It's just been a few short months since a proposed bill called for the creation of a
National Cybersecurity Advisor, but it looks like there's now not one but two new positions in the offing, with both the Pentagon and President Obama himself announcing plans for some newly elevated offices charged with keeping the nation's networks secure. While a specific "Cybersecurity Czar" hasn't yet been named, the White House position will apparently be a member of both the National Security Council and National Economic Council and, in addition to coordinating U.S. response in the event of a major attack, the office will also be tasked with protecting privacy and civil liberties. Details on the new Pentagon office, on the other hand, are expectedly even less specific although, according to
The New York Times, it'll be a military command that will work to coordinate efforts now scattered across the four armed services, and will apparently serve as complement to the civilian office in the White House.
Read - Reuters, "Obama to name White House cybersecurity czar"
Read - The New York Times, "Pentagon Plans New Arm to Wage Cyberspace Wars"
[Thanks, Ryan]
posted May 29th 2009 3:51PM
BOOO OBAMA
Very insightful. Thanks for that.
I too don't like Obama, but -1.
Obama: Biden, what did that mouthy cyber-commentator just say to me?
Biden: Uh, he said "beaux" Obama.
Obama: Excellent.
The Czar, with Obama and his corporate take overs we're sounding more and more like old Soviet Russia every day.
In Soviet America......
Let me guess... We are all going to buy Apple computers...
AHAHAHAHAH!!!
They are booing me Biden!
No sir, they are saying Obooooooma
Where you saying booo or Oboooooma?
booooooo!
Obama + NY Times = Ultimate FAIL
why would you Booo ?? you think your an uber Hacker and the MAn might try to stop your fun ? haha im sure they'll have better things to do bucko
Cyber Czar? What the fuck are we? Communist now?
The fall of the Czars lead to communism...think about it.
Actually, the rise of communism lead to the fall of the czars, but I only nitpick because I actually paid attention in class.
Socialism is the new communism. Since that's wear were heading... (extends arm out strait with hand flat marching) ugh.
Semantics. My point is still valid. It is an Association fallacy. Even if it has some merit, calling someone communist automatically makes me think of Godwin's law.
I'm not sure John but that much thought into it. I think he just saw a Russian word and panicked.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
Can I has American Cheeseburger?
Actually the USA has quite a few "Czars".
We have a
War Czar,
Terrorism Czar,
Drug Czar,
Porn Czar.
We pretty much have Czar for anything to trip up the average Slashdot reader.
Never ever heard of the Drug Czar, really guys?
And a few tsarina's, or is it tsarinas, point is don't be so sexist or it's of to siberia with you.
Oh, look... another non voter appointed official operating with all the authority of the white house, yet none of the oversight from the judicial or legislative branch.
And people said Bush was an Orwellian nightmare. He was a rank amateur compared to this guy, and we aren't even 6 months in yet.
But remember Obama has a Blackberry and a YouTube channel, so he's gonna be the coolest geek president evah!
He is soooo one of us. /s
Look, I'm not Obama sympathizer, but it really disappoints me to see people opposing this. With each passing year, cybersecurity becomes more and more important and it seems to me that we've completely dropped the ball in defending our "cyber shores," if you will. We've needed something like this for years, in my opinion. I'm surprised that people who are technically proficient enough to visit sites like Engadget don't understand how devastating it could be without proper cyberdefense. Stolen classified info, infrastructure attacks of a wide variety(electric, water, air traffic control, etc etc), or worse, all from someone in China with a computer and an internet connection. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Over/under on how long it takes the "Cybersecurity Czar's" role to be extended to cover "Monitoring pirated copyright materials".
Yet they're going to use this to sniff out people's personal lives instead of catching terrorists because they make more publicity with them. Give a person unchecked power and you're screwed.
Uhm, with all due respect, while I understand your fear perhaps you haven't read the US constitution? Presidential appointment of individuals has always been a part of the balance of powers. We can of course argue specifics but to act like the president appointing an individual somehow goes against the design parameters of our political system would be at best fallacious and at worst political hackery...
@giantenemycrab
There's a good deal of difference between a government official securing the government's network and the entire nation's network. I'm fine with this the extent of this person's authority ends outside the public domain; however, if it reaches into the private sector then that is going too far.
And I see no reason to believe that the policies this person will be allowed to implement will not extend to the private citizen.
@Look_Around_You,
He also has a Flickr channel: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/
"tasked with protecting privacy and civil liberties" of organizations. Not the taxpaying public.
You mean, there's another position for Americans other than "bend over?" What do you know. No party is a saint. They're all the same. Same plan, different label.
Equips [Tin Foil Hat]
"...the office will also be tasked with protecting privacy and civil liberties." What and how they can protect, means they can easily gain access to without just cause. But you know, only for your protection.....
I saw this on the news and if he thinks a Czar (or team) can really "secure" the internet, then he is truly delusional. Just wait, pretty soon they will be censoring the inter---
[Message Edited by Cybersecurity Czar]
@ SpaceGoatPriest
That's an awesome name.
Uhh. Wingnuts are out in force today. I'm surprised that anyone would oppose this. Wasn't it just last month that some sensitive blueprints from some secret, high tech fighter jet were stolen by Chinese hackers? I would think that even Obama's harshests critics would agree that we need better cybersecurity.
I agree we should have better protection, but really what is this "czar" going to do if we catch a hacker in say a country that we don't have an extradition treaty with.
Right now I am more concerned about North Korea testing nuclear weapons and missiles. They are not "supposed", so what is our fearless leader going to do to stop that. Go sit down and have talks with a man that obviously does not give a crap about the "rules" that apply? I never could understand why we play by the "rules" when our enemies could care less about the "rules" of war. But at the same rate following the "rules" probably makes us more human.....lose/lose situation.
@SpaceGoatPriest
You make a very good point. The whole following the rules of war thing is a very big broad idea that can be hard to grasp, especially as it applies to dealing with 4G warfare. There are a lot of points to consider when it comes to things like the Geneva Conventions and following restrictive ROE. It was something I always wondered about in college myself and I heard plenty of arguments about it in different classes (pre and post 9/11). It wasn't until OCS that I was given the best explanation. 1) We follow the rules simply because it separates us from them. For us this is important. Yes, we are violent, efficient killing machines. We roll through places and knock down or blow up anything in our path and zip anything with a weapon that so much as flinches (as long as the ROE calls for that at least). At the same time we are professional warriors. The Army does a better job of overstating this constantly but it is something that is prevalent in all branches. Part of our core values taught from the very beginning were Integrity and Justice. Following the rules of war are part of this. Even if it may cost us sometimes, what we earn in respect from our allies (and more importantly, our enemies) is worth more. This applies even at the diplomatic level. Besides sometimes the threat of us showing up on you beach is a lot more powerful than us actually going there.
The second thing applies more to direct combat and doesn't really matter here, but a live enemy tells you a whole lot more information than a dead one. You would be surprised by how grateful some people can be of some medical treatment, a shower and hot meal.
"I agree we should have better protection, but really what is this "czar" going to do if we catch a hacker in say a country that we don't have an extradition treaty with."
You mistake retribution with prevention. The goal of the position is to implement effective security policies to prevent breaches by creating and managing a coalition of interested government and private interested parties and aiding them in implementing sufficient security controls and architecture within areas of their responsibility. The intent is to create an infrastructure that is resistant to intrusion or disruption. In short, the position is very little different from a CSO or CISO position within a modern enterprise- someone to organize efforts to manage risk and protect assets rather than track down attackers.
It remains the role of our various intelligence agencies to resolve the external factors in breaches, not the security czar.
its fascinating how for some months there has been lots of cyberterrorism news ...
I would call that: preparing america public opinion to accept a much controled/censured internet.
(it seems the propaganda paid off)
The government needs security; private citizens do not. If they fail to protect themselves in the digital domain, then by all means let them appoint a person to make sure they don't mess up again. However, they have no right implementing policy over a private communications system. The FCC, for example, only has domain over the airwaves since they (claim) they're public domain. Cable and telephone companies, however, are private networks and not subject to the FCC. Hell, there's probably some Act or law out there that someone will point out that says I'm wrong, but that doesn't make any such Act or law less unconstitutional.
But they don't stand a chance against t3h l33t hax0rz, obviously our president doesn't spend enough time on the internet or he would know that.
ok
It's good to see that Engadget readers are so darned literate.
Can you see the smoke blowing out of his mouth? I can... won't you say I can!!!!
you should stop smoking.
A member of the Obama administration who's job is to protect civil liberties? Well that'll be a change of pace.
Patriot act?
End.
Ummm Obama hasn't, nor has he suggested that he will, end the patriot act. It's a shitty thing started by a pretty shitty president but being continued and expanded by an even shittier president. Hunker down.
Obama and Co. EXPANDED the patriot act.
So much for your messiah.
@fanman
Past administrations' actions are not an excuse. For instance, if your older brother had knocked up his teenage girlfriend, would that make you think it is a good idea for you to do the same? Seriously, Obama supporters can't keep using Bush's policies as an excuse for Obama's. Just how long will it be before they start holding him accountable for his own actions?
Absolutely. I'd definitely use that to justify knocking up my brother's gf.
How is it that engadget would have such a Republican base? I don't get it. I guess I see a trend in its anti-Mac/anti-Obama rhetoric. Its like old white guys who like torture and their computers to fail read engadget?