Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DNC Creates 'Cybersecurity Board' Without Any Cybersecurity Experts (techdirt.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the is-there-a-doctor-on-board dept.

An anonymous reader writes from a report via Techdirt: The Democratic National Committee has created a "cybersecurity advisory board" to improve its cybersecurity and to "prevent future attacks." Politico reports: "'To prevent future attacks and ensure that the DNC's cybersecurity capabilities are best-in-class, I am creating a Cybersecurity Advisory Board composed of distinguished experts in the field,' interim DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile wrote in a memo. 'The Advisory Board will work closely with me and the entire DNC to ensure that the party is prepared for the grave threats it faces -- today and in the future.' Members include Rand Beers, former Department of Homeland Security acting secretary; Nicole Wong, former deputy chief technology officer of the U.S. and a former technology lawyer for Google and Twitter; Aneesh Chopra, co-founder of Hunch Analytics and former chief technology officer of the U.S.; and Michael Sussmann, a partner in privacy and data security at the law firm Perkins Coie and a former Justice Department cybercrime prosecutor." What's surprising is that none of these members are cybersecurity experts. Techdirt reports: "If the goal of the board was to advise on cybersecurity policy, then the makeup of it is at least slightly more understandable, but that's not goal. It's to actually improve the cybersecurity of the DNC. Even if the goal were just policy, having someone with actual technology experience with cybersecurity would be sensible."

86 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. DNC cyber security. by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just never write down any dirt.

    See also: Bill Clinton's meeting on the tarmac. That's how serious dirt is done.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:DNC cyber security. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, its about policy as to what will no longer be documented in emails, and how they will proceed with business as usual in the future.

    2. Re: DNC cyber security. by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Unscheduled and unplanned. He almost got away with it, clearly they intended to do it on the sly. SOP

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re: DNC cyber security. by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Airport tarmacs aren't very public. He did, in fact, get away with it. No witnesses, can't prove anything.

      There was no paper trail, do you believe that was a coincidence?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re: DNC cyber security. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      See also: Bill Clinton's meeting on the tarmac. That's how serious dirt is done.

      Completely out in the open where everybody can see they met and speculate on what happened?

      Is this like their murder victims, where the absence of evidence is supposed to demonstrate to us the cunning of their plan?

      No.

      The message was, "SEE, WE'RE ABOVE THE LAW!!!"

      Worked, too.

      Which is why, if you vote for Hillary, you're a fucking fool - you're flushing away the rule of law all because you like the "progressive" things she says.

    5. Re: DNC cyber security. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If nothing else this election has shown how generally we're herded into voting for A or B, where A and B are carefully selected by a few power brokers. The GOP lost control of their election process, and now we have Trump taking a dump on everything Republican. This leaves us with only one realistic choice, because Bernie was railroaded out of the Democratic process.

      And honestly, Bernie was the most viable candidate out of the last few realistically standing. Cruz reminds me of an angry born again cookie monster. Trump is a schizoprhenic bi-polar narcissist. Clinton is... Clinton. Bernie was out there but had some realistic ideas, and his crazier crap would never get by Congress anyways. That's part of Congress's job, after all, to rein in presidents.

    6. Re: DNC cyber security. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why is crime so rampant right across the border in Mexico, or in fact the overwhelming majority of South American Countries?

      The US "war on drugs" is a major contributor.

      Millions of dollars per month go into the hands of drug cartels, and they are typically better equipped than the police---and sometimes the military. Particularly true in Mexico.

      When they expand into human trafficking and extortion because it is as profitable as drugs, well, things get bad in hurry.

      Why are almost all European Socialist countries failing?

      They are not. Some bad ones like Greece have problems, but well-run countries like Iceland and Norway are fine. Socialist policies neither float nor sink the ship. All it does is keep the distribution of wealth within reasonable parameters.

      It would be nice if people didn't starve in the street. And if no one could accumulate enough wealth to manipulate national politics for personal benefit.

      I'm sure you know about the massive unemployment problems in virtually every country in the EU right?

      Most of them implemented austerity measures rather than economic stimulus in response to the recession that started in 2008. As a result, they are recovering much more slowly.

    7. Re: DNC cyber security. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He did, in fact, get away with it. No witnesses, can't prove anything.

      There wasn't supposed to be any witnesses, but there was, which is why we know about it. NORMAL people don't try to hide their activities. However, this is Clinton, and we all know that he isn't the most trustworthy of people. That being said, there are those who are running to his defense, saying ""Can't Prove Anything" as if we were to just stop looking at something suspicious.

      Had this been Trump's kids / family, it would have been all over the MSM Headlines until the election, and those same people who are defending Clinton now, would be frothing at the mouth. Such is politics, and why most NORMAL people are sick to their stomach with American Political Cronyism.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re: DNC cyber security. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Which was stupid on his part. He could have done it like in the old days - just give her a call.
      Maybe he wanted her to assume the intern position first.

  2. All Boards are created Equal by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The point of every board isn't to ever do work. It's just to head up the meetings and organize the allocation of funds to achieve the agenda.

    You might want one technician but management is management. Management is just about allocating your resources to do get shit done.

    Obviously nobody on the board is actually going to get their hands dirty. And boards don't do very much. They will probably meet once a quarter... by phone for an hour. Agree that the consulting firm that they hired is spending the money wisely and then go back to their real jobs.

    1. Re:All Boards are created Equal by ls671 · · Score: 1

      An acquaintance who is a manager once told me that he can manage anything because, well, managing is managing. Another one suggested to me when I was a teen to go study management because, well, managers will always be needed...

      Isn't that a little pretentious and old school like where the boss is the boss, doesn't matter if he is right or wrong or if he knows what he is talking about.

      Seems to me hard to understand how a manager can manage something he doesn't know anything about unless he has skilled technical assistants. But how will he evaluate the skills of his assistants? I suppose if the assistants tell him what he wants to hear, it might help.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    2. Re:All Boards are created Equal by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I agree with it to a certain extent. I think a good manager can probably manage most kinds of organizations, without any specialization. By the same token, it isn't always the case that someone that works up through a specific industry will be able to manage a company within that industry. There's no hard fast rule. As much as anything what counts as far as a good leader goes isn't specific expertise in the areas of business activity he may be put in charge of, but rather he quickly recognizes the people with the skills in the organization who can be tapped to make informed decisions.

      But there's no hard fast rule. I do think some people are just innately good managers and whether it's widgets, iPhone apps or human resources companies, they can probably do a damned good job. By the same token, there are those kinds of managers who overestimate their own abilities, ignore the subordinates and often times seem largely in it for themselves. There are also people who have a lot of experience in a company, but poor people skills or a poor grasp of the bigger picture who, if promoted into management, can make the absolute worst kinds of managers.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:All Boards are created Equal by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What real jobs? They actually do something useful?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:All Boards are created Equal by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You're right. He cannot manage something he doesn't understand. He only thinks he can, and as long as he has people under him that know what they're doing, unlike him, who can compensate for his ineptitude, it will look like he actually can.

      Problem is that in 9 out of 10 times the people under him would actually be better off without him.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:All Boards are created Equal by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      One should always go study work, but because workers will always be needed.

    6. Re:All Boards are created Equal by swb · · Score: 1

      An acquaintance who is a manager once told me that he can manage anything because, well, managing is managing.

      I think successful managers have an esoteric skill set that can transcend their own lack of technical or industry specific knowledge, but the greater the deviation from their specific knowledge the more dependent they are on experts in the organization to interpret technical knowledge (wither it's IT technical knowledge or just specialist knowledge).

      However, I think there's a corollary there where managers who have the technical knowledge can manage poorly because they lack esoteric skills, and they're prone to getting caught up in details and not delegating because they believe their technical knowledge is greater and/or don't believe they can efficiently share their knowledge.

      I do think that managers who claim they can manage anything are basically just making a claim to membership in an organizational aristocracy -- they can manage anything because they are managers and thus can manage. It becomes an appeal to class, not quantifiable skills.

      In reality, most management positions in most organizations are filled by people with experience in their field of management. You would never see a baseball team hire a factory manager to run a baseball team, nor would a factory hire a baseball manager to build widgets.

      Usually the "because I'm a manager" types wind up not "managing" but merely standing in as a totem of authority in groups that are largely self-managing or perform a well-defined task against an external workflow. These managers do well when they limit their role to maintaining basic order, mediating disputes and organizational overhead, but they are prone to fail when they attempt to manage too deep, outside their expertise, without respecting experts.

    7. Re:All Boards are created Equal by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      I think a good manager can probably manage most kinds of organizations, without any specialization. By the same token, it isn't always the case that someone that works up through a specific industry will be able to manage a company within that industry.

      Your statement would be true if and only if there are similar or the same features/aspects of work in those organization because similar rules can be applied (similar management style). If each organization has its own unique aspects to deal with, regardless how good a manager is, he or she will need to learn about the organization first. However, a good manager should be able to learn and adapt to the job faster than average.

    8. Re:All Boards are created Equal by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      seems to me hard to understand how a manager can manage something he doesn't know anything about

      It isn't hard to understand. In fact, there is a whole cartoon series dedicated to exactly this.

      http://www.dilbert.com/

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:All Boards are created Equal by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      He cannot manage something he doesn't understand.

      I disagree, but only to a point. If the person knows they don't know shit, and admits it (humility), can be successful. It is the people who know nothing, but think they are god because their MBA from Prestigious University tells them so, that are dangerous. IMHO a piece of paper is only as good as the first job out of school, though there are those that think it is worth more than this.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:All Boards are created Equal by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Show me one humble manager and I show you a manager that forgot to take his morning line of coke.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Business as usual by Jfetjunky · · Score: 2

    Political officials setting themselves up to regulate things they have zero background knowledge in? Sounds like business as usual to me.

    1. Re:Business as usual by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Political officials setting themselves up to regulate things they have zero background knowledge in? Sounds like business as usual to me.

      If this is "business as usual", then they shouldn't expect the end result to be any different than before.

      Security only works if you get past the political bullshit step of talking about it.

    2. Re:Business as usual by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What a C-level job includes and what qualification someone has who does it are sometimes surprisingly different...

      It all depends on the reason why he got the job. If his last name is suspiciously similar to a director's, you might consider not relying on his expertise.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Business as usual by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They probably don't really expect any different results, but they have done something about it and they didn't burden the process with people who would actually be so insane to actually want to DO anything.

      I.e. Mission Accomplished.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Business as usual by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AC does the US look for the very best top diplomats who speak a useful language and know something of the nation they are to be sent to?
      Often they are politically connected and the top position is a thank you for years of party political support not any useful real world skill set a top diploma would be expected to have.
      Why would "computer" related gov work be any different?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. Not that surprising by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Many chiefs. No tribal members.

    Look, there are two ways to look at cybersecurity:

    1. Most unauthorized access is through social engineering. It can be fixed with training and fewer gullible people. Translation: this is a massive back door that will never be fixed, as those at the top are the worst offenders. And they never follow instructions.

    2. Most methods of providing cyber security involve fixing known prior methods of attack. Polymorphous self-adapting viral code with bootstrap load into the kernel was created in the 1980s, but we still have no real ways of defeating it. Realize most cybersecurity is just closing the barn door after the horses escape. Stop putting all the horses in the barn.

    3. Insert fictional defense method here which will never work in reality, because the PHBs always need a fall guy they can blame for their own security nightmares they created by ignoring advice.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Not that surprising by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2

      Apparently, you don't know too much about designing/administering computer systems security.

      Computer security is more than keeping a system secure from outside attacks. The two results you do not wish to occur in a "breach" is exposure of confidential information, and permanent data loss (sabotage). These forms of security breaches can occur from the "inside".

      Another consideration in designing security in computer systems is workflow. There are a ton of ways to make a set of computers secure, but sometimes the solution would end up crippling the patient.

      Hardening systems is only part of system security. Compartmentalizing access to workgroups is another consideration. There's no reason why a volunteer local office worker needs to access mail systems meant for confidential communications between senior managers. Laptops (& to a lesser extent tablets) are infamous vectors for intrusion, but they can also be managed by limiting their ability to access systems remotely (through VPNs) and credentialing. Finally, metadata monitoring of all computer traffic can be useful in tracking down a breach, as well as intrusion detection systems. Finally, this doesn't mean much if you can't hire enough competent IT staff to manage the entire operation (Which also requires vetting).

      3. Insert fictional defense method here which will never work in reality, because the PHBs always need a fall guy they can blame for their own security nightmares they created by ignoring advice.

      The reality is that most PHBs do operate on a nominal amount of common sense. If you're the security architect, and the PHB doesn't realize they are subordinate to every protocol, then that's the signal to find a new employer. Doesn't help much if you want to work for the Democrat nominee for PotUS.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    2. Re:Not that surprising by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      1. Most unauthorized access is through social engineering.

      Are you suggesting that the russians phone-phished the DNC email server password? Wouldn't the accent give them away?

    3. Re:Not that surprising by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the accent give them away?

      No one would ever complain for fear of being accused of racial profiling.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  5. Typical political do-nothing bullshit by Chas · · Score: 2

    And the politicoes are all stumped as to why people are angry at them and screaming for real change, to the point where people will actually vote for an asshat like Trump...

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Typical political do-nothing bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually doing things eventually leads to racisim. The only thing left is to remain motionless and receive your white privilege lectures.

    2. Re:Typical political do-nothing bullshit by Chas · · Score: 1

      But I consider that rape.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    3. Re:Typical political do-nothing bullshit by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That only matters if you're not a white, straight guy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. A prediction by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    The hiring choices outlined by this article are going to lead to another article at some point in the future, to which I will feel compelled to once again post the comment: "Should have hired me instead, assholes!"

  7. Political elites by EEPROMS · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just the political elites doing what they do irrespective of the skill set of people they are employing. People keep banging on about corruption in some third world nation when corruption is well and truly alive in your back yard.

    1. Re:Political elites by El+Cubano · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just the political elites doing what they do irrespective of the skill set of people they are employing. People keep banging on about corruption in some third world nation when corruption is well and truly alive in your back yard.

      Actually, this is not a political elite mindset thing, it is a government mindset thing.

      About 10 years ago or so I attended a government information assurance (they didn't call it cybersecurity back then) conference. The keynote speaker was a technical high up (maybe CIO, maybe CTO) of one of the three letter agencies. He said to an auditorium full of government information assurance managers something to the effect of, "the federal government is the only large organization that will regularly take people with no technical education, no technical training, and no technical knowledge/experience and put them into the inherently technical role of being responsible for securing information systems." You could hear a pin drop.

      The point is that this sort of thing has been going on forever in the government (a campaign functions in nearly the same way as the government in many respects) for a long time. It makes sense why the government gets hit with so many data breaches. In fact, it was always surprising to me that it didn't happen more often.

    2. Re:Political elites by gtall · · Score: 1

      Not really. It is politicos staffing their board with people that won't step on their crank like Trump. Every two-bit security expert will bring a load of stupid political sensitivities to a job like that. Rather, it makes more sense to hire people who know how politics works and then let them hire the security experts to fix what they see as broken. All the problems are not necessarily technical. This forum is a typical example of what leads to disasters, everyone fancies themselves as technoslaves and hence all the security problems must be technical.

    3. Re:Political elites by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Who are these people who are banging on about corruption in some third world country? Can I get a citation, please? We've got plenty of corruption in the Democratic Party, and every time it gets brought up the topic is changed to the Russians.

      To quote an anonymous coward:
      You've got plenty of corruption in both parties and in government in general. Stop being so bloody partisan. The problem is broad and wide-spread.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  8. Sounds typical by Snotnose · · Score: 2

    A board designed to investigate a technical thing, being staffed by people who are better at raising money and making good sound bites than actually knowing anything about what they're supposed to be figuring out.

    On second thought, erase the word "technical" from that paragraph.

    1. Re:Sounds typical by Dracos · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. This is nothing more than political posturing and theatrics designed to pad the resumes of these board members with cybersecurity "experience" that they can cite to the equally ignorant Senators who will preside over their eventual confirmation hearings.

  9. Typical Government Escalation Kickbackers by adosch · · Score: 1

    This is business-as-usual government foo-bah of putting people they can influence on fictitious, red-tape-induced board to make themselves more paper-tiger worthy down the road.

    Every time I see a bunch of former C[TEIF]O titles on a board, it'll just be a bunch of 'big idea' movement with zero skills and lots of tax payer money going to government contractors who'll milk every penny out of it for medeocre-at-best results. I agree whole-heartedly that there needs to be some real, proven technical people who make up that board --- not the suits. They are good at pushing agendas and this will be nothing more than polticial-career on-the-job training for most of them.

  10. Re:probably... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

    A bunch of cannibals?

    I used to know a guy who would always make reservations under the name of "Donner" because occasionally he'd then get to hear "Donner Party - your table is ready".

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  11. According to NASA by Kohath · · Score: 1

    This is the hottest cybersecurity board on record.

  12. Re:probably... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Funny

    A bunch of cannibals?

    I used to know a guy who would always make reservations under the name of "Donner" because occasionally he'd then get to hear "Donner Party - your table is ready".

    At which point he could exclaim, "It's about time, we're starving!"

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  13. or failing that... by Minupla · · Score: 1

    Even if the goal were just policy, having someone with actual technology experience with cybersecurity would be sensible."

    ... or failing that an 8 year old child.

    --
    On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
  14. Fallacy of MBA management by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    An acquaintance who is a manager once told me that he can manage anything because, well, managing is managing. Another one suggested to me when I was a teen to go study management because, well, managers will always be needed...

    Isn't that a little pretentious and old school like where the boss is the boss, doesn't matter if he is right or wrong or if he knows what he is talking about.

    Seems to me hard to understand how a manager can manage something he doesn't know anything about unless he has skilled technical assistants. But how will he evaluate the skills of his assistants? I suppose if the assistants tell him what he wants to hear, it might help.

    This is one of the fallacies of modern MBA-style management: management is a specific skill that's the same across all industries.

    In it's worst form, it's what gets us CEOs who slash costs and show growth for the first year, then leave with a golden parachute while the company flounders.

    If you study management even a little, you realize that the best managers are expert in their respective fields. This is not to say that software managers must be expert coders, but they need to have in mind the capabilities and limitations of the company products, the tools that the coders use, the current marketing trends, and some ad-hoc guesswork as to where the market is going. And also, they should at least know how to code, if not be an expert at it.

    Consider: Do you think a generic manager could step in and manager a newspaper without intimate knowledge of the newspaper business? How well do you think that company would do if it actually happened?

    Looking at some of Warren Buffet's writings, I note that he has people he trusts that can quickly learn the business and make informed choices that ultimately turn a company around. For example, a troubled company that supplies hardware, his people identified parts that had little profit and were available from other suppliers, as opposed to other parts that had more profit and were unique to the business. That's how he buys distressed companies and turns them around.

    This is not what generic MBA-style managers do: learn the business, go into detail, and make strong decisions that benefit the company.

    Looking at how GE gets vice-presidents, they always hire from within. They take a director and move him over to another department for a couple of years, and see how well he does. Then they move him again, and in a couple of years move him again. Over time, the directors become very well informed about how the business actually works, and anyone who isn't flexible enough to learn and do well in the business gets weeded out.

    GE executives are some of the best managers in the world.

    I've worked with a lot of "plug-in" managers who never seem to know where to go or what to do. They take the opinions of their staff as gospel without adding their own expertise, and serve as a simple buffer between the workers and upper management.

    1. Re:Fallacy of MBA management by ls671 · · Score: 1

      If you study management even a little, you realize that the best managers are expert in their respective fields.

      Did you visit the link I provided? The guy fits the bill and he was indeed a project manager. Of course I agree with what you wrote. I manage stuff that I know about. My head isn't inflated enough to pretend I can manage everything.

      I've worked with a lot of "plug-in" managers who never seem to know where to go or what to do. They take the opinions of their staff as gospel without adding their own expertise, and serve as a simple buffer between the workers and upper management.

      I like to say that those are just overhead.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    2. Re:Fallacy of MBA management by quantaman · · Score: 1

      If you study management even a little, you realize that the best managers are expert in their respective fields. This is not to say that software managers must be expert coders, but they need to have in mind the capabilities and limitations of the company products, the tools that the coders use, the current marketing trends, and some ad-hoc guesswork as to where the market is going.

      The converse is also true, the best managers need to be really good at management.

      I don't mind this cybersecurity board, they don't have the talent to personally implement great cybersecurity, but they have the knowledge to find and evaluate the people who can. (As well as figure out all the important laws and regulations, something a certain Secretary of State could have used).

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:Fallacy of MBA management by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Do you think a generic manager could step in and manager a newspaper without intimate knowledge of the newspaper business? How well do you think that company would do if it actually happened?

      Depends on the manager. A good manager can manage outside their expertise.

      When I was in college, I tutored people. In one case, someone came to me for tutoring in a subject I didn't know anything about. I was able to successfully tutor them, with no knowledge in the field. Of course, in the process of tutoring, I learned lots, but walking someone through the work, asking them to think about the problem, and explain the process to get the answer is the same across most academic subjects. Actually teaching them might have been impossible, but directing their self-study to increase comprehension and retention (thus grades) was doable without any knowledge of the subject.

      My experience with management is the same. Someone could manage outside their expertise, but it'll be harder. Find experts, and trust them. Let them do the work, direct them, without controlling them. Passion, dedication, and expert knowledge will be missing, but the ability to manage doesn't require specific knowledge of the industry.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    4. Re:Fallacy of MBA management by ls671 · · Score: 2

      Of course, in the process of tutoring, I learned lots,

      That's the key point, being able to learn fast and adapt. But then again, doesn't this apply to any activity field and is this in any way specific to management?

      Someone could manage outside their expertise, but it'll be harder.

      Yep, because you would have to learn quickly to be efficient.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    5. Re:Fallacy of MBA management by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      "Consider: Do you think a generic manager could step in and manager a newspaper without intimate knowledge of the newspaper business? How well do you think that company would do if it actually happened?"

      The CEO of my wife's previous company which is the major business newspaper of Norway has no actual understanding of how a newspaper works. He buys stuff, mortgages stuff, he basically just talks to the board and plays golf and buys stuff. He remains successful primarily by buying other media which has a subscriber base and runs them into the ground by siphoning their profits to maintain the core newspaper.

      I believe that since he's been there 15 years, it's extremely likely that a guy who's only real qualification is that he wears a tie can in fact keep a newspaper business running by doing little more than simply approving what the people beneath him say and schmoozing investors. ...

      I actually agree with you about most of what you said, I just wanted to point out that your analogy was flawed as morons run newspapers too.

    6. Re:Fallacy of MBA management by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There are many types of managers. At a high level what's really important are people who understand the logistics of getting stuff done. The MBA part really doesn't apply to most managers. Then there are the low level grunt managers - project managers who get dumped on by everyone else, given the worst projects with no authority. Product managers who don't understand products because they're really salespeople. Middle managers who used to be smaller managers but now are in a holding pattern waiting for an opening in upper management, and they stick around because they've been with the company so long that everyone assumes they're important. Line managers who actually have a team of workers and need to get stuff done. And sales managers who mostly party a lot at conventions.

    7. Re:Fallacy of MBA management by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      This is one of the fallacies of modern MBA-style management: management is a specific skill that's the same across all industries.

      In it's worst form, it's what gets us CEOs who slash costs and show growth for the first year, then leave with a golden parachute while the company flounders.

      An MBA without requisite skills in the field you're managing means you're nothing more than a modern pirate looting the ship.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    8. Re:Fallacy of MBA management by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I've had good Managers, bad managers, expert Managers ,and non-expert managers. There is a VENN diagram of intersections out there somewhere. The problem is, that like most things in life, there aren't absolutes.

      Good Managers: ... They actually are good at direction, and making decisions. These are the people who point the way; give direction and then get out of the way. They make key decisions based on the available information and their best effort. They aren't always right, and they take ownership (and learn) when they aren't. You don't need to be an "expert" in a field to do these things, but it helps.

      Bad Managers: Are driven by the direction of the wind. Whatever way the wind is blowing, that is where they go. Their staff is left rudderless. They make decisions based on "least resistance" or "what the boss wants' regardless of what the results might be. Their staff is directionless, often to the point of paralysis (since the winds change every other moment). An "Expert" bad manager, doesn't use his/her expertise to give guidance because it is irrelevant to their decision making tree. "The boss wants everyone to have the same password, so that is what we are going to do". They don't believe they deserve to be in that position, and thus are in fear for their jobs constantly.

      Someone could manage outside their expertise, but it'll be harder.

      Of course it is harder, because it often comes with a learning curve. And while they may not be an "Expert", they at least become proficient enough to understand the experts in the expert's own nomenclature.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Fallacy of MBA management by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there are two parts here:
      1) Management is a separate skill, and you need to be skilled at it to be a good manager.
      2) Management of a particular area requires knowing the area.

      So. In principle a good manager can manage anything...but if he doesn't already know the area it's going to take him a long time to get to know it. Upper management probably *IS* nearly the same everywhere. Everywhere they go they're managing managers who are managing managers. As you get "nearer to the metal" detailed knowledge becomes more important. And when you're directly managing subject experts you really need to know the area well. Not necessarily well enough to do the job, but well enough to properly evaluate what's being done, where the problems are, and what the problems are.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:Fallacy of MBA management by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Upper management probably *IS* nearly the same everywhere. Everywhere they go they're managing managers who are managing managers.

      That's one way of seeing it. OTOH at that level they're also responsible for long term strategy. The stuff that determines if you're even there as a large company 3-5-10-15 years from now (depending on the field). And that's not easy (in fact its so difficult that most don't do it) and turning around a ship that size isn't easy either, so you have to stay ahead of the game.

      So I'm not sure. I think that even at that level you have to know the business. Now, is that 90% of the work? No, it's more like 2%. The other 98% they're busy doing administration like all other managers, only on a higher level. But those 2% are not 2% of the value they bring to the table. More like 50%... (Or some such).

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    11. Re:Fallacy of MBA management by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Upper management may be responsible for strategy, but they shouldn't be the strategist. They should know and be able to evaluate the strategist. The strategist DOES need to know the subject area well...as well as the lowest level of manager, and over a much wider area of what the company does. It shouldn't be a part time job of someone who also manages the company.

      Now clearly, everything I've said only applies if there are multiple layers of management. And the important part is how far is top management (as in layers of management) from the actual work. It's the actual work that is primary, without it the company couldn't exist. Without management the company wouldn't last a month, but without those who do the work it wouldn't last a day. And that is how you determine what the actual work of the company is.

      For an analogy, your brain is important, but your blood and mitochondria do the work. This doesn't imply that you can exist without a brain, and it doesn't imply that the liver and kidneys aren't important. It doesn't imply that you would be you without your brain. But it's the mitochondria (and blood) that do the work.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:Fallacy of MBA management by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      ... , and serve as a simple buffer between the workers and upper management.

      If all they did was be a buffer between the workers and "upper", that would be very important. It might be enough to justify their job. I have been caught there and I did not like it much.

      As long as there were other people that could do the tech leading...

  15. No, sorry. by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Did you visit the link I provided? The guy fits the bill and he was indeed a project manager. Of course I agree with what you wrote. I manage stuff that I know about. My head isn't inflated enough to pretend I can manage everything.

    Actually, I didn't. I honestly thought it was part of your sig, and didn't think it was relevant to your text. Sorry about that.

    Maybe weave the link as part of text as a reference to a position, or refer to it in the text?

  16. Democrat party leaders show their competence by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don'tcha just feel good knowing how well Hillary will be keeping the nation secure when you cast that ballot?

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    1. Re:Democrat party leaders show their competence by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Just have everyone send emails through private email servers. Problem solved.

    2. Re: Democrat party leaders show their competence by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Hey, we're getting Mexico to pay for the wall. Its still a bargain. /s

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  17. Made in the USA by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    And the politicoes are all stumped as to why people are angry at them and screaming for real change, to the point where people will actually vote for an asshat like Trump...

    Given Clinton's recent hiring practices and campaign staff, maybe we should just be happy that she hired Americans and leave it at that.

    1. Re:Made in the USA by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, she did, and look at what duds she chose.

      See? We NEED more H1Bs!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Re:probably... by sconeu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Donner, party of 8, Donner?
    [pause]
    Donner, party of 7, Donner?
    [pause]
    Donner, party of 6, Donner?
    [pause]
    Donner, party of 5, Donner?

    etc...

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  19. Headline next week... by otaku244 · · Score: 2

    "DNC emails leaked regarding insiders' placements on DNC Cybersecurity Advisory Board. The DNCCAB releases statement, 'It depends on your definition of hacking.' Nude photos of Clinton found among the leak which boost her in polls by 75%. Trump tried to counter by leaking his own sex tape, but the effort tanked because no one wanted to hear him dirty talk Chris Christy."

    ... if any of the above headline becomes true, the terrorists have won

    --
    Mod me down, I shall become more off-topic than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:Headline next week... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Trump tried to counter by leaking his own sex tape, but the effort tanked because no one wanted to hear him dirty talk Chris Christy."

      I would love to see the word gymnastic necessary from his spokesmen and supporters about how that shows how strong a leader he would be for this country.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  20. Re:Exactly. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    And that's useful ... in what way exactly? Basically these people are superfluous and if capitalism worked they'd have been eliminated a long time ago.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. How about an ethics board? by Punto · · Score: 1

    Or a personal responsibility board? Of course they don't need any actual cybersecurity experts, this is only to distract from the fact that they broke the rules by pointing the finger at someone else. They don't need this board to do anything, it's just for the press release

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

  22. Typical by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    This is what you get when you spend your life in management as opposed to doer-ship. They probably look at doers as some kind of alien species of human being they have no contact with or understanding of. "Hey, Donna (says Hillary), do you or anyone you know actually have contact with someone who can actually DO something in this area (or any area)? No? Me neither. Let's call a bunch of supporters and contributors with good sounding backgrounds. That'll have the "optics" we need.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  23. It's telling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... advise on cyber-security policy ...

    The addition of lawyers to a bunch of C-level managers is very telling. This group will advise others what policies can and can't be implemented, who in turn will advise others what mechanisms can and can't be installed, who in turn will tell somebody to make the bloody (security) thing work.

  24. Politicians doing what politicians do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Politicians, regardless of political party, will always perform their duties as politicians so it is no surprise that they create rules committees and advisory boards and fill the positions with politicians. It's what they do. Much of the time it's just for show to make it appear like they are doing something and that they "care" about the topic or crisis at hand. The advisory board will hold meetings, travel around the country to investigate things, make speeches and ultimately release a statement filled with lots of professional sounding words that really don't say anything or make any impact on the topic they were created for. In the end, they will all pat themselves on the back for a job well done and the public will feel satisfied because "at least they DID something about the problem" and everyone will move onto the next "we need to DO SOMETHING about this problem" crisis.

  25. Yes, but these are lawyers, what more do you need? by sabbede · · Score: 2
    "That's illegal, don't put it in a memo. Someone might leak or steal it"

    See? They only need lawyers.

  26. Surprise by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

    What's surprising is that none of these members are cybersecurity experts.

    Not surprising to me. The DNC and their members create economic policies with no understanding of economics. They put people in charge of justice with no understanding of justice. They put people in charge of foreign policy who are incompetent in dealing with foreign policy issues.

    So this is just what they do - meddle in things they know nothing about.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  27. Tying to solve the impossible. by kgroombr · · Score: 1

    No doubt they are not cybersecurity experts. They are attempting to solve the impossible: "Preventing future attacks." The attacks will continue. They need to change the goal to be "Prevent successful attacks." Until the problem has been correctly defined, it will not be solved.

  28. Does Not Compute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Change definition of DNC to Does Not Compute.

  29. Algore to the rescue by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Why don't they hire Algore - the man who invented the Internet to head this group? He'd have 2 great things going for him:

    • - He invented the Internet, so should have full knowledge of all Internet security protocols, such as IPSEC
    • - From what I can tell, he's been neutral, or at least quiet in the Hilary vs Bernie Democrat Civil War. So he'd be the best person to investigate all this
  30. OH YEAH?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I guess the democrats couldn't let Trump have the upper hand having an economic board with no economists.

  31. Results don't matter by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Only intentions are important in the DNC. And then there's the whole "experience" issue. If we're supposed to vote for Hillary because she has experience, this blows that out of the water. But then again, it doesn't matter, results don't matter, as long as they are in charge.

  32. Re: probably... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, they usually just shoot people that leak emails.

  33. Maybe the article didn't make it very clear... by Keiran+Halcyon · · Score: 1

    There are no cyber security experts on the panel because nobody owed any favors to any cyber security experts that could have been called in to get an appointment to the board. The skill set of the candidates in question never came into play.

  34. Damage control by Shadow+IT+Ninja · · Score: 1

    Actually, it seems to me that the makeup of this board is geared towards damage control and being able to sue whoever hacks them. One of the big picture items from Edward Snowden's leak is that, not only does the NSA believe that the best defense is a good offense, they believe that many aspects of cyber defense are hopeless. Clinton, of all people, would know this so the DNC may well have concluded that they can't avoid being hacked so they have decided to be ready to clean up when it happens.

  35. DNC's response to security risk... by dbreeze · · Score: 1

    ..., lawyer up.

    --
    When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
  36. Too critical. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Just look at the impressive people they hired! Wouldn't you be scared if you were a hacker?

    All it is about anymore. Appearances. No substance.

  37. Real experts won't use the word "cyber" by wad4ever · · Score: 1

    At least, I never hear the word used in association with securing data, networks, servers, etc. But maybe the companies I work for are all weird or something?

    --
    --- wad
  38. Typical government carap... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Nothing new here! It is typical government bullshit: Put friends and family in charge, regardless of the potential to further break a system!

    HEAR THIS: It is IMPERATIVE that fully qualified people need to run regulatory, or ANY other, agencies.

    Non-qualified persons in a job ALWAYS make matters worse. Period.
    Just because you are an activist does NOT make you qualified! You are likely just looking for a bandwagon to jump on. GET THE FACTS, PLEASE!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.