Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

White House Hires a New Cybersecurity Boss

Posted by samzenpus on from the who's-in-charge dept.

TheGift73 writes "Last week, longtime chief Howard Schmidt stepped down. He's been replaced by Michael Daniel, who's been in the Office of Management and Budget's national security division for 17 years. What does that mean for the future of the cybersecurity issue? Probably that we can expect his knowledge of the intelligence community to play a part in not just tracking down hackers, but determining the lines that need to be crossed with future SOPA-like bills. So while this sounds like a relatively nondescript appointment, Daniel will almost definitely be a major player the next time someone comes for your internet."

20 comments

  1. Guess i didn't get the job... by who_stole_my_kidneys · · Score: 0

    :-P

  2. Same Story? by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 0

    WTF am I missing here? Isn't this the same fucking story? And, to make it to the front page?

  3. Re:In November, Romney reigns supreme by msailors · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hi, you must be new here. And by here I mean America.

  4. Big surprise by Sparticus789 · · Score: 2
    Another faceless bureaucrat put in charge of something to which he has a vague comprehension. So if he worked national security for OMB, does that mean he is an accountant that finds terrorists?

    I'm sure Al-Qaeda is shaking in their boots. "Please don't audit me!"

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:Big surprise by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Al-Qaeda is shaking in their boots. "Please don't audit me!"

      If he worked for the IRS than that would truly be a terrifying prospect.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    2. Re:Big surprise by davester666 · · Score: 1

      No, he'll try to infiltrate their organization by offering to help fill out their tax forms.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Big surprise by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Another faceless bureaucrat put in charge of something to which he has a vague comprehension. So if he worked national security for OMB, does that mean he is an accountant that finds terrorists?

      I'm sure Al-Qaeda is shaking in their boots. "Please don't audit me!"

      Would you prefer a political appointee who comes in due to nepotism, or to appease some political allies?

      I'm not saying this guy isn't necessarily one of those things, but being in the "Office of Management and Budget's national security division for 17 years" doesn't mean he doesn't know cybersecurity. In general if a faceless bureaucrat gets appointed to an important position I'd expect it's because they're damn good at it.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:Big surprise by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      In general if a faceless bureaucrat gets appointed to an important position I'd expect it's because they're damn good at it.

      You obviously have not worked for the US government.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
  5. Great, more 'bosses' and 'czars' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I confess a lack of well-versedness with the subtleties of Presidential privilege, but I can't shake the feeling that the appointment of these "bosses," "czars," and other authority figures is somehow an attempt at an end-run around rule of law, similar to the way the FCC can impose restrictions, levy fines, and carry out other actions without Congressional approval.

    Convenient timing, too, what with SOPA crashing and burning and ACTA looking like its fate is grim.

    If this is going to be a regular thing, can we at least mandate that for every new "czar" appointed, some other official gets shitcanned? I nominate John S. Pistole for next pink-slip recipient.

    1. Re:Great, more 'bosses' and 'czars' by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      similar to the way the FCC can impose restrictions, levy fines, and carry out other actions without Congressional approval.

      Congress pre-approved the FCCs actions by law. They're welcome to revise their law to not give away so much of their power, but then they'd have to waste their time on mundane day-to-day shit about running the country rather than making themselves look like heroes to their constituents by passing laws against terrorists and pedophiles while grandstanding on abortions, flag burning, gay marriage, etc.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  6. Re:In November, Romney reigns supreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Replacing Socialist Morons with greedy Imperialist morons? Great! We're pretty screwed either way.

  7. CISPA by CanEHdian · · Score: 2

    Howard Schmidt was critical of CISPA in public. Goodbye, Howard. Notice how he isn't yet picked up by neither RIAA or MPAA? TFA sums it up best to what Michael Daniel's job will be: "determining the lines that need to be crossed with future SOPA-like bills."

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  8. Re:In November, Romney reigns supreme by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    yes that may be true but hey at least Romney is not against you getting paid for the "privilege". Im just waiting for folks MY AGE to start getting these government spots (since im at the age where we at least grew up with some "internet" stuff )

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  9. Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose it's just a coincidence that this story came out right before this one:

    http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/05/21/134232/ask-slashdot-best-way-to-monitor-traffic

  10. Wait a second.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't we call them "Tzars" anymore??

  11. This is what happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA won the turf war.