Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Homeland Security Adds Cybersecurity Position

Posted by Zonk on from the sounds-futuristic dept.

Matimus writes "Information Week has a story about the new Cybersecurity position in the Department of Homeland Security. They have stated IT management is one of their six major concerns." From the article: "Homeland Security's decision to create an assistant secretary for cybersecurity and telecommunications is expected to be well received by Congress and IT advocates calling for better use of technology in securing the country's physical and virtual borders. In May, the House of Representatives passed a $34 billion budget for Homeland Security that called for elevating the nation's head cybersecurity official to assistant secretary status."

7 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Isolationist? by JossiRossi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Somehow I feel that the US government will not be happy until we have "secured our borders" until the government is entirely isolated.

    Not the country mind you, just the government. I often seem to feel that the US government would be ALOT happier without citizens to get in the way too.

    --
    Just a boy doing unproffesional IT work that's way above his head.
    1. Re:Isolationist? by Kainaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I often seem to feel that the US government would be ALOT happier without citizens to get in the way too.

      And what business is different? I worked at Burger King and everyone complained that it would be so much easier without the customers. I worked at AMC theater and everyone complained that it would be so much easier without the patrons. I worked for a film company and everyone complained that it would be so much easier if they didn't have to distribute and show the movies. I taught at a university and everyone complained that it would be so much easier without the students. I'm now doing research at a hospital and everyone complains that it would be so much easier without all the patients. Why wouldn't the government find it easier without all the bothersome citizens?

      --
      The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
  2. Difficulty filling position by coflow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder how they plan to compete with commercial interests that are willing to pay top dollar for individuals suitable to the task. I can't imagine DHS would pay what a Bank of America or Walmart would .

  3. Re:Technical or Political? by adamplas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I imagine it would be a bit of both. However, as politics and technology never seem to work well together, it would end up being the appointee's job to explain technical issues such as virus protection or cyber-attacks to those who have the power and money. I'd have to lean towards mostly political, and I think most IT workers would agree - just think of trying to convince a manager that a new firewall or server is needed. So, technical in the nature of keeping up on the current technology, but political in trying to convince lawmakers that the new technology is needed.

  4. Honestly... . by guildsolutions · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We would never in a million years read private, innocent citizens emails. Why on earth would you think we would even want to?

    Oh Btw, your under arrest for sharing Peter Pan on Kaaza

  5. Re:Technical or Political? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seeing how a spyware company executive is appointed to the Department of Homeland Security's privacy advisory board, I think you can guess the answer.

  6. Virtual borders? What about real interests? by joelsanda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Homeland Security's decision to create an assistant secretary for cybersecurity and telecommunications is expected to be well received by Congress and IT advocates calling for better use of technology in securing the country's physical and virtual borders.

    Why do people insist on seeing borders on the Internet? The word itself is composed of "inter" and "network". By applying the metaphor of "border" (either physical or (duck ... incoming cliche) "virtual") they're in essence calling the "internet" an "innerlan".

    I hope the DHS can move beyond that limited and sophmoric understanding and instead realize we have interests - not borders. There are no borders on the Internet (excusing the valiant if not wrong efforts of the Chineses).

    What if DHS instead focused on our interests: a secure platform for business and government and an accessible platform for communication? What they do afterwards is debatable from now until way past the end of time, but I think their metaphors are so misguided they jeopardize later efforts.

    In focusing on the concept of 'borders' on the Internet the leave the chute with shaky reasoning and risk all the problems always associated with a poor meta-understanding of their goals.

    --
    The Luddites were ahead of their time.