Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Who Would Want To Be Obama's Cybersecurity Czar?

Posted by Soulskill on from the fine-i'll-do-it dept.

dasButcher writes "President Obama is expected to name a new cybersecurity czar sometime soon. This person will be charged with defending the digital boards from attack by hostile nation-states and terrorist organizations. But the question Larry Walsh asks is: Who really wants the job? The previous three people who held the post barely made a dent in solving the security problems. Government bureaucracy and private sector resistance make it nearly impossible to find any measure of meaningful success in this job, he writes." Reader eatcajun contributes a related link to the long-awaited US cyberspace policy review.

32 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Stephen Conroy by Gandalf_Greyhame · · Score: 4, Funny

    We'll give you Stephen Conroy if you like.

    --
    I am not stubborn. I am right!
  2. Kevin Mitnick by Tehrasha · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...nuff said.

    1. Re:Kevin Mitnick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bruce Schneier would love to do it, since he would be the center of attention. But since he know he'll never get picked he says we shouldn't have a cyber tzar.

  3. is that anything like a Secretary of the Internet? by Xtifr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obligatory XKCD link (five part story).

  4. The rights holders want it... by icebike · · Score: 2, Informative

    The copyright holders and their corrupt organizations may want it.

    They use the position to make sure one looks too hard at the invasive digging into people's hard drives and network traffic.

    Meanwhile they totally ignore any REAL threats and protection measures. (As can be seen by stories on Slashdot about data thefts left and right).

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  5. RIAA Lawyers by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are there any RIAA lawyers left who don't yet have high level Obama positions?

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  6. I paid my taxes by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Funny

    so I guess I am ineligible even if I wanted the job.

    1. Re:I paid my taxes by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How sad is it when we start to talk about a presidential administration in those terms?

      "Just think about all the hotels they didn't break in to."

      "Don't worry, there are plenty of terrorists that received no weapons in exchange for hostages."

      "At least he didn't let all of our soldiers get dragged through the streets of Mogadishu."

  7. Bruce . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    . . . Schneier and Campbell . . .

    . . . Schneier can lecture us on, "What is Cybersecurity?" . . . Campbell can cut 'em up with chainsaws, and blow their brains out with his shotgun.

    How could we lose?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  8. New military branch needed by religious+freak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We don't need a "czar", we need a new military branch. I am not aware of ANY real and lasting contribution any "czar" has ever made in the United States. The first drug czars came close... if you call that a contribution, but from everything I've seen, they're basically PR and cheerleaders, and don't have much authority or get much done.

    If we're serious... and I mean really serious... we need a branch of the military to do the heavy lifting. We don't need to start this in a big way, but we need the security infrastructure to build on should tensions begin rising with nation states. These guys would be the grunts doing the front line lifting and poking around while the NSA focuses it's talent on developing high level techniques. This is what we'd do if we got really serious.

    In my view, the position of czar is a joke. Czars are for 19th century Russia and have no place in a modern United States government.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    1. Re:New military branch needed by Tigersmind · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are right. A group of people trained properly is about the only way to do this. Thing is to really be effective they would have to operate with little to no oversight. Essentially a black-ops for a cyber war.

      That idea makes me squirm. Bad enough so many groups try this already with current laws, I wouldn't want to give that much power to a unmanaged group of people. If you want effective though, that's the way. A Czar is a waste of time really.

    2. Re:New military branch needed by Jurily · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In my view, the position of czar is a joke. Czars are for 19th century Russia and have no place in a modern United States government.

      I see this as a subtle move to start referencing absolute power. Napoleon called himself "First Consul", and then "Emperor of the French Republic" after seizing total control, for a long time, because the public was not ready to go back to monarchy.

      Of course I'm just being paranoid again, and the voters have total control over the government.

    3. Re:New military branch needed by tehdaemon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Czars are for 19th century Russia and have no place in a modern United States government."

      It is worse than that. Czar is nothing more than the slavic/russian version of the word Caesar.

      T

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    4. Re:New military branch needed by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a person who once held a Military Intelligence slot, I want to point out some things. Properly done, MI is all about capabilities, not intentions. That is, MI when it's working right will tell you if a possible enemy has artillery with a 55 mile range or not. Mi done right won't speculate whether the enemy has the intention of aiming it at an adjacent capital city unless the owner announces it, or at least positions it so there are no other targets that would make any sense.
              It's supposed to be up to something called Civilian Oversight to ask the right questions and pick the targets for evaluation. If the civilian government asks if a drone plane Saddam was building could hit New York if launched from the Canadian border, MI will tell them whatever they know of the drone's range, but they won't ask how their supervisor thinks Saddam will get the drone to Ontario. If the civilian oversight asks if there is any known nuke small enough to fit in that drone's cargo compartment, MI will say yes, because the US, the former USSR, and several NATO allies all have such devices.
            If the Secretary of State doesn't ask if Saddam has a third generation pony nuke (or any chance of making one in the next 10 years) before he talks to the UN about them, and jumps to a conclusion (or if he doesn't ask because he already knows the answer is a flat no), then the Civilian Oversight can deliver a report, and MI has no way of knowing if he got some parts of the report from somebody else (NSA maybe) or if he's lying. Then the MI operatives usually take the blame if any of the BS part becomes public.
              If Civilian Oversight decides it's more important to investigate Mexico's submarine warfare progress than to keep an eye on the Chinese, then MI operatives will say "Yes sir, watching the Mexican Navy sir!", even if they think it's a stupid waste of resources. Civilians define who's the foe, not the military.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  9. Czar fetish by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is up with this American love affair with old Russian titles?

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Czar fetish by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, you see, we all have fond memories of playing with mamushka dolls when we were little and...I mean...come on... who honestly doesn't love those things?

      --
      Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
  10. Not really... by artor3 · · Score: 3, Informative

    These "czars" aren't new super-powerful positions being created by facists. They consist of pre-existing positions that have been given a catchy new title (drug czar instead of "head of the drug enforcement agency") and advisory roles (terrorism czar).

    The former already existed. You can't complain about there being a drug czar unless you believe that the DEA has too much power. Of course, they probably do... but that predates the nomenclature used for their leader. The so-called "war on drugs" (which Obama's drug czar want to stop) began a couple decades before that term came into use.

    The latter is simply an advisor to the president. They have no powers that the office of the president does not, nor can they overrule the president in any instance. The president would be taking advice from them anyway. All the title does is recognize that he's taking their advice.

    I know there are a lot of libertarians/anarchists on /., and that's why the "czar" thing always gets pointed at as proof that the *insert currently leading political party here* are a bunch of fascists. But when you actually look at what the "czars" do, you quickly realize that it's entirely in keeping with our democratic republic.

    1. Re:Not really... by longacre · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Obama HAS created new super-powerful positions, for example the new "Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change," aka the Environment Czar, to which he appointed Al Gore buddy Carol Browner. Never in White House history have cabinet members reported to a czar, but today the Secretaries of Energy and Interior, and the EPA Administrator don't report to the President but to a private citizen who has never been vetted by the Senate.

      --
      Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
    2. Re:Not really... by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 3, Informative

      They don't have any of the constitutional powers of cabinet member, why would they have to be vetted by the senate? The president has the constitutional right to chose how, when or if at all to listen to cabinet members. In the end it's merely a slightly higher profile presidential aide.

  11. The difference by bonch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The difference this time is that Obama is a Democrat, so the media will ignore the czar's complete ineffectiveness and never criticize anything he or she does.

    1. Re:The difference by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think you can claim fairly that the Bush administration got a free ride the whole ten years - the first few after Sept 11th, maybe, but not nearly so much by Katrina.
                However, when the Governor of Illinois recently got into trouble, CNN and NBC (both part of what Fox calls the liberal media), ran pieces on it. They both printed a quote from a phone conversation involving the perp, where he essentially said 'Obama's whole staff were Boy-scouts. When he tried to hit Obama up for a kickback through them, they wouldn't offer anything that wasn't totally legal.' Both networks then ran headlines saying Obama had some serious explaining to do. News-flash - when the crook is on tape saying your whole organization is too squeaky clean for his taste, you have no obligation to 'explain' that. Saying to the guy who didn't offer or accept a crooked deal that he has an obligation to explain why the criminal even thought their might be a chance for one is attacking the known victim of an attempted criminal act, just like blaming the victim of an attempted rape for dressing provocatively. So I'll give you your 'viciously hostile'.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  12. I nominate BOFH by linzeal · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am sure he will find away around this so called bureaucracy of yours as he has been doing quite well for himself in the private sector.

    Of course with the new job comes new nomenclature, I present to you ladies and gentlemen the BCCFH (The bastard cybersecucurity czar from hell) and don't worry about assigning him any more power than a normal UNIX sysadmin, he'll get the job done.

    --
    An Education is the Font of All Liberty
  13. I pay my taxes every year, by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...so clearly I'm not qualified to be on Obama's cabinet.

    --
    -Styopa
  14. I vote for Kevin Mitnick by Ouchie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In this type of political postion reputation and personality are as important as your knowledge. Kevin has shown in his legal employment history an aptitude to address cyber security in a way that draws the necessary attention to the issue. His crimial history gives him the legitimacy with both sides of the issue.

    --
    "Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." ~Ozzy Osborne
  15. Re:A no win situation by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh, stop. A Windows "backbone" can be made just as secure by a competent admin as a *nix "backbone" can.

  16. The answer is obvious by mqduck · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cowboy Neal.

    --
    Property is theft.
  17. Doesn't sound so bad actually... by iamdrscience · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd take this job in a second. The position has a track record of failure and thus, expectations are low. This is exactly the kind of job I'm looking for. If you succeed, you're a miracle worker, if you fail, nobody blames you, either way it's not bad. It looks even better when you add in the fact that the pay is good and you have an awesome title. I mean c'mon, you'd be a freaking czar, how many people can legitimately put "Czar" on their resume?

    1. Re:Doesn't sound so bad actually... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      In old country, we shoot Czars. Not to be wanting this, I think.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  18. Re:A no win situation by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think you forgot to include the punchline.

  19. Re:A no win situation by Ektanoor · · Score: 2, Informative

    Really? I remember that Windows NT & Sons had a too classical and nearly eternal flaw, which did not give a chance for a guaranteed secure environment - the internal messaging between progs. I met it a few times and it was really painful.

    Yes Vista & Sons probably have solved this. But after 15 years on Windows I didn't wait for them.

    Besides, you don't make backbones on Windows or *nixes. Anyway you don't use *just* Windows or *nix
    ----

    A backbone admin

  20. Re:A no win situation by BlueParrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh, stop. A Windows "backbone" can be made just as secure by a competent admin as a *nix "backbone" can.

    And you CAN attach wheels to your tower and CRT, hooking it up to lead acid battery and dragging it along behind you, but it is just so much easier to get a laptop...

  21. Re:A no win situation by janwedekind · · Score: 2, Funny

    The impudence of this lie was so strong that it send ripples through space time causing momentary discomfort to a Linus Torvalds in a parallel universe deciding to go out for dinner instead of sending a post about developing an operating system kernel.