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."

Comments

I have a funny feeling

[elrous0]

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?

Re:I have a funny feeling

[gubers33]

10% of his time you dealing with security issues? He will spend all of his time on security issues because everyone knows the biggest threat to America are the pirates of multimedia with their Limewire and BitTorrent. All of the people attempting to hack into the DoD, Bank of America and so forth come in a distant second so he will just ignore them.

Re:I have a funny feeling

[Shakrai]

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?

Re:I have a funny feeling

[jerep]

Because 90% of what the government already does is to help big corporations?

Re:I have a funny feeling

[click2005]

All of the people attempting to hack into the DoD, Bank of America and so forth come in a distant second so he will just ignore them.

He/She wont ignore them... They will make great headlines, followed by lots of promises to regulate/police the internet to protect american (business) interests.

Re:I have a funny feeling

[jollyreaper]

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?

Re:I have a funny feeling

[Jason Levine]

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.

WTF "Czars"

[R2.0]

Is it really that necessary to appoint a czar fro EVERY issue? I'm waiting for the Toilet Paper Czar, who will coordinate government efforts to regulate both the orientation of the roll in the holder as well as the direction of wipe.

Re:WTF "Czars"

[Shakrai]

I'm waiting for the Toilet Paper Czar, who will coordinate government efforts to regulate both the orientation of the roll in the holder as well as the direction of wipe.

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 ;)

Re:WTF "Czars"

[htdrifter]

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.

Re:WTF "Czars"

[coopaq]

Yo Dawg! I heard you like Czars. So we put a Czar in your Czar so you can be be censored while being censored!

Re:WTF "Czars"

[jpmorgan]

Czars have a mandate and little authority, they're not supposed to actually accomplish anything. They get appointed for two reasons:

1. To give the appearance of activity without actually doing anything. ("Of course we care about issue X! We appointed a czar to oversee it.")

2. To reward allies and contributors with plum patronage positions but few actual responsibilities to worry about.

The "best" part is everybody cynically expects them to fail, so there's no complaint or comment when the appointee accomplishes nothing. It's really quite brilliant... Bush's mistake was making patronage appointments to positions which actually hold responsibilities, like managing FEMA.

Re:WTF "Czars"

[maroonhat]

I know a James Binks who needs work

And I love the sound of Czar Czar Binks

More Cynicism

[eldavojohn]

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.

Economic concerns like what? The fact that internet commerce explodes on Cyber Monday as consumers and businesses enjoy a wealth of increased buying/spending? Or would you so happen to be referring to economic concerns like the MPAA/RIAA are short one ivory back scratcher? Perhaps the concerns that all that internet commerce is happening with most of it untaxed? Maybe concerns that used books, DVDs and games are being sold increasingly with a down-turned economy?

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?

You want to help the consumer, you should mandate that proprietary DRM violates anti-trust laws as it locks consumers into the software and hardware associated with their music service. Or maybe you should look into allowing people to use whatever level of encryption they want to secure their financial transactions? Nah, nobody's paying you for that.

Throw on top of that the fact that Biden's good friends with the MPAA and RIAA (and I'm sure Obama's not far behind) there may be cause for concern.

Re:More Cynicism

[JasterBobaMereel]

....any new Czar will soon realise that most of the Internet is outside his jurisdiction, and most US laws do not apply to the the people involved ....

Re:More Cynicism

[Steauengeglase]

"Honestly I think the powers that be have no f'in clue. Really they just need to be told what to do...but instead we all go off and download crap illegally...and then wonder why the RIAA and MPAA exists? Really...what are we f'in stupid."

Need to be told what to do? We have been telling them for years what they should do, but the only language they know is brute force and manipulation. It took Wal-Mart to lower CD prices, not consumer advocacy. It took Apple's strong arming to get decent rates for downloadable music, not kids in t-shirts at a rally. The *AAs exist because they are an industry cartel. To them you are idiot cattle consuming product and they only know how to talk to people who speak their own language on other words professionals, people they respect by way of fear.

Re:More Cynicism

[jshackney]

Perhaps the concerns that all that internet commerce is happening with most of it untaxed?

BINGO!!!

This Czar's job is to figure out how the government is going to get their piece of the pie. Don't be fooled into thinking otherwise.

Re:More Cynicism

[uncle slacky]

That's never stopped them before...

Re:More Cynicism

[_Sprocket_]

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.

Again?

[Drakkenmensch]

How many slashdot "White House to Appoint Internet Czar" stories are we going to see? Let's just report it when it happens (if it ever does).

XKCD

[Anonymous Coward]

http://xkcd.com/494/
through
http://xkcd.com/498/

Czars

[slowgreenturtle]

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.

what...

[night_flyer]

... could possibly go wrong?

Re:what...

[jonaskoelker]

I don't know, but I strongly object to an Internet CzNO CARRIER

Re:I'm really sick to death of Czars

[R2.0]

"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.

Re:I'm really sick to death of Czars

[Cyberax]

"Czar" title has a distinct advantage. Czars were abolished when the last of them had been put against a wall and the shot.

It's Corporate America, Baby!

[RobotRunAmok]

We need someone to scapegoat and fire today when fundamental errors made 20 years ago finally become manifest.

That's how we roll.

Re:I'm really sick to death of Czars

[owlnation]

The advantage of a Czar is that it's much more fun to overthrow them than a king. Just ask Lenin.

I think in this case the parallels with the excess and oppression of imperial Czars, and the ruling of the Internet, will be quite apt.

Of course it's just as likely that this new Czar will be just as effective as other previous government Czars. The Drugs Czar for example. Since being appointed in 1982 we can congratulate the holders of that office as having done a great job. There is now no drug problem whatsoever, as everyone knows.

!!democracy

[Arthur B.]

This *is* democracy. Democracy isn't a synonym of "good" and it doesn't imply a just or free society, it's not a poney filled land. Democracy is a political system and this is the result of such a system.

Re:!!democracy

[maharb]

It is what happens when you have an uneducated public that can't look past the carrot dangled in front of them. It's hard to even argue against people that can't look past one iteration of a loop that contains great phrases like "the poor will be fed" and "free health care". No one cares where the money comes from as long as it isn't from them. My point is everyone looks at the first possible solution rather than thinking forward.

So you are correct this is a result of Democracy + Dumb People + Smooth Talkers = Any regulation will pass as long as it claims to protect and serve the common man.

Of course the public is going to love this. Obama is just trying to to protect you from attackers who are stealing your passwords and identities!

Freudian slip?

[AnalPerfume]

Does anyone find it strange that a country steeped in an anti-communist / pro-capitalist past / present / future chooses to adopt a Russian term for an overseer? We've seen so many fuck ups by past US administrations because they got their panties in a twist about the fear of communism with Cuba, the McCarthy trials etc. The Republicans in particular have their supporters mind warped into seeing commies everywhere, yet it hasn't occurred to them that "Czar" is not a Western / US word.

They rail against state control over personal freedoms and here the government are trying to let people know where they stand and the people don't notice. Not only that, but many right wingers are thrilled that a Czar is taking charge to impose order, although presumably that only applies when the order being imposed is on an area they agree with and not with their rights to own guns etc.

It's like the story telling entertainment industries. They tell so many stories of corporate / political abuse of citizens which resonate with the audience and the audience never notices why. Stories resonate because they have enough basis in reality for the audience to relate to, yes they are fictional characters, fictional corporations, fictional laws etc but the base is real, and believable. It's believable because there is plenty of news about REAL people committing similar crimes and abuses and often getting away with it. The entertainment industry is showing us the world as it is through fictional rewrites and what do we do about it? Fuck all.

How many more times do we have to be shown reality before we decide that enough is enough?

Re:Power to Change Things?

[Anonymous Coward]

And while we're at it...

Election != Mandate

Though I'm open to suggestions about which percentage would establish a "mandate" I certainly think it should be higher than ~52%. Especially considering the collected intelligence (read "clue") of the middle 40%.

G-d bless and keep the Czar...

[Mark Gordon]

...far away from us!

- "Fiddler on the Roof"

ENOUGH WITH THE FUCKING "CZAR" TITLE!!!

[ScooterComputer]

Dammit these people in power in America piss me off. STOP USING THE TERM 'CZAR', 'TSAR', whatever! STOP STOP STOP.

I can't wait until a President is ready to march to Congress and appoint Der Fuehrer of Alternative Energy, which would prove that they have no clue what these titles mean to people around the world as well as citizens in our own country. I doubt Obama would appoint an Imperial Wizard of Credit Debt or Grand Dragon of Terrorism.

The term 'Czar' relates to a despicable history of oppression and murder. The term itself comes from Caesar, not exactly a bright point in Europe's history. There are better terms, and we as a Democratic people are more creative than this.

Cynics are expecting...

[Culture20]

... a lawyer from the RIAA?
No, I expect he'll hire someone with actual internet experience, like a "private investigator" from MediaSentry.

are you 13 years old?

[circletimessquare]

the words you say are so humorously ignorant of reality one hopes that you are merely green

you do realize that a country that doesn't have legal guarantees of your freedoms has no such freedoms, that you somehow miracuolously exist in dubai, or an ancient monarchy

as for no government: allow me to come over and shoot you in the face. who's to punish me? that's what "no government" means

Re:Black Racism Against Whites and Asians

[Ucklak]

His appointees have been disasters and are idiots and now you're no longer an adult at 18 with the new credit card law.

Whole Grain food is not a drug.
People who believe in the US Constitution are not domestic terrorists.
Yeah, there's plenty more but these two get my goat.

I had high hopes for this idealist but he is now just as bad as Bush in my book and historically, will probably be as bad as Carter (we'll see).

Re:WTF "Czars" Keeping score!

[clintp]

So as I count them...

The Romanov Dynasty: 15 Czars (Peter I - Nicholas II)

The Obama Administration: 15 Czars (Border Czar, Climate Czar, Cyberspace Czar, Copyright Czar, Climate Czar, Car Czar, Drug Czar, Energy Czar, Education Czar, Economic Czar, Health Care Czar, Housing Czar, Mortgage Czar, Technology Czar, WMD Czar)

I may have missed some in either category, but I'm still betting Obama will wind up with more.

Re:Black Racism Against Whites and Asians

[Ucklak]

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."