Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawmaker Proposes Cyberthreat Sharing Group

Posted by Soulskill on from the planned-uselessness dept.

alphadogg writes "A proposal in the House of Representatives would set up a new semi-independent organization allowing the U.S. government and private companies to share information about cyberthreats, but some critics questioned whether the group would be too removed from congressional scrutiny. The draft proposal (PDF), from Representative Dan Lungren, a California Republican, would create a nonprofit National Information Sharing Organization (NISO) that would serve as the collection and distribution point for cyberthreat information shared among the federal government, state and local governments, private companies and education institutions. NISO would also fund cybersecurity research and development."

5 of 41 comments (clear)

  1. Re:congressional scrutiny by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful
    That's what I wondered. We already have have Fusion Centers that are information hubs for Local, State, and Federal law enforcement. We already have "community outreach" urban snitch partrols sponsored by the police and FBI. We already have private security and P.I.-types doing the "intelligence gathering" and fishing expeditions and typical law enforcement can't get away with doing(yet).

    My best guess is that it's all bullshit to take that 15% DHS funding and funnel it directly into the private members. From the article:

    The proposal is a "positive step" toward a national cybersecurity policy, said Cheri McGuire, vice president of global government affairs and cybersecurity policy at Symantec.

    There you go.

  2. Silly noob, welcome to our world. by subreality · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We've had CERT for a long time.

    1. Re:Silly noob, welcome to our world. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      We've had CERT for a long time.

      Of course.

      And who wants to bet that "cyberthreat" will soon include protection of "intellectual property"? It's no accident that "educational institutions" will also be included in the groups that "benefit" from this new national cyber police force. Will "cyberthreat" include groups of protestors that organize civil disobedience online?

      Any time somebody in Congress comes up with a solution to combat some "threat", my radar goes off. Too many of the "threats" that these people see tend to include us.

      Too much of the national police budget is already focused on things that most of us would not consider "threats" at all. We've got local police forces that are gearing up like Delta Force and collecting information that goes way beyond what most people would consider "law enforcement". I get shivers when I see the kind of heavy armor that is being brought to deal with groups that are much less threatening than your average post-college football game crowd.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Ok, this looks alright by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, this was supposed to be an angry rant about government forming yet another stupid and unnecessary organization, probably designed to crack down on copyright all in the name of "protect the children". Then I read the draft (or, rather skimmed a large part of it), and it actually seems focused an preventing wide-scale attacks on infrastructure and creation of more secure Internet protocols. Seems... alright, although this is, of course, just a draft. Also, it'll never live up to it's promises, but hey, I suppose trying to secure the nation against computer-based attack is laudable.

    It's probably still stupid and redundant, but at least it seems redundant in the right direction, anyways.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  4. Re:congressional scrutiny by rtp · · Score: 2

    "take that 15% DHS funding and funnel it directly into the private members"

    Mod that comment up.

    America (and others users globally benefiting from the Internet) will be much more secure with a distributed ecosystem with many independent groups each working toward assuring their own independent, autonomous security, rather than attempting to pass the buck to yet another outsourced committee operating as a puppet for the federal government. DHS is moving us toward dystopia with all of the federal intelligence and secret police agencies under one roof, rather than distributed to provide the necessary distrust and competition to keep the organizations healthy.

    Federal backing for a clique of "trusted, private-vendor partners" isn't going to raise the bar any better than Darwin's principles will continue to prove out.

    FTA, "Congress needs to act to improve our cyber defenses." Congress should focus on getting their job done, such as managing the federal budget, rather than trying to do the job of others.

    We all need to act to improve our cyber defenses. Congress isn't going to secure your company's server, nor your home PC, nor your data in the cloud.