Slashdot Mirror


New Bill Could Shift Federal Cybersecurity Work From DHS To White House

CNet reports on legislation currently being drafted that would transfer federal cybersecurity responsibilities away from the Department of Homeland Security. Instead, they would fall under the authority of the Executive Office of the President, creating an Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor. A tech commission recommended relieving the DHS of cybersecurity responsibilities late last year, saying it simply wasn't prepared to deal with organized online threats. More recently, the director of the DHS's National Cybersecurity Center resigned, citing interference from the NSA. The new legislation would "put the White House National Cybersecurity Advisor in charge of coordinating cyber efforts within the intelligence community and within civilian agencies, as well as coordinating the public sector's cooperation with the private sector. The advisor would have the authority to disconnect from the Internet any federal infrastructure networks — or other networks deemed to be 'critical' — if found to be at risk of a cyberattack. The private sector will certainly speak out if this provision is included in the final draft of the bill, a representative of the technology industry who spoke on condition of anonymity said."

11 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. Multiple fearmongers? by RagingFuryBlack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Great, so instead of the DHS being the only great fear monger, we now are going to create a new office to replicate it? How is DHS not the most logical place for cybersecurity? Intelligence is there, let THEM act on it. No need to increase the size of the government and have some other moron (who probably didnt pay his taxes) waiving his arms around at a puff of smoke...

    -1: Obamahater

    --
    Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
    1. Re:Multiple fearmongers? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not entirely sure if this will play out as you think it will, but I'm certain it's not good news for us "consumers" - previously known as citizens.

      DHS, at least, has bureaucracy to worry about and fight through. The Executive is, essentially, the President. Thats worrisome: the Presidency already has substantially more authority than the President did 4, 8, or 12 years ago. Bush drastically increased that authority, and Obama does not seem like the kind of person who wouldn't use it to its fullest extent.

      Moving yet-another (major) responsibility/power under the President makes me uneasy. Unlike DHS, the President is an innately political creature. The potential for abuse of political opponents is very high.

      For those of us following the doublespeak-inspired Fairness Doctrine, this is kind of scary. I really don't want them to push through the same BS "fairness" filters to the Internet, especially since all major news is now being filtered through said Internet, now that the newspapers are going tits up.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  2. On one hand by gravesb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's good to see that the White House thinks cyber security is important enough to move it into the Whitehouse, where they will be closer to the President and better prepared for power struggles. On the other, wasn't DHS supposed to cut through all the bullshit of turf wars to make us secure, or at least more so? If they can't do so, what justifies the new cabinet position and the accompanying increase in government size?

    --
    http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
  3. Abolish DHS by Whammy666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about we abolish the DHS altogether? What an expensive boondoggle it turned out to be. The worst part is that it got formed because the various intelligence agencies were engaged in turf wars and refusing to share info on possible threats to the US. The solution? Create another monster agency. Sigh.

    --
    When all else fails, run.
  4. because checks & balances are just so complica by quibbler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, the framers of the constitution wanted inefficiency to be built into the government, it prevented it from being 'too good' at robbing citizens of our rights before we knew it was happening.

    This whole administration is dangerous.

  5. Not really. by lwap0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the current cyber security guy quit for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the NSA - he also couldn't get much support from his own team in DHS. For those who actually swim in those waters, everyone major three letter government agency has their own 'cyber taskforce'. And they'll be dammned if they're going to share or collaborate any of their work with others - just mention the word 'cyber', and congress will start dumping a ton of funding on you. You start taking that away, and suddenly things get personal - now you're talking cash, and you always want more funding. It's also aggravated by mission creep - suddenly another three letter agency adopts a mission similar to yours, but this is YOUR mission, you're the experts, everyone else can go hang. Most agencies will not bow to another no matter how the executive office structures it, plain and simple. While I think that the executive office taking the lead role is probably a sound move, a part of me wonders if it's just more bureaucratic shuffling that achieves nothing.

    --
    I bring nothing to the table.
  6. Good and Bad by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First, DHS is staffed by total incompetents. I used to work with two of their original top ppl. They were a group that was loyal to W and the neo-cons first, then loyal to the corp, finally, loyal the nation. Total idiots.
    Second, NSA was suppose to have this. It is their job to protect our electronic frontier. They were doing a good job of it (QUIETLY), until DHS jumped in. And as to the interference, it was a good thing. DHS was back to trying to push America on one standard.
    Finally, I am not convinced that moving this into the white house is a good thing. For our operations to be protected, it is going to require a NONE POLITICAL GROUP. NSA is OVERALL A-political. The white house by definition is political. Even if Obama is moderate (not sure that he is), and tries to be none political, it is certain that everyone around him IS political.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  7. Re:because checks & balances are just so compl by Arslan+ibn+Da'ud · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm no constitutional scholar, but I suspect that inefficiency was meant to be applied to Congress, not to the Executive Branch (which DHS, CIA, NSA and other TLAs are part of). The inefficiency was meant to prevent bogus laws from making it on the books. (you can argue that the inefficiency fails at this, but that was its purpose), not to prevent gov't from enforcing the laws it does have.

    --

    Practice Kind Randomness and Beautiful Acts of Nonsense.

  8. Three words: Separation of Powers by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clearly this administration has no regard for the Constitution and the fact that this sort of power-grab is precisely why the branches of government where created the way they were. The fact that this cybersecurity department would report to the executive branch means that it doesn't report to Congress aka The People. Congress could demand transparency all they want and the Office of the President can tell them to go pound sand...once the department is created. Doing things under the guise of FUD and then absolving themselves of any responsibility is the hallmark of this administration. Notice I didn't say Obama. IMHO, he's not savvy enough to pull this stuff off on his own. IMHO, the real power lies behind the throne.

    1. Re:Three words: Separation of Powers by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ahh, but Obama is exactly who you should be worried of. A couple of points.

      1. Obama believes the redistribution of wealth should be framed at the Judicial rather than the Legislative branch.

      2. Obama stated the constitution should be interpreted as what the government should do for you, *not* what it's allowed being prevented to do.

      I'm sure you heard this 4min radio interview, but in case you haven't I will post the link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

      Folks, if you think the Bush administration was bad, Obama should scare the hell out of you!!!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  9. great by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every four to eight years, we will be replacing all the networking equipment, even the cables, with parts from, coincidentally, the company that donated the most to the President's campaign.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.