U.S. Government To Get Cybersecurity Chief
cmason32 writes "The Bush administration is going to create a new Cybersecurity Chief position in the Homeland Security Department. The move is supposed to demonstrate the government's dedication to cracking down on hackers and 'cyberterror.' One of the responsibities of the position is to 'secure cyberspace.' However, critics are already noting the position is not likely to be effective."
From the article:
The (technology) executives felt the government's plan was "not sufficiently strong because many of the key recommendations had been `watered down' and were not `mandatory,"' Undersecretary Kenneth Juster wrote.
In this case, isn't "ineffective" a good thing? The "technology executives" who want "stronger" regulation are probably not friends of open source software. In late years, the government hasn't had a reassuring track record, whenever it exerts its power.
Whoever gets appointed to this position won't know ANYTHING about computers, the Internet, or technology in general. He'll have a staff that will build a web site and print out their e-mail for him. He himself won't have the slightest idea what TCP/IP is or why it's important to his job. And yeah, he'll be in close contact with executives from the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
"It's pretty difficult for many businesses and many economic assets in this country to segregate the cyber side from the physical side because how that company operates, how that community operates, is interdependent," Ridge told lawmakers at a hearing this week.
So this new department will only protect business? Does that mean they'll also only crack down on businesses, or will they save most of their persecution for the people who don't fund their campaigns?