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."
"The adviser 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."
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.
Antivirus software I can believe in!
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
"The adviser 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."
Looks like the entire US government is going offline soon.
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't the DHS within the Executive branch anyway? They do what the President tells them. What difference does it make if it's physically there inside the white house.
I'm a 2000 man.
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.
This whole administration is dangerous.
I was not aware that the administration was responsible for Congress' proposed legislation or a commission's report. Let's at least wait until the White House has issued some sort of statement before condemning Obama over this.
You know what other society went down in flames after concentrating all the governmental activities under the Executive?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
DHS is already under the purview of the Whitehouse. The article doesn't discuss if the director of Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor would be subject to congressional confirmation (DHS is), but they could be.
If they are mostly advising the president on what other agencies should be doing (rather than implementing things), the change doesn't hurt anything at all (and not running everything through DHS is probably better).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Hey, guys, we support this. Why all the hate? An unnamed industry representative spoke to CNet and said "leadership is needed at the top" on this issue. He or she further went on to note that "we'll have views" on such an agency if it goes into legislation.
Seriously, what's up with the anonymous coward "industry representative" in TFA? The only reason I can think of to remain anonymous on this issue would be if that person has an ulterior motive he or she would prefer not be visible. It's stupid, he or she is stupid, and Stephanie Condon* is stupid for quoting him or her.
And, for the record, the whole idea is stupid. If DHS can't handle it, why would a new agency be able to? If DHS is that spectacularly incompetent, it needs new leadership, restructuring, or dissolution. If the NSA is obstructing their work, well, that's a damned good reason for Obama to have a cabinet-level advisor to help him referee.
*Yikes; wouldn't wanna go through high school with that name.
If what you describe were a movie, I pay to see it.
I don't know about that. You see, unlike undeveloped nations, the U.S. citizens are the primary source of income for the large corporations that are causing the problem (or are at least a large part of cause).
If unemployment rises too much and wages drop too low, I'd think people would stop paying for things (simply because they couldn't afford it), at which point these companies would begin showing a loss every quarter, causing investors to lose faith, resulting in a market crash. A market crash would prevent the kind of multi-company long distance infrastructure that we depend on to get the goods to the people.
Most crash predictors conclude that racial tensions in the inner cities will lead to rioting, and most seem to think that suburbanites will travel to the cities looking for resources (because they're dumb, I guess), which is akin to throwing gasoline on the fire. While this will make life unpleasant for the majority of the population, the majority of the nation is sparsely populated rural land, and should be able to take a market crash in stride.
All-in-all, I think there will be very little shift in the top tier power structure in this country. I can always hope, but people are just too stupid. They respond to comfort with complacency and inaction, and they'll respond to a lack of comfort with violence and ignorance. I think that would only invite a further lock-down of the populace, and the government would complete its descent into fascism that it began in the early part of the last century.
I have little idea if any of this the most likely outcome, or what will happen next. I only know what I read, and what I can project from the facts and figures and graphs. I do know that it's in my best interest to leave the city and acquire some arable land as soon as possible. I'm not looking forward to the idea of being a farmer, but it's better than being a victim.
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.
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.
Like the last 8, 16, 32 haven't been? Powerful groups, almost by definition, are dangerous.
so some bad happens. Who do you report it to? Local police?
State police?
Federal police? And if so, do you mean:
FBI?
CIA?
Department of Homeland Security?
National Security Agency?
Peace Corps?
Coast Guard?
National Guard?
We don't need another agency. We need about half of these dissolved / merged so it's understandable who's in charge of what!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Personally, I couldn't care less if certain government owned and operated resources are taken off line. However, start messing with the internet at large, and you've got some rather significant problems...many businesses, for example, have grown to rely very heavily on their internet presence - so much so that just a few hours offline could cost them millions. There is simply too much in the private sector that is dependent on the availability of that connection - it's not something you'd want to toy with to show everyone how just much control has been accumulated in all the wrong places.
I don't know if antagonistic agencies is a good idea or a bad idea. On the plus side you have separate agencies looking at each other. In theory, no agency gets too powerful. On the negative side there are gaping holes where the responsibilities of the agencies meet.
History has another example where it arguably did not work so well. Hitler organized the Nazi party and the German government in this way. There was a lot of turf wars in the Third Reich. Hitlers personal security was an example of this. There were many attempts on his life and it was only Hitlers luck that many of them failed. His security forces completely missed many attempts.
Didn't last a generation, of course.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
It sounds like they're recommissioning the Black Chamber.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
I'll believe it when I see it. Dismantling government agency power has most certainly not been Obama's agenda in the scant months he's been President. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
What are the notable things Obama has done in his Presidency so far? He's substantially increased government control of the private sector, ensuring private industry and banking will be beholden to government for a good time to come. He's increased the power and responsibility of various agencies (by unconstitutional fiat) substantially. He's done quite a bit in the direction of not splitting power up into different agencies to prevent an 'ubergovernment' agency/unit.
Also: how is moving cybersecurity directly under the authority of the President anything approaching a move to "split power"? It looks like a move to aggregate and increase power to me - IE, more of the same kind of thing that you say lead to the formation of DHS.
Now, you might be right. But in my assessment of the man, such a move runs contrary not only to his policy, but his very grain. There has been no indication that he prefers anything but centralized, omnipresent control, and I'll be gratefully, if somewhat skeptically, surprised if he moves in any other direction.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
DHS is already under the purview of the Whitehouse. The article doesn't discuss if the director of Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor would be subject to congressional confirmation (DHS is), but they could be.
If they are mostly advising the president on what other agencies should be doing (rather than implementing things), the change doesn't hurt anything at all (and not running everything through DHS is probably better).
All these appointments of any people to a offices and consul positions, reporting directly to the President, must by law be approved by the Congress (typically the Senate). That's right in the Constitution:
I know Obama is not the first to appoint "Czars" and other "advisers" without any congressional involvement, and frankly I don't know how they got away with it in the past. It's clearly unconstitutional.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Read what you quoted:
"but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."
When Congress establishes a position, they can forgo having to confirm it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
So when did they establish the "Energy Czar"? How about the "Drug Czar"?
Note also that it says "may by law vest the appointment", meaning that unless a law specifically states that the appointments may be made without their approval, then they have to confirm it.
That's a far cry from what has been happening since the Clinton administration (or was there precedent before that), where the president just decides he needs a new adviser, creates the position out of thin air, and sticks somebody in it.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Czar
Nice that you ragged on Clinton (that link doesn't demonstrate that every person working for the president is doing so with congressional approval, it just demonstrates that you are making an awful lot of assumptions...).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Czar
Nice that you ragged on Clinton (that link doesn't demonstrate that every person working for the president is doing so with congressional approval, it just demonstrates that you are making an awful lot of assumptions...).
Should have known it was Ronald "Just Say No" Reagan that appointed a drug czar, but at least he got congress to approve it. I think I made it obvious that I didn't really know when these non-congress-approved positions started, only that it's illegal and should stop. It looks like it was Nixon that started it.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Do you have a list of positions that you have good reason to believe are not approved by Congress? That's the assumption that I am talking about.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Do you have a list of positions that you have good reason to believe are not approved by Congress? That's the assumption that I am talking about.
Seems I posted the wrong link. It should have been this one.
It talks about, among others:
None of these people, as far as I can tell, have any authorization from Congress to do anything or even be part of the administration. Yet they act as "consuls" and report directly to the President.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The water gets muddy (those folks can at least threaten to get El Presidente on the phone, whether they have real power or not), but should Bush II have gotten permission from Congress to talk to his daddy (ostensibly, Bush Sr. gave Jr. advice at least once...)?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
So now the Obama administration has moved both the census and Internet security under his watch. What is the President planning?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.