US Cybersecurity Chief Beckstrom Resigns

nodialtone writes with a Reuters report that Rod Beckstrom, director of the National Cybersecurity Center (NCSC), has tendered his resignation, citing clashes between the NCSC and the NSA with regard to who handles the nation's online security efforts. In his resignation letter (PDF), he made the point that "The intelligence culture is very different than a network operations or security culture," and said he wasn't willing to "subjugate the NCSC underneath the NSA." He also complained of budget roadblocks which kept the NCSC from receiving more than five weeks of funding in the past year. Wired has a related story from late February which discusses comments from Admiral Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence, who thinks cyber security should be the NSA's job to begin with.

Comments

another decent man leaves government in disgust

[jmcvetta]

From Mr Beckstrom's resignation letter: "In addition, the threats to our democratic processes are significant if all top level government network security and monitoring are handled by any one organization (either directly or indirectly."

Amen, brother.

Re:another decent man leaves government in disgust

[jmcvetta]

Clean up your fucking country already.

Some of us are trying to do just that...

Re:another decent man leaves government in disgust

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Yeah, like, what happened to that concept of "Checks and Balances" that Founding Fathers thought up in a steamy room in Carpenter's Hall in Philadelphia?

So now the agency in charge of breaking security, and spying on people, should now be in charge of guaranteeing security?

I better check the latest release notes, it seems that "Checks and Balances" has now been deprecated.

Re:another decent man leaves government in disgust

[Antique Geekmeister]

No, that's Congress's and the Supreme Court's job. They haven't been doing it lately.

The reason for competing departments in the US Executive department is to provide a department willing to disagree, and possibly arrest or even shoot, members of the other department to prevent mutiny against the President's orders.

Re:another decent man leaves government in disgust

[sgt_doom]

Outstanding points all. While I have little faith in any US agencies at present, I do recall that the USAF Intelligence officially went on record, prior to the illegitimate Iraqi invasion by Cheney/Bush, as to their complete disagreement with Cheney's doctored CIA intel on the matter.

Also, awhile back when the USAF created its Cyber Security Command (or something like that), Cheney immediately shut it down.

Good recommendations all for the USAF being in charge of cyber security.....

Re:another decent man leaves government in disgust

[Mikkeles]

'... threats to our democratic processes are significant if all top level government network security and monitoring are handled by any one organization... '

Like the government?

Re:another decent man leaves government in disgust

[nfc_Death]

All of those points the UK has done either long before the US or worse than the US. In fact the UK does not even have anything in place to protect their citizens privacy. Albeit slightly crippled lately at least the US has that. Im a canuck and we're idiots too, at least we can admit it. Suffice it to say, so far all attempts at men leading men have failed utterly.

Re:another decent man leaves government in disgust

[Hurricane78]

Some of us are trying to do just that...

There's your problem. Why are you only trying. Say "I will do that."
Next thing you know is you imagining how you will actually be able to do it.

Now you "only" have to pull trough, and not lose your original intend on the way.

Of course it's hard work. But it all starts with the right mind set.
If they managed to be born, and drive the world in one direction, and you consider your self a more intelligent human, then you should in general also be able to do the opposite.

Problem is: It's still far from bad enough to make people do something against it. And keeping it sneaky is one of the main objectives of those who slip in the shit that the neocons did.
And I am no exception from this inaction. It's too deep inside our genes.

But I do change things. And I will change even more things. First those on top of my priorities, of course.

Re:another decent man leaves government in disgust

[mi]

Also, awhile back when the USAF created its Cyber Security Command (or something like that), Cheney immediately shut it down.

And rightly so. Cyber security has nothing to do with flying planes, and so it did not belong to the US Air Force any more than to the Agriculture Department.

Yes, I am well aware that military branches have overlapping services (such as Marines having their own planes), but for USAF to have the main anti-hacking command — beyond what's needed to secure their own networks — would've been just wrong. See also "mission creep"...

Re:wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are either making a joke or have not worked within the agency. The entire "point" of the NSA is certainly not just to secure communications. I believe the 17,000 interceptors I worked with would think otherwise...

Security

[Idiomatick]

The US security system(s) always amaze me. OkOk so the military gets infantry, navy and special ops divisions. But in the US you guys have like at least 10 other organizations. And all of their objectives are vague. Why not just close/merge a bunch of them. CIA FBI NSA NCSC US SS DoH DIA NRA really I could just start picking random letters (and i'm sure there are more than i've listed). They each get like 10billion a year. You see the same things happening with science. Cept the total for science is like 30b instead of 100. Its kind of amazingly wasteful. Even assuming they worked together well with no overlap. It is hard for a government to properly overview that many pointless departments if you don't even know what they are supposed to be doing.

Re:Security

[aztektum]

We'd have all the transparency with much less expense to individuals if we didn't have to PAY for these federal agencies in the first place. Let us give the money to the state rather than this cluster fuck in D.C.. At most the fed should have an agency that acts as a liaison between states for interstate crime/commerce and establish a few frameworks for open commerce and things like patents/copyright/etc. Then focus on global affairs, defense, all that noise. Giving them the authority to police within a states borders is helping them consolidate central authority.

What needs to happen is people need to get the state governments to tell the feds to fuck off more regularly. The only recent thing I can remember where any states have said "No." is over Real ID. States like Cali, that pay 100's of billions in federal taxes and get a miniscule return from them need to tell Congress to get stuffed.

So?

[PingXao]

Sounds like a good position to eliminate completely. Take the whole DHS with you on the way out the door. And possibly a good chunk of NSA too.

Sorry. Cyberspace is way more complicated -

[unity100]

than you military oldtimers can ever comprehend. cyberspace also doesnt go well with the military mindset. military mindset requires control over the venues that needs securing. cyberspace, internet, is a venue that refuses control. because it is against its nature. even if you try and succeed in getting an iron stranglehold over internet in your country, the rest of the world will keep a free internet. which will mean that your security issues will continue. because, internet IS people. its not an empty network with consoles attached. its no different than your own society with its people.

you should leave cybersecurity to people who understand online world and its people. you cant accomplish shit with military mindset. even more, heavy handed or controlling approaches lead to social online backlashes and spontaneous actions. portray yourselves as anti freedom fascists trying to control internet in a 1950s manner for any reason, and you may gain the attention of a varying multitude of people from hacking crowd, each of which could undermine whatever budget you can throw at security. portray yourselves as a friend of the people, and they harrass your enemies. (a la pirate bay case).

remember - internet is an infinite chaotic space in which individuals can outdo thousands. best security approach is to be 'friend of the people'. and no military knows shit about that.

so, NSA, leave it to people who know internet.

Re:Sorry. Cyberspace is way more complicated -

[Creepy Crawler]

Wow. What a fool you are..

The military helped originally create the internet in its present form. And their base assumption was that once it was properly built, it would grow by itself. It's reason was to create a network that one could never be quieted, even by nuclear attacks.

Now, about the NSA: They're not heavy handed thugs. They've always been sigint, are sigint, and will always be the sigint. They dont want the iron-fisted control of the Internet, because they love listening!

However, do you know why this guy quit? It's a simple answer why...

"You're the network administrator. However, we cant give you admin passwords, you cant make critical decisions about the network, you cant make purchasing decisions, you cant do anything unless these 10 disparate groups agree."

I believe the proper word is hobbled. And it's what happened to the last person in that position.

Re:Sorry. Cyberspace is way more complicated -

[unity100]

it HELPED create the internet in its NOT PRESENT, but initial form. it was designed as a network that would route over damage in case of a nuclear war and keep functioning.

noone had ANY idea what the internet would be like in 15 years.

NSA is a government agency. government agencies reflect the policies of whomever installed on top of them. if nsa is not heavy handed today, it will/may be tomorrow. you cant trust liberty with government agencies.

Re:wrong

[Ethanol-fueled]

What about those fiber splices and sekrit black boxes in the AT&T offices?

Either the so-called "rules" don't mean anything, or the NSA just has others break the law for them. Then Bush and Obama give those others immunity from prosecution.

I don't trust any agency with "security" in its name. Especially when they abuse their networks to commit industrial espionage among other dirty tricks.

Re:NSA?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a quote from sneakers. Quotes are usually quoted to indicate that you aren't the originator. (it's a good quote though, and apt) though more apt is the follow up line which which the agent informs marty that the NSA doesn't have a domestic charter. (too lazy to look it up)

Re:What we need

[TubeSteak]

The goal being to assure the internet is a platform of freedom of expression where some cannot oppress the viewpoints of others.

From a national security point of view, being able to oppress the viewpoints of others is a feature, not a bug.

History didn't start in 2003

[crmartin]

I wish journalists would do a little research. NSA has had the lead role in cybersecurity since before he term was invented, back to the National Computer Security Center when Bob Morris the Elder was Chief Scientist. Mid-80's, in other words. Communications security since Truman.

What this guy is complaining about is that he wasn't able to wrest control of cybersecurity away from NSA.