style situation. Corporations breathe freely again. Film at 11.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
Next, RIAA advisor appointed as judge in IP case, Disney spokeperson heads the new congressional committee for copyright term balance, and Pakistan appoints Hans Blix's replacement at the head of the UN Arms Inspectors Committee.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
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?
I've worked for the Dept of the Navy for 6 years now,4 years as an active marine and 2 for a navy contractor and I've seen a trend in the Navy/MC away from microsoft products and their consultation.
But then again, it doesn't mean that everything will be MS because he's a former MS officer, but it is more than possible. If anything he may have a VERY humble attitude toward things because I'm sure he's been the brunt of many criticisms from his past post.
It's no secret MS has had problems with security.
But I wonder what this will mean for upcoming copyright and piracy issues involving computer software and the like. Since he comes from a company where the doctrine is pretty strict in terms of copyrighting and such, we will see a severe change in the laws?
"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"
Well if the previous guy was removed because he was in favor of keeping privacy rights a concern, this may indeed be the case.
Overall, I can't say this is a good sign.
Excuse my above ramblings, I have strep throat and it's driving me crazy.
"In heaven, the Italians do the cooking, the Swiss do the accounting, the German fix the cars, the French are the lovers, and the British are the police.
In hell, the English do the cooking, the Italians do the accounting, the French fix the cars, the Swiss are the are the lovers, and the Germans are the police".
I guess we can add something about who's in charge of cyber security in either places... and I'm pretty sure where Microsoft has a bigger footprint.
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
United States SP1
This service pack addresses the following security holes and bugs found in the current public release of United State version 2003:
- free speech buffer overruns
- memory leaks of useless patents
- higher intelectual property security
- copyright roll-over
- civil rights run away processes
- stronger backdoors for stronger crypto
- cpu race conditions
- elimination of privacy APIs
Quoting the last five (short) paragraphs of the story:
Is anyone else disturbed by the way first choice candidates seem to be running away from any involvement with government internet security?
"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.