Slashdot Mirror
White House To Appoint "Internet Czar"
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post reports that President Obama is set to appoint a 'Cybersecurity czar with a broad mandate': 'The adviser will have the most comprehensive mandate granted to such an official to date and will probably be a member of the National Security Council but will report to the national security adviser as well as the senior White House economic adviser, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are not final.
The announcement will coincide with the long-anticipated release of a 40-page report that evaluates the government's cybersecurity initiatives and policies. The report is intended to outline a "strategic vision" and the range of issues the new adviser must handle, but it will not delve into details, administration officials told reporters last month.' Cynics are expecting the appointee to be a lawyer for the RIAA."
When did we start offering offices to czars? I don't see any emperors or kings in charge of this country. And doesn't our constitution say something about not allowing titles of nobility? The government is like a child who constantly tests it boundaries and so far nobody's doing anything about it.
Why do I suspect that this "czar" will spend about 10% of his time dealing with security issues and 90% of his time finding ways to help big media companies protect their IP from evil pirates, teenagers, and Youtube?
Why do I have a feeling that this "czar" will accomplish nothing on either of those fronts and will prove to be as effective as all the other "czars" that have come before him?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"You mean something like a king?"
Being of Italian descent, I'm partial to "Caesar." But that's a bit of a mouthful for the one-syllable-only press, so we could shorten it to Cs...wait a minute...uh, nevermind.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Why do I suspect that this "czar" will spend about 10% of his time dealing with security issues and 90% of his time finding ways to help big media companies protect their IP from evil pirates, teenagers, and Youtube?
So would this make pirate bay be the internet Bolsheviks? Or would that only be the case if they had real guns and actually killed people?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Hmm, you know, the previous administration was one of the most corrupt in history, but someone should've told Obama it's not a corruption contest and he doesn't need to try to win it by being more corrupt.
Oh well, I guess it's too late for that now... he's decided which side his bread is buttered on.
As to me, I have to decide in 4 years whether to vote 3rd party, write in Dr. Phineas Waldorf Steel, or stay home and catch up on my reality-TV watching (um... I mean book reading.... that's the ticket)? Decisions, decisions...
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Nah, I like the idea I heard in another article. We need a Czar Czar to coordinate the activities of all of the Czar's that we are appointing ;)
And one Czar to bind them all.
... a lawyer from the RIAA?
No, I expect he'll hire someone with actual internet experience, like a "private investigator" from MediaSentry.
I have more faith in the czar. He/she won't stop at headlines. There will be a few studies commissioned and a hearing or two also. They may even get some guidelines passed that everyone who knows anything about the subject will agree are impossible to enforce and/or contain loopholes large enough to drive a Mack truck through.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Having the adviser report to both the national security and economic advisers suggests that the White House is seeking to ensure a balance between homeland security and economic concerns, the sources said.
I am certain the economic concerns you speak of are only economic concerns of lobbyists when you should maybe be paying attention to what consumers are interested in?
I share a great deal of your cynicism. I've seen the US Government make a fine mess of it's information security initiatives. And I've witnesses beurocrats twist such initiatives and policy around until they do something entirely different than what they should be. So I completely agree that the danger of this sort of thing is very real. However, having said that, let's not get too carried away. The full paragraph from the article reads:
Having the adviser report to both the national security and economic advisers suggests that the White House is seeking to ensure a balance between homeland security and economic concerns, the sources said. It also indicates an effort to quell an internal political battle in which Lawrence H. Summers, the senior White House economic adviser, is pushing for the National Economic Council to have a key role in cybersecurity to ensure that efforts to protect private networks do not unduly threaten economic growth, the sources said.
What we have is the standard inverse relationship between security and functionality; increase one, affect the other. In this case, we're concerned with security policy vs. the cost of doing business / impacts on economic growth. Any formal infosec requirement tends to induce a cost on businesses required to follow those requirements. And believe me, the US Government does an excellent job at inducing costly requirements (second only to private industry's ability - which is impressive on it's own rights).
One of the most effective environments I've dealt with was a private enterprise that often pitted the security team against the business unit that wanted to do something. Usually the two could come up with ways to handle most situations. But there were times when the infosec group put forward their recommendations and the business unit wished to ignore them. In those situations, both sides would make their case to upper management. Infosec issues would be bounced against business concerns and if the business unit could demonstrate that there was sufficient business reasons to take on the risks the infosec team identified, they got their way. It should be noted that this wasn't a common occurrence as most business unit managers weren't confident enough in their position to put their own reputation on the line to fight that fight. But when it did occur, the risk and issues were well vetted.
What we have is the beginnings of a policy that makes sense and recognizes how things work in The Real World. Whether it remains so or not is yet to be seen.
If you're old enough to vote, and old enough to be drafted, shouldn't you be old enough to be given a line of credit from a bank much less drink a controlled substance?
I understand his intent was to protect college students from getting into debt but that falls into the asinine thinking that 260 million people that have health care in the US need government health care and that the 73% of mortgage holders that pay on time need some sort of bailout.
This country is fucked. And if there is a politician that believes that defending the Constitution is an act of terror, that politician should be promptly voted out of office. I thought that's what their oath is.
Next, it will be OK for doctors to no longer adhere to "Do no harm."
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.