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
Much of the tech crowd tends toward being Libertarian and Obama is certainly no Libertarian.
I have found most people who call themselves Libertarians just want to get high and illegally download software/movies/music...so I guess you would be correct in your assumption and the demographic that engadget pulls in.
Being anti HUGE government doesn't make EVERYONE a Republican.. It just means intelligent (most of engadget's readers) are paying attention and see the writing on the wall. But hey, some people think the government running most of their lives is a good thing. Not me though.
@ patriotsn:
I LIKE the idea of the government running our lives! Thinking makes my brain hurt.
Honestly though, the way people are explaining things in the comments thread so far, things would be no different. My life is still enslaved to a 9 to 5 job by health insurance, car insurance, mortgage, credit card companies, and utilities. "Freedom" was sold long ago. What people are talking about is just switching the owners from companies to government.
Just so you know, Rush Limbaugh is a huge Mac fan.
@blakecr
damnit! how did you know!?
@blakecr
Maybe you need to get off the college campuses and talk to real Libertarians. You'd have to have no idea what Libertarianism is truly about if you believe that's who we really are. I won't deny there are people like that out there, but they represent the minority of Libertarians.
Libertarianism is about self-governance. It's about promoting individual liberties to their fullest extent. Legalization of marijuana is important because the act of smoking pot in the privacy of one's own home is almost never, ever harmful to anyone except the person doing the smoking.
Oh sure, it makes people lazy and parents who get high all the time might not take care of their kids. Well, under Libertarianism neglect would still be a crime since your actions would be directly impacting the life, and therefore the liberties, of another.
People will get high and start driving around on the roads like a maniac! Well, we already have DUI laws (some of which are extreme). Driving while under the influence of marijuana would be no different than driving under the influence of alcohol; the reason being that if your driving is impaired, under any substance, you pose a risk to others. No real Libertarian would want to be rid of (all) DUI laws.
And there's not a single Libertarian I've ever read who supports pirating entertainment. Anyone you know who claims to be a Libertarian and supports piracy is a liar, an idiot, or both. Piracy is digital theft; it's not exactly akin to physical theft like some commercials would like to make you believe, but it is theft all the same. No real Libertarian supports theft, whether physical or digital (though they may support changes in software licensing...but that's not the same thing).
If you want to learn more about Libertarianism, check out www.Reason.org, or www.cato.org. Both of those sites are really good.
My question is ... why haven't we had a Cybersecurity Czar (or equivalent) already in place?
"Live Free or Die Hard" has been out for two years already ... not to mention WarGames from 1983 (among countless others).
Oh wait ... I know the reason. Nevermind.
They did see Live Free or Die Hard, and they *were* going to appoint a Cybersecurity Czar there and then. Unfortunately, they also watched the F-35 scene. They laughed/weeped so hard at the sheer ridiculousness of that scene that they forgot about creating the position for two years.
All of this is because the majority of the market prefers Microsoft. Thanks Microsoft for wasting taxpayer's dollars.
I think Topmounter hit the proverbial nail on the head. Most tech people want less gov't and more toys. Libertarian is a good way to describe that.
Libertarian Paradise. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0
@blakecr
That's idiotic. Despite the claims of the video poster, that does not at all represent the ideals of the majority of Libertarians. We don't want *no* federal government (note the word *federal*, I'm assuming you know the different between state and federal government), just one operating within its constitutional bounds. There is a world of difference. If you truly think that's what Libertarianism represents, you're very poorly informed.
All this spending on cyber security just makes other nations hate the US. The US should have no cyber security at all. Then the world would love the US, there would be no cyber attacks ANYWHERE, and everything would would be fine. The only thing holding back a perfect world is the insistence that it cyber police the world! Boo, Obama. You promised us hope and change, and all you're doing is furthering the US hegemony over the cyber world!!!!!1!
Hell yeah they took my submission
You do have to give Obama credit as maybe the first executive to ever look at an upside down budget and one of the things he does is essentially say, let's spend more on IT. Can you imagine?
I wish my company operated that way. Of course we aren't trillions in debt, but it would be nice to join the real corp world with Office 07 and a sharepoint system that does more than just replicate windows folders.
"the office will also be tasked with protecting privacy and civil liberties"
After his turncoat move on FISA, I don't buy it for a second. It will only become more intrusive, more likely under the guise of monitoring your carbon footprint for excessive Google searches.
Seriously, why would we want to name anyone after a Russian King? That's like acknowledging the power of the English queen or bowing to a Saudi prince. America was founded on chopping their heads off(acquiring money from the King of France was only a means to a end). Even alluding that inherited power is OK is quite ridiculous to me.
I don't get why people are complaining about the word "czar". Years ago Bush already appointed what the media called an "Intelligence Czar". The word "czar" is pretty much an interchangeable word in Washington for "director" or "chief".
Shades of Tom Clancy's "Op Center" and "Net Force".
Though it may be a good idea for the government... it might not be such a good one for us......1984.
Ok Obama we get it, you're an idiot. PLEASE STOP RUINING AMERICAN LIVES ALREADY. Obama's already done more damage to this country than the terrorists that struck on 9/11.
Hey now, I disagree with him as vehemently as most (sane) people, but that's just going too far. [ - ] for you.
Why do we need another government agency to protect our privacy? I'm sick of all this cybersecurity talk.
Clueless personified.
Clueless? No. My statement was vague I do understand. And I too understand the importance of national security on our cyberspace. It is the easiest means to attack the US, the most vulnerable gateway to our national secrets. It must be protected. I am just stating that we should not create another branch of the government to fix the issue (that bill is here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.778: ) but more or less something that will guard the country without having to create another branch of government (a bill such as this one this one http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.266: ). I am just a little fearful of the growing federal government expansion for the last 15 odd years. I just don't see how adding yet another federal agency will help us in this rut we are stuck in.
Clueless? Common man, you have no idea who you're making these statements too.
"agency to protect our privacy"
Seems you since informed yourself as to the purpose of this, and I have no strong stand on the need for this, you are probably right that's another waste of money/time and will do more bad than good.
But the point I was making was that it's not designed to 'protect privacy', if it has any influence on private citizens it will be a sharp reduction of privacy as the NSA gets even more powers and expertise to monitor and eavesdrop.
Obama is doing the right thing. Should we ignore the fact that the Russian and the Chinese have had squads of hackers engaging in corporate espionage for several years?
The government isn't there to protect companies from spies, companies are private orgs that need to take care of their own security.
And it's pretty obvious that 95% of the newsstories are just propaganda to badmouth china/russia by suggesting it's all an foreign government organised attack when it's just a bunch of lameasses hungry for money, probably controlled and financed by US lameass spammers, that do the attacks.
But perhaps now that there is a democrat in power and there will be a cybersecurity department they will find that out and admit it,
I'm waiting for the CyberSecurity Kaiser.
I nominate "Black Hat Guy"
This is going to be one crappy job. I can't even imagine all of the attempted hacking that goes on today. So much data, so many systems. This is a can't win situation. US systems will be compromised and it will be this poor schmucks fault when they are.
The question is: Is the US willing to declare war on sony if they hack american computers massively?
We don't need a cysec czar, we need a Federal BOFH!
To explain to those that don't know: that stands for "Bastard Operator From Hell", a description of a disgruntled (or he's just mean) system administrator who has grown to dislike humans after being a system administrator for a long time and has trouble not venting that in ways he's in a position to employ.
You realize they aren't going after hackers. They have been talking about this for a while. They are going to allow a non warrant search on any machine they want. So, yes. People with bootlegs dvds or torrented programs they are trying to throw you in jail. This is why I chose not to vote for Obama.
Hmm, so every single person with a computer will be in jail then, but who will maintain the country? Who will make the roads, grow the crops, clean the water, make the power, etcetera etcetera, because I'm not jesting that the percentage of people without 'illegal' software/music/movies, and yes I include all religious folks (I have credible personal experience to confirm), that percentage is no higher than 2% at best.
And where are they going to get all the concrete to build the jails to hold hundreds of million of people? Oh wait, I know, the mafia since they are historically the ones controlling the concrete business.