Slashdot Mirror
Cybersecurity Czar Job Is Useless, Says Spafford
Trailrunner7 writes "It's been about seven months since Obama announced his plan to hire a cybersecurity coordinator, and the job is still vacant. Several prominent security experts have turned the position down, and in an interview on Threatpost, Purdue professor Gene Spafford says that the position is pointless. 'It won't have any statutory authority. It won't have any budgetary authority. That does not give it much authority of any kind. So when I hear that there are supposedly people who have been interviewed for this cyber coordinator job and didn't take it, I'm not surprised. It's not a winning position. I'm not at all surprised by the fact that it's empty. That position is a blame-taking position,' Spafford said."
I wonder if the draconian disclosure requirements imposed on people seeking to work for the administration have contributed to the difficulty in filling it? I looked at some of what they wanted to know on their job application during the transition. Among other things they want to know every single handle that you've ever used online, every single website that you've posted on, whether or not you own firearms, whether or not you've ever been involved in an automobile accident, what political advocacy organizations you belong to, etc, etc, etc.
Now I understand the desire to protect the President from embarrassment (wouldn't want to wind up with a treasury secretary that can't properly compute his own taxes....) but it seems to me that they've gone a bit overboard. I would never apply for a job that wanted to know that much about me. It's simply none of their business. I'm sure many others feel the same way. Why put up with that bullshit, particularly when you can make more money in the private sector and not have to worry (as much) about politics or being someone's scapegoat?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Anyone else (unemployed and looking like me) feel like a disturbing portion of the job market is constituted of 'blame taking positions'?
It's probably paranoia, but I feel like the businessworld is composed of corrupt people who will lie and bullshit, and then the poor saps that get stuck with the 'blame taking positions'.
In my youth, I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types. Now that I've witnessed the naked annihilation of even the illusion of capitalism, via the bank bailouts... I just have no real hope that there is any way to make a living without either being one of those bullshitters, or poor blame taking saps. I guess the honorable thing is to just accept a sequence of blame taking jobs, and survive and get fed until we see a better age.
Yes, the media is just dying to know about the Slashdot posting history of the future Cybersecurity Czar. That also doesn't explain some of the other questions they ask -- like the gun ownership one.
Anyway, you missed my point, which was simply that these types of disclosure requirements can't help but have a chilling effect on recruitment. You've already got one strike against you in that you probably can't compete with the private sector in regards to salary. Add another strike for the crazy hours and possibility of having to fall on your sword to protect your political bosses. I'm sure having to tell your potential future employers about your jilted ex-lovers and /. username qualifies as a strike three.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The assertion that this is a 'blame taking' job is unfounded, that it doesn't have statutory or budget authority is peripheral to what the role should be, and frankly somewhat insulting that the umbrage taken with it by 'the experts' is that it's a role that has no teeth.
It's a job where the President consults you for your opinion and takes action based on your advice. Boo hoo you don't have any authority or a budget. Any consultant that is hired on to a tech firm is in the same boat.
Also, yeah, I can understand why many security people have turned this job down. Because they're more interested in money than civil service -- how the hell is that a surprise?