Slashdot Mirror
Presidential Candidate John Delaney Wants To Create a Department of Cybersecurity (theverge.com)
On Tuesday, former Maryland representative and 2020 presidential candidate John Delaney announced a plan to create a Department of Cybersecurity that "would be led by a cabinet-level secretary who would be in charge of implementing the United States' cybersecurity strategy," reports The Verge. "The proposal is the first major cybersecurity push from any presidential candidate so far this cycle." From the report: In a press release, Delaney argued that the U.S.'s cyber authorities are spread too thin across too many agencies. This new agency would work to streamline the country's current approach. "Securing our cyber-infrastructure is not only a national security priority, it is an economic one as well," Delaney said. "In light of the many recent and continued cyberattacks on our country, we need to establish a cabinet-level agency to focus on protecting our cyberspace."
Currently, the cybersecurity responsibility is scattered across a number of agencies, with Homeland Security handling threats to civilian agencies, US Cyber Command dealing with military cyberattacks, the FBI prosecuting federal and international cybercrime, and a string of ISACs coordinating private sector actors alongside government agencies. In the past, the White House has appointed a cybersecurity coordinator, or "czar," to work across those agencies, but President Trump eliminated the position in May 2018, leaving no single person or agency in charge of leading the country's cybersecurity efforts.
Currently, the cybersecurity responsibility is scattered across a number of agencies, with Homeland Security handling threats to civilian agencies, US Cyber Command dealing with military cyberattacks, the FBI prosecuting federal and international cybercrime, and a string of ISACs coordinating private sector actors alongside government agencies. In the past, the White House has appointed a cybersecurity coordinator, or "czar," to work across those agencies, but President Trump eliminated the position in May 2018, leaving no single person or agency in charge of leading the country's cybersecurity efforts.
... Cybersecurity invites YOU to their Department. =)
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
You want to vote for this guy, or someone creating a Space Force?
Besides, Trump already issued a National Cyber Strategy, and there is already a joint military Cyber Force.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Who?
That word has been abused and overused for the last three decades and has lost all its meaning.
any of these people to make decisions on "cyber security"?
I'd hire back-hat hackers and under-20's to deal with this problem if I was truly serious about addressing this issue.
Could you imagine anyone in congress to understand the nuances involved in this, at all?
Just asking?
The NSA has that hat and likes that responsibility.
What happens when some other group starts implementing real US domestic cybersecurity?
No more plain text collect it all and what was PRISM?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Finally, we will have an agency that will ensure that our cybersecurity policies do not disproportionately affect women, minorities, underserved gender groups, or other victims of white manhood.
I thought the NSA already was charged with this. Wasn't the whole reason for the NSA is to manage communications security in the first place? In 1952.
Unless you somehow also give them legal control over the computer systems of all other departments, it won't help protect government information. You can't expect security when your software is essentially legislated through appropriations. As for private security, it would be much simpler to legislate around fines and penalties for breach and let the market handle the problem.
I'd hire back-hat hackers and under-20's to deal with this problem if I was truly serious about addressing this issue.
That's close but wouldn't really fix things...
Instead, anyone with a specific degree of hacking ability would automatically gain a UBI of $250k a year an immunity from all drug and prostitution laws.
Let the really good hackers take themselves out of the game through victory.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Who is John Delany?
He's right, we really need some sort of department or agency to ensure our cybersecurity. Nay, not just cybersecurity but our security in general. It would need to protect not just the government but the whole nation. Yes, that's it! We need a national security agency!.... Wait a second... ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
You want to vote for this guy, or someone creating a Space Force?
Besides, Trump already issued a National Cyber Strategy, and there is already a joint military Cyber Force.
Pfft! It's all hot air from Trump. Nothing is actually being done.
He said he was going to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure. Not happening and I'm still dodging pot holes on my way to work.
He said he was going to replace Obamacare with something better and ...nothing.
In the meantime, he's going nuts over the stupid wall that will not slow the drug problem in this country. Why? Because the drug problem - opioids - are made in the Good ole US of A and the Sackler family(Purdue pharma) is raking in billions.
The tax cut was just crumbs for us little people and I enjoyed writing that $2700 to the IRS yesterday.
You know, when Trump took office, he got a Republican controlled Congress. They could have passed a REAL tax overhaul - Fair Tax, Flat Tax ...whatever. Instead they made some minor cosmetic changes to the 1040, gave HUGE tax cuts to the millionaires and billionaires and gave us little people crumbs.
Of course, the red trucker hat wearing morons think he's doing a great job.
Does this madness end? Government will not take care of these problems. This is just so someone can have a job without doing much of anything (see Homeland Security, Education, Labor, HHS, etc).
I'd prefer we create a "Department of Science and Technology". So, so many of our politicians are completely ignorant about technology issues facing our country; cybersecurity is only one of them. Climate change, nuclear power, net neutrality, rare earth metals, space travel, and the opioid crisis are just a few of the many, many science and technology issues that our executive branch needs to weigh in on every day. Having a cabinet level position that advises our president on these important issues would pay dividends.
And then I would take the EPA, FCC, NASA, and the NSF, as well as create a Cybersecurity agency, and make them all managed under DST.
I think this makes a lot of sense. However, it needs to be part of all the other security departments such that no agency has access to everything. I would simply see this as a cybersecurity group that manages threats internally and externally using primarily budgets out of the existing law enforcement agencies. Give it a cabinet level position, and require the person in charge of it be someone who background is specific for cyber security threats.
What the fuck else do we need? He does all of that cyber shit.
The reason that cybersecurity has become a part of so many agencies' charters is that it is a problem which requires horizontal alignment across so many agency verticals. Except for intelligence fusion, it doesn't make sense to create some apex authority. This seems like a budget grab and a "bigger government" strategy. We already have multiple coordinating and cooperating agencies that have steadily effected improved outcomes already. The only outcome of an additional layer of bureaucracy is less effective outcomes.
It's like socialism...more is better! We already have the TSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, NSA and on and on and on! No more governmental BS that will do nothing but trash what rights we have left, become over budget and on and on!
The hacking of US companies by China and others but China especially has been known for decades now. Let me say that again, US companies knew that they were being hacked by the Chinese and trade secrets stolen. However, even knowing this they specifically refused to cooperate with the US government on cracking down on the Chinese. Why you ask? Simple. They have billions of dollars at stake in Chinese investments in China and they didn't want the Chinese government to kick them out by way of retaliation for embarrassing them or making trouble. As long as US companies refuse to cooperate with the US Government on cybersecurity because they don't want to lose money, the problem cannot be solved technically because at that point it's not a technical problem but a geopolitical and economic problem. Security problems aren't a thing because nerds don't know how to implement security, they're a problem because the people with the money don't really want security, because it's inconvenient for them, and they sure as hell don't want to pay for it.
President Trump eliminated the position in May 2018
What was the reason for this? I read the article, it just said to reduce bureaucracy. That's bullshit, what was the actual reason?
That will not go well with the old National Security Agency. Better reform that and the rest. Having another overlapping agency is useless.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Another shiftless bureaucracy to weigh down the country with idiotic regulations and still more debt. What will they do for cybersecurity? Nothing.
then we can have a Cyber-Tzar... followed by a war on Cyber-crime. Yay America!
...for nothing in return... an agency that will produce nothing and basically protect nothing, hiring high $$$ private consultants from political friends
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
Thanks for clearing up your qualifications.
The concept of a cabinet has been long since lost by having too many departments.
Now if you had a plan to cut it in half, that would be interesting.
I knew this John Delaney guy was a Democrat instantly because of the desire to grow the government in a completely unnecessary way.
We have the NSA, that's all you need.
- Alex
... but that's an unworkable conflict of interest, when large parts of the government have the remit of not trying to aid in security, but instead exploit a lack of security to meet their mission.
After all, isn't Ft. Meade the fricken largest employer in Maryland? If not, it's got to be in the top three.
One or two of the agencies mentioned would be integrated into the new department, but not all of them. The military isn't giving up Cyber Command to a non-military department and the FBI isn't going to stop going after criminals that happen to use computers. If the agencies are uprooted they will be replaced eventually.
This is essentially the xkcd solution to the standards problem applied to the government...
I don't like the term, but in government the term is cyber.
Twenty years in information security here. I will never call it "cyber", unless I'm talking about something government related. The guy putting together a $450 million federal contract for infosec is doing a cyber contract.
A basic concept here: If you are concerned with security, then why are you connecting infrastructure to the Internet in any way? Use your own fiber, don't let others tap into it, and then, security becomes about ways to keep people from illegally tapping into that fiber, which is NOT there for the use of the public. Military....nope, no Internet, power, traffic, you name it, don't connect these things to a network that is going to be open to hacking attempts. You can place SOME systems on the Internet for public access, but those would be on a different network. There is ZERO reason to allow infrastructure networks to be on the Internet in any way, access from home should even be seen as VERY rare, and should require a special network cable be run.
We know how incompetent politicians are when it comes to technology, look at Clinton, Trump, and all of these other people who have ZERO clue about security giving access to friends and family members. So, take that away, make people take security seriously, and stop trying to make things "convenient" for these technically incompetent idiots.
And in one policy proposal, John Delaney has showcased he knows nothing about how the federal government works. I could write a thesis about all the reasons this wouldn't work/achieve the goal and just end up wasting money but the bottom line of it all boils down to:
At best this department would have all the responsibility with zero authority to do anything. At worst they'll somehow usurp authority and force blanket one size fits all requirements onto everyone and when they're wrong everybody is screwed.
Or maybe you've already forgotten the last 3 years. It's not like the CyberSecurityCzar was doing a bang up job or that the alphabet soup would even listen to him.
Who was momentarily excised at the idea John de Lancie might be running for President? Q for President! Oops, wrong John...
He wants Chinese style censorship to make sure his party doesn't ever look silly on the internet again.
Did you think Trump was a Democrat when he proposed Space Farce?