Tech Industry In Search of Leadership At White House Cyber Summit

chicksdaddy writes: President Obama travels to Stanford University on Friday to join Apple CEO Tim Cook in talking about the need for more private-public sector cooperation to fight cyber crime. But technology industry executives attending the White House Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection complain that a major obstacle to cooperation is a lack of legislative action that clarify the rules of the road for private firms when it comes to sharing information about customers with the government and each other.

The controversy over government surveillance has put the ball in the government's court, said Michael Brown, RSA's Global Public Sector Vice President. "They need to articulate what amount of access to private information is 'appropriate and legal' for law enforcement and the government," Brown said. "It's not just about 'when, where, and how.' They also need to clearly articulate 'why' – for example: this is a matter of public safety and this is the only way we can get this information."

Also on the to-do list, say executives: a re-writing of the 80s-era Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and a federal data breach notification law that creates a consistent, national standard. Currently, 48 states have passed such laws, creating a compliance mess for private firms that discover they have leaked customer data.

Comments

Sharing PII between government and businesses

[CrimsonAvenger]

Saw this in the news earlier.

So, Obama wants software companies to cooperate with the Feds more to help deal with cyber-security issues...

So, anyone else see this as government-mandated backdoors in everything?

Re:Sharing PII between government and businesses

[s.petry]

Fully agree. Where I last worked we lost tons of contracts and customers after the NSA revelations. Anyone in "Cloud" is currently having to build data centers over seas, specifically in the country requesting service. This is not cheap to coordinate or implement, so start ups and smaller companies without loads of capital are screwed currently.

Once again the "summit" lacks real technical expertise and view. CEOs are looking for how to gain from the summit as much as (or more) than trying to fix what is broken and why we have had tremendous dumping of US products and services. The simple truth is that the Government does not need unfettered back door access to every damn piece of data, but will pay our tax dollars to companies that give them access. (Another aspect that screws everyone but the big players).

A new tech leader?

[MagickalMyst]

I nominate Edward Snowden.

Let's do the right thing here - grant him clemency and welcome him home.

Re:A new tech leader?

[LaurenCates]

I would kind of agree with you, but there's also a part of me that thinks he'd get shot the second he found himself in a public area in the US.

How about improving computer security ...

[scruffy]

... instead of hoarding zero-days and working to make our hardware and software more insecure.

im sure the discussion was riveting.

[nimbius]

tech industry: we need guidelines on what we can and cant do
WH: ok, so how about letting users opt out of data collection and tracking entirely
tech industry:JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOURE KILLING US WITH REGULATIONS STALIN. here lets just take it to the courts on a case by case basis.
Antonin Scalia: what the hell is an E-Mail. is that what the kids do now? email? is that why they listen to hip hops?
Clarence thomas: zzZZZzzzzZZZZ
John Roberts: this talking sack of unmarked large bills keeps sending me on vacations when I try to form an opinion.
Stephen Breyer: the cafeteria is out of those little breakfast eggroll things again. who wants lox?

Umm No!

[DarkOx]

"They need to articulate what amount of access to private information is 'appropriate and legal' for law enforcement and the government,"

No I think we the people need to do that. We should get out in front of government by designing systems that keep private information private. The best way to ensure rights like privacy survive is to create a public expectation of it.

Right now the public expects government can just backdoor anything it wants, and THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Why do the laws need to be so different?

[jmcwork]

Is it different if I yell 'Fire' in a crowded movie or if I tweet it? Fifty years ago if the government wanted to monitor communications or get customer records from a company what did they do? If someone hacks my computer and locks up my files for ransom, why is that different from breaking into my home and stealing my file folders? I know there are scale factors: customer records for hundreds vs tens of thousands (or more), breaking into one house at a time vs hacking a million systems with one email, etc. but why does all of this have to be re-invented? It seems like we (government) make it more complicated than it needs to be. Just wondering. (Please do not tell that it is all just different just because it is on a computer. I have been in the business for 30 years, build my own computers, read 2600, etc. so I have some exposure to the field.)

Re:Just use the Slashdot meta-mind

[ShaunC]

Post the current cybersecurity issues faced by the White House

Okay, how about WhiteHouse.gov screws up SSL certificate on same day as Obama cybersecurity summit.