Slashdot Mirror
Tech Companies Ask U.S. to Regulate Cyber Security
qtp writes "Wired reports that a group called the National Cyber Security Partnership, which consists of 'leading software companies' including Microsoft and Computer Associates and industry organisations such as the BSA, has asked the Department of Homeland Security to regulate what they call 'Cyber Security'. Representatives from Microsoft, Computer Associates, and the BSA headed the Security Across the Software Development Cycle Task Force that submitted this report to the Bush administration today. (For all of you who dread reading 123 page reports, there is a three page summary available as well. The Washington Post, Forbes, and Other Sources are covering this story as well. I hope this is just another [late] April Fools Day joke, but I'm afraid that this looks too scary to be real."
The major thing that this department is meant to handle, response to information indicating a threat to the U.S., has been implemented willy-nilly. Terror alert levels are raised and lowered without reason or a set of expected responses, causing panic and nothing at all productive.
In terms of incidence response to computer security threats, how would they be any different? All that we'll see from this is another set of useless buzzwords, millions of dollars spent on who-knows-what, and a still-flailing and under/mis-funded department of Homeland Security.
As much as I hate to say it, I would rather see M$ in charge of computer security than our government.
"Only the ignorant think regulation was imposed on AT it was their idea."
Yes, it seems that a great many people are ignorant to the true effects of government regulation. Government regulation usually works to enshrine monopoly power by increasing the barriers to entry to competition. It is often sold politically as us against the big corporations, but fundamentally government regulation is designed to give people less choice. Established and wealthy companies can better handle regulations therefore and often they have the most voice in legislative committees, so although most regulations do not originate in the boardrooms of corporations, regulations are quickly used to the best advantage. There is no conspiracy here, just a natural bias of the system.
Some people believe that less choice is better, after all having choice gives people oportunity to make the wrong choice with sometimes very real and bad consequences. So, to some people less choice for others means greater safety for themselves. Of course, it is often the case that in the longer term less choice just lets risk build up and eventually the risk will be unavoidable.
Regardless of how strongly the basket is made, it still makes sense not to put all your eggs in it.